Case Summary (G.R. No. 167746)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Marriage ceremonies alleged: 8 December 1982 (civil ceremony before Rev. Aquilino Navarro at or near Manila City Hall) and 26 March 1983 (church ceremony at San Jose de Manuguit Church, Tondo, Manila). Petition for annulment filed in RTC as Civil Case No. 97-1325. RTC decision dated 14 February 2000 dismissed the petition and awarded support for two children; CA affirmed in a decision dated 30 September 2004 and denied reconsideration; petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court which was denied.
Facts as Found in the Record
Petitioner alleges both marriages were celebrated without securing a marriage license and that any marriage license shown on the marriage contract (purportedly from Carmona, Cavite) is sham because neither party resided nor applied in Carmona. Respondent presented a certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona stating that Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of the parties on December 8, 1982. The marriage contract itself bears a marriage license number recorded as 7054033. The parties had two children (born 1985 and 1992). Petitioner admitted participation in the ceremonies and, by counsel, admitted that a marriage license was issued in Carmona.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in affirming dismissal of the annulment petition despite alleged absence of a marriage license at the time of solemnization. 2) Whether the CA erred in relying on the Carmona certification and a marriage license number not identified or offered at trial. 3) Whether prior Supreme Court authority (Sy v. Court of Appeals) and relaxation of procedural rules require a different result.
Governing Legal Provisions Cited
For marriages solemnized in 1982, the Civil Code provisions in force at the time were applied (Article 53 and Article 58 of the Civil Code). The decision also references the Family Code provisions that later codified the formal requisites (Articles 3 and 4 Family Code) and Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court regarding prima facie effect of public records and Rule 131 disputable presumptions (that official duty has been regularly performed).
Legal Standard on Requirement of Marriage License
Under the Civil Code then in force, a valid marriage license was a formal requisite of marriage (except in marriages of exceptional character). The absence of a marriage license rendered a marriage void ab initio unless an exception applied. However, the absence must be demonstrated by the record—either the marriage contract must show absence of a license or a certification by the local civil registrar proving non-issuance.
Evidentiary Weight of Public Records and Official Certifications
Entries in official records and certifications by civil registrars are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. The certification by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona identifying issuance of Marriage License No. 7054133 to the named parties is entitled to the presumption that official duty was regularly performed. That presumption is disputable but stands unless overcome by clear and convincing evidence of irregularity.
Court’s Application of the Evidence to the Present Case
The Court emphasized that the marriage contract reflected a marriage license number and that the Carmona certification specifically identified the parties and the license issuance date. Petitioner’s own counsel admitted that a marriage license was issued in Carmona. The Court found no clear and convincing evidence rebutting the presumption of regularity. Issuance of a license in a place other than the parties’ residence or irregularities in publication were characterized as mere irregularities, not defects affecting validity, and would give rise to administrative, civil or criminal liability but not void the marriage.
Discrepancy in License Number and Its Effect
Petitioner pointed to a discrepancy between the license number on the certification (7054133) and the number appearing on the marriage contract (7054033). The Court considered the discrepancy capable of being a typographical or transcriptional overlap between digits and thus not proof of non-issuance. The minor numerical variance did not negate the existence of a license under the record and did not overcome the presumption favoring validity.
Petitioner’s Conduct, Admissions, and the Clean Hands Doctrine
The Court relied on petitioner’s admissions and conduct: he voluntarily participated in the civil and later church ceremonies, presented the earlier
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167746)
Case Caption, Citation and Panel
- Supreme Court Third Division decision in G.R. No. 167746, dated August 28, 2007, reported at 558 Phil. 192.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Restituto M. Alcantara assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 September 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66724, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, Decision in Civil Case No. 97-1325 dated 14 February 2000, dismissing petition for annulment of marriage.
- Supreme Court ponente: Justice Chico-Nazario; concurrence by Justices Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Nachura, and Reyes.
- Court of Appeals Decision penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino concurring.
- RTC Decision penned by Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos.
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage (docketed Civil Case No. 97-1325) against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging absence of the required marriage license at the time of solemnization.
- Petitioner and respondent allegedly went to Manila City Hall on 8 December 1982, sought a person who would "arrange a marriage for them" and met a person who, for a fee, arranged their wedding before Rev. Aquilino Navarro, Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel; the civil wedding allegedly occurred the same day, 8 December 1982.
- The parties underwent a second marriage ceremony at San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983; this church ceremony was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license according to petitioner’s allegation.
- The marriage contract bears a marriage license number said to have been procured in Carmona, Cavite; petitioner alleges that such license is a sham because neither party was a resident of Carmona and they never went there to apply for a license.
- Children of the parties: Rose Ann Alcantara born 14 October 1985 (respondent’s alleged first child) and Rachel Ann Alcantara born 27 October 1992 (respondent’s second daughter).
- Petitioner allegedly has a mistress with whom he has three children.
- Respondent filed a case for concubinage against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.
- Petitioner sought judgment declaring the marriage void, ordering cancellation of the marriage contract and its entry on file.
Procedural History
- RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, rendered Decision on 14 February 2000 dismissing the petition for annulment of marriage and ordering support payments and payment of costs.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 66724 on 30 September 2004 and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration by resolution dated 6 April 2005.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA ruling and RTC findings.
Issues Raised by Petitioner Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling the petition for annulment had no legal and factual basis despite evidence that no marriage license existed at the moment of solemnization.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving weight to a marriage license number (No. 7054133) that was not identified or offered in evidence at trial and that differed from the number appearing on the face of the marriage contract.
- Whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply this Court’s ruling in Sy v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127263, 12 April 2000, 330 SCRA 550).
- Whether the Court of Appeals failed to relax procedural rules to protect and promote substantial rights of the litigants.
RTC Judgment — Disposition and Reliefs
- RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
- Ordered petitioner to pay respondent the sum of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) per month as support for their two (2) children, payable on the first five (5) days of each month.
- Ordered petitioner to pay costs.
Court of Appeals Rationale
- Held that the marriage license of the parties is presumed to be regularly issued and that petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption.
- Noted that the parties’ marriage contract is a public document and thus constitutes prima facie proof of the questioned marriage under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Entries in official records by public officers are prima facie evidence of facts therein stated).
- Dismissed petitioner’s appeal; motion for reconsideration denied.
Supreme Court Holdings — Outcome
- Petition denied for lack of merit; decisions of the Court of Appeals (30 September 2004) and RTC (14 February 2000) affirmed; costs against petitioner.
- Supreme Court upheld the presumption that the marriage license was issued in the regular course of official duty and that the certification by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, enjoys probative weight.
- Supreme Court found petitioner’s own admissions undermining his claim that no license was issued and emphasized petitioner’s participation in the ceremonies.
- Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s challenge based on alleged discrepancies in marriage license numbers as immaterial or explainable as a typographical overlap between 0 and 1 in the document.
- Supreme Court ruled that issuance of a marriage