Arthur vs. Pascua vs. Republic and Shirley Bullos Pascua

Factual Background

Arthur alleged that his marriage to Shirley was void ab initio because, prior to their marriage, no valid marriage license had been issued. He testified that the marriage occurred in haste and that his brother-in-law, Alexander Bullos, brought them to the solemnizing officer on the same day as Alexander’s own wedding, before Rev. Palero. Arthur also suspected that Marriage License No. 5013850, allegedly issued to him and Shirley on January 6, 2005 in Taytay, Rizal, was not actually issued because neither he nor Shirley resided in Taytay.

In early 2017, Arthur visited the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Taytay, Rizal and later obtained a written Certification dated March 8, 2017 from the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal. The Certification stated, in substance, that the accountable form and serial number corresponding to Accountable Form No. 54 with Serial Number 5013850, dated January 6, 2005 and supposedly issued as a marriage license to Arthur and Shirley, was not included in the series issued by the municipality. During trial, the Certification was identified by Victorino E. Pangilinan, Jr., an authorized representative from the Municipal Treasurer’s Office, who also identified pages of the Municipal Treasurer’s Marriage License Record Book (Logbook) covering October 11, 2004 to August 22, 2006, showing no record of Accountable Form No. 54 with serial number 5013850 issued on January 6, 2005.

RTC Proceedings and Disposition

In a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed on March 30, 2017, Arthur invoked Article 3 in relation to Article 4 of the Family Code, asserting that the absence of a valid marriage license rendered the marriage void. During trial, Arthur presented the Municipal Treasurer’s Certification and testimony relating to the Logbook.

The RTC dismissed the petition on July 31, 2019 for lack of evidence. The RTC held that Arthur failed to prove that the marriage was contracted without a valid marriage license. It reasoned that the officer responsible for issuance and licensing records was the Local Civil Registrar, not the Municipal Treasurer. Consequently, it found that the Certification from the Municipal Treasurer could not be relied upon as proof of non-issuance, because the Municipal Treasurer lacked authority to certify on matters involving the marriage license issuance records. The RTC’s Order dated October 21, 2019 denied Arthur’s motion for reconsideration.

Appellate Review at the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal in a Decision dated October 9, 2020. The CA concurred that the Certification lacked probative value because the keeping of records relative to the issuance of a marriage license was the responsibility of the Local Civil Registrar, not the Municipal Treasurer. The CA explained that even if fees were paid to the Municipal Treasurer, the duty to issue the license and to keep the corresponding record remained with the LCR. Accordingly, it sustained the finding that Arthur’s evidence was insufficient to prove lack of a valid marriage license.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Arthur maintained that the Municipal Treasurer’s Certification was competent evidence. He argued that the Municipal Treasurer was vested by law to be the custodian of marriage license certificates or Accountable Form No. 54, and that this custodial authority derived from Article II, Section 470 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), in relation to Section 23(c) and Section 59(B) of the Local Treasury Operations Manual (LTOM). Arthur further asserted that the relevant pages of the Municipal Treasurer’s Logbook were sufficient to establish that the municipality did not issue Marriage License No. 5013850 on the alleged date.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued otherwise. It maintained that the proper custodian whose certification could prove absence or non-issuance of a marriage license was the Local Civil Registrar, consistent with the LTOM framework that treated the Accountable Form in question as referring to blank forms under the Municipal Treasurer’s custody rather than duly accomplished and issued marriage licenses. The OSG also argued that Arthur’s Certification should be disregarded for non-compliance with the requirement under Section 28, Rule 132 that an authorized custodian must certify, after diligent search, that the specified document or entry is not found in the records.

Core Issue

The issue was whether the Certification of the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal had sufficient probative value to establish that no valid marriage license was issued to Arthur and Shirley before their marriage on February 8, 2005.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed both the RTC and CA. It reiterated that Article 3 of the Family Code made a valid marriage license a formal requisite of marriage, except in cases where the requirement could be legally dispensed with. The Court found no evidence indicating any legally recognized exception to the marriage license requirement. It held, therefore, that a duly issued marriage license was indispensable, and the absence of such license rendered the marriage void ab initio under Article 4.

On the evidentiary question, the Court anchored its analysis on Article 9 and Article 25 of the Family Code. It held that the marriage license is issued by the Local Civil Registrar where either contracting party habitually resides, upon payment of the authorized fee to the treasurer and compliance with other legal requirements. It emphasized that the LCR is mandated to keep a registry book containing applications for marriage licenses, recording the names of applicants, the date of issuance, and other necessary data, and to retain copies of the sworn applications. These records constituted official and public documents that could be used in evidence.

The Court then applied Rule 132, Section 28 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which allows proof of lack of record through a negative certification issued by the officer having custody of the official record (or deputy), stating that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found in the officer’s records. From this, the Court ruled that to prove the absence or non-issuance of a valid marriage license, the custodian must issue the negative certification required by the rule.

The Court repeatedly stressed that the Local Civil Registrar was the legal custodian of the relevant records, as the custodian of the registry of applications and the register required by law. It held that, in Arthur’s case, the Certification offered was issued by the Municipal Treasurer, who was not the legal custodian of the registry of applications or the LCR’s records required by law under Rule 132, Section 28. The Court reasoned that the probative value accorded to public documents flows from the presumption that public officers regularly performed their duties in preparing public documents or making entries in public records. Where the certifying officer is not the legal custodian and therefore not required by law to prepare or maintain the relevant records, such presumption could not apply. Thus, a negative certification issued by a public officer who lacked custodial competence could not be relied upon as adequate proof that the relevant document or entry was absent.

The Court rejected Arthur’s reliance on the municipal treasurer’s authority under the Local Government Code and the LTOM. It explained that the LTOM provisions cited by Arthur referred to the municipal treasury office’s duties relating to inventory, issuance, and reporting regarding accountable forms, particularly unused and blank forms, rather than to the treasurer’s control over the registry of duly accomplished marriage license applications and issuance records kept by the Local Civil Registrar. It further noted that testimony and evidence showed that the marriage license accountable forms in the Municipal Treasurer’s custody consisted of booklets of blank forms, and that the logbook reflected serial numbers of accountable forms released in batches, without the names of applicants or the dates of issuance of accomplished licenses. The Court concluded that these records did not demonstrate that Marriage License No. 5013850 was not actually issued to the specific applicants at the relevant time.

The Court also addressed practical options that Arthur could have pursued. It observed that Arthur claimed that the LCR referred him to the Municipal Treasurer when he inquired about the whereabouts of the license. While acknowledging the situation as unfortunate, the Court held that Arthur still had remedies to secure the testimony and records from the Local Civil Registrar through available procedural mechanisms, including issuance of a subpoena