Factual Background

Petitioner Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto testified that a friend introduced her to Yoshio Morimoto before December 2007 and that she agreed to simulate a marriage solely to facilitate her acquisition of a Japanese visa. On December 5, 2007, she and respondent met at Manila City Hall and signed a blank marriage certificate after being assured that the certificate would not be registered. Rosario averred that no marriage ceremony occurred and that she last saw respondent on that date.

Discovery of Registered Marriage and Documentary Evidence

Petitioner later sought a Certificate of No Marriage and discovered a registered Certificate of Marriage showing a purported marriage to Yoshio Morimoto on December 5, 2007, solemnized by a Reverend Roberto Espiritu and allegedly predicated on Marriage License No. 6120159 issued by the Office of the Civil Registry of San Juan. Petitioner introduced into evidence the Certificate of Marriage, a June 17, 2008 Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar, National Statistics Office, stating that the office had mistakenly certified that a marriage was solemnized between the parties, and a June 4, 2009 Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar, San Juan City, stating that no record of Marriage License No. 6120159 was issued to the parties. The San Juan Registration Officer Mary Ann C. Chico authenticated the June 4, 2009 Certification.

Criminal and Prosecutorial Finding

An Assistant City Prosecutor, prior to trial, issued a Report dated September 21, 2011 finding no collusion between petitioner and respondent to obtain a favorable judicial ruling. Petitioner did not escape the risk that her admission of simulating a marriage could expose her to criminal or administrative liability for falsification, yet she maintained that the marriage never actually took place.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on October 5, 2009. The Regional Trial Court denied the Petition in a Decision dated January 7, 2016. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal in an October 10, 2018 Decision and subsequently denied a Motion for Reconsideration in an April 25, 2019 Resolution. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Issues Presented

The principal issue for the Court's resolution was whether the registered marriage between Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto and Yoshio Morimoto should be declared null and void ab initio for want of essential and formal requisites of marriage under the Family Code.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner contended that no genuine marriage ceremony occurred, that she and respondent had no bona fide intent to become spouses, and that no marriage license was ever issued to them. She relied on her own admission of simulation, the certifications from civil registrars, and the Assistant City Prosecutor's report to establish that the registered marriage was fictitious.

Trial and Appellate Rulings

The Regional Trial Court denied the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The Court of Appeals affirmed that denial in its October 10, 2018 Decision and denied reconsideration in its April 25, 2019 Resolution. The lower tribunals expressed concern about preserving the sanctity of marriage and about potential misuse of petitions for declaration of nullity.

Supreme Court's Findings on Consent and Simulation

The Court held that consent is an essential requisite of marriage under Family Code, art. 2, and that a simulated marriage lacks the genuine consent necessary to constitute a valid marriage. The Court invoked People v. Santiago to underscore that where parties lack bona fide intention to marry, the purported marriage is void for want of consent. The Court found petitioner's admission that the marriage was simulated to be an admission against interest that afforded strong evidentiary weight. The Court observed that petitioner risked exposure for falsification by making that admission, and thus treated her declarations as credible and corroborative of nonexistence of a genuine marital relationship.

Supreme Court's Findings on Absence of Marriage License

The Court concluded that the registered marriage also lacked the formal requisite of a marriage license under Family Code, art. 3, because the San Juan Civil Registrar certified that no record of Marriage License No. 6120159 existed. The Court applied the doctrine of probative value afforded to certificates of due search by custodians of public records under Section 29, Rule 132, Rules of Court, as explained in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro. The Court addressed intervening jurisprudence, noting that Sevilla v. Cardenas had applied an unduly stringent test but that later cases, including Kho v. Republic, clarified that Rule 132 does not require a categorical statement that a diligent search was conducted because the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed under Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court, supplies that presumption absent affirmative contradiction.

Weighing of Documentary and Testimonial Evidence

The Court found that the June 4, 2009 Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar, San Juan City, coupled with testimony of the Registration Officer, sufficiently established absence of the alleged marriage license. The Court observed that the National Statistics Office certification admitting a prior mistake in certifying that a marriage was solemnized further reinforced the conclusion that no valid marriage

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 contesting the denial of her Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
Yoshio Morimoto was the registered spouse whose alleged marriage to petitioner was the subject of the nullity proceeding.
The Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, issued a Decision on January 7, 2016 denying the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on October 10, 2018 denying petitioner’s appeal and a Resolution on April 25, 2019 denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
The Supreme Court granted review under Rule 45 to resolve whether the registered marriage should be declared null and void.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner asserted that a friend introduced her to Yoshio Morimoto prior to December 2007 for the purpose of simulating a marriage to facilitate petitioner’s acquisition of a Japanese visa.
Petitioner alleged that on December 5, 2007 she met Yoshio Morimoto at Manila City Hall and signed a blank marriage certificate after being assured that the certificate would not be registered or recorded.
Petitioner averred that no marriage ceremony actually occurred and that she never again saw Yoshio Morimoto after that meeting.
Petitioner later discovered a Certificate of Marriage in the Philippine Statistics Authority indicating a marriage between her and Yoshio Morimoto on December 5, 2007 allegedly solemnized by Reverend Roberto Espiritu and predicated on Marriage License No. 6120159 issued by the Office of the Civil Registry of San Juan.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on October 5, 2009 before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.

Evidence Presented

Petitioner offered the Certificate of Marriage purporting to show the registration of the marriage between her and Yoshio Morimoto.
Petitioner presented a June 17, 2008 Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar, National Statistics Office, stating that the office mistakenly certified that a marriage was solemnized between the parties.
Petitioner presented a June 4, 2009 certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar, San Juan City, stating that there was no record of Marriage License No. 6120159.
Petitioner produced the testimony of Mary Ann C. Chico, Registration Officer III of the Office of the Civil Registrar, San Juan City, who authenticated the June 4, 2009 certification.
The Assistant City Prosecutor issued a September 21, 2011 Report stating that there was no collusion between petitioner and respondent to obtain a favorable ruling.

Statutory Framework

Family Code, art. 1 provides that marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law.
Family Code, art. 2 prescribes the essential requisites of marriage as legal capacity of the contracting parties and consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Family Code, art. 3 sets forth the formal requisites of marriage as authority of the solemnizing officer, a valid marriage license except as provided in Chapter 2, and a marriage ceremony with personal declaration before the solemnizing officer and two witnesses.
Family Code, art. 4 states that absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, subj