G.R. No. 125687 - People vs. Rondero

Case Summary (G.R. No. 125687)

Factual Background

Restituto M. Alcantara filed a petition for annulment of marriage alleging that his civil marriage with Rosita A. Alcantara on 8 December 1982 was solemnized without a valid marriage license. He alleged that he and respondent dealt with a third person who arranged the ceremony before Rev. Aquilino Navarro at the Crusade of the Divine Church of Christ and that the marriage license shown on the marriage contract, allegedly procured in Carmona, Cavite, was sham because neither contracting party was a resident of Carmona and neither had applied there. The parties underwent a second ceremony at San Jose de Manuguit Church on 26 March 1983, also without a license according to petitioner. The parties bore children and later separated in 1988.

Procedural History

The petition for annulment was filed as Civil Case No. 97-1325 in the RTC, Makati City. The RTC dismissed the petition on 14 February 2000, ordered monthly child support of P20,000 for two children, and imposed costs. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 66724, affirmed the RTC in a decision dated 30 September 2004. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 6 April 2005. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that the marriage was void ab initio because no marriage license existed at the precise moment of the 8 December 1982 solemnization. He asserted that the certification from Carmona showed a different marriage license number than that appearing on the marriage contract and that neither he nor respondent were residents of Carmona. Petitioner invoked Sy v. Court of Appeals and urged relaxation of procedural rules to protect substantive rights. Respondent maintained the validity of the marriage, produced a certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona that a marriage license was issued in favor of Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, and pointed out petitioner’s participation in two marriage ceremonies and the existence of children. Respondent also alleged that petitioner filed the annulment to evade concubinage charges.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC dismissed the petition for annulment for lack of merit. The court found the marriage valid and ordered petitioner to pay P20,000 per month as support for the parties’ two children. The RTC imposed costs on petitioner. The RTC record contained the marriage contract showing a license number and testimony indicating petitioner’s active participation in both civil and church ceremonies.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. It held that the marriage license was presumed to have been regularly issued and that petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption. The CA relied on Section 44, Rule 130 to treat the marriage contract and the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The CA found that mere irregularities in the procurement or issuance of a license, or issuance in a place other than the residence of either party, were insufficient to render the marriage void.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner framed four principal issues: whether the absence of a marriage license at the time of solemnization rendered the marriage void; whether the CA erred in giving weight to the Carmona marriage license number that petitioner alleged was not properly identified at trial; whether the CA misapplied Sy v. Court of Appeals; and whether procedural rules should have been relaxed to protect petitioner’s substantial rights.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC. The Court ordered costs against petitioner. The denial rested on findings that the marriage license had been sufficiently established and that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of regularity attaching to the civil registrar’s certification and to the marriage contract as a public document.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied the Civil Code provisions in force at the time of the 1982 marriage. It recognized that a valid marriage license is ordinarily an essential requisite under Article 53 of the Civil Code and that absence of a license may render a marriage void under Article 80(3) read with Article 58. The Court, however, emphasized the evidentiary effect of the marriage contract and the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar. Under Section 44, Rule 130, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. Under Rule 131, Sec. 3(m), there is a disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. The Court held that these presumptions must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.

Evidence and Presumptions

The Court gave probative weight to the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona stating that Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on December 8, 1982. The Court treated the certification as enjoying the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the discrepancy between the license number in the certification (7054133) and that appearing on the marriage contract (7054033) proved nonissuance. The Court considered the discrepancy consistent with a typographical overlap of digits and found it insufficient to overcome the presumption. The Court also relied on petitioner’s admission, through counsel, that a license had been issued, and on petitioner’s own testimony that he initiated and willingly participated in both ceremonies.

Application of Precedent and Doctrine

The Court acknowledged precedents where a certification of "due search and inability to find" a license or a clear absence of a license on the marriage contract led to a declaration of nullity, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, Carino v. Carino, and Sy v. Court of Appeals. The Court distinguished those cases on their facts because, in the present case, the marriage contract bore a license number and the local civil registrar issued a certification affirming issuance. The Court reiterated the rule that mere irregularities in issuance, including issuance in

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 125687)

Parties and Posture

Restituto M. Alcantara filed a petition for annulment of marriage against Rosita A. Alcantara in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143, docketed as Civil Case No. 97-1325.
Rosita A. Alcantara answered and disputed the petition, asserting the validity of the marriage and presenting certification of a marriage license from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite.
The RTC dismissed the petition and ordered petitioner to pay support to the parties' two children and costs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the CA decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The parties underwent a civil marriage ceremony on December 8, 1982, purportedly arranged through a third person at Manila City Hall and solemnized by Rev. Aquilino Navarro of the CDCC BR Chapel.
The parties also underwent a church ceremony at San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on March 26, 1983, using the same marriage contract produced at the civil ceremony.
A child, Rose Ann Alcantara, was born to the parties on October 14, 1985, and another daughter, Rachel Ann Alcantara, was born on October 27, 1992.
Petitioner alleged that no marriage license existed at the precise moment of solemnization and that any marriage license shown was procured in Carmona, Cavite, where neither party resided.
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 filed in evidence bears a marriage license number recorded as 7054033, which petitioner contends differs from the registrar's certification.

Procedural History

The RTC, Branch 143, Makati City, rendered judgment on February 14, 2000, dismissing the annulment petition and ordering support of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) per month for the two children and costs.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal in a Decision dated September 30, 2004, and denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 6, 2005.
The Supreme Court resolved the Petition for Review on Certiorari by denying the petition and affirming the decisions below.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the annulment petition lacked legal and factual basis despite petitioner’s claim of absence of a marriage license at the time of solemnization.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving probative weight to Marriage License No. 7054133 despite petitioner’s contention that this number was not identified or offered at trial and differed from the number on the marriage contract.
Whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply the rule in Sy v. Court of Appeals.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declining to relax procedural rules to protect the substantial rights of the litigants.

Applicable Law

Article 53, Civil Code provided