G.R. No. 64279 - Pesigan vs. Angeles

Case Summary (G.R. No. 64279)

Background and Facts

Lovelle and Henry met in college, Lovelle was 17 and Henry 21 in 1999. They had a child out of wedlock and agreed upon a civil marriage planned for November 2000. They married on November 10, 2000, and had three children. The couple separated circa 2013. In 2015, Lovelle consulted a lawyer about annulling the marriage after learning Henry had another relationship. Verification at Quezon City Civil Registry Department (CRD-QC) revealed that the marriage license number (No. 131078) on their Certificate of Marriage was issued to another couple, Mamerto O. Yambao and Amelia B. Parado, not to Lovelle and Henry. Lovelle secured a certification dated July 16, 2015 (2015 QCCR Certification) from CRD-QC confirming this fact and was furnished documents pertaining to Yambao and Parado’s marriage license application.

Procedural History

Lovelle filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on March 9, 2016, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate City. The RTC conducted an investigation and found no collusion between the parties. Henry was declared in default for not participating in the proceedings. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appeared for the Republic. The RTC denied Lovelle’s nullity petition, reasoning that the 2015 QCCR Certification only proved the license number on the marriage certificate corresponded to another couple but did not prove absence of any valid license issued to Lovelle and Henry. The RTC also faulted Lovelle for failing to submit the original certification during trial.

Lovelle filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), relying on the certification and her testimony denying application for a marriage license. The CA affirmed the RTC’s denial, holding that the certification did not preclude the possibility of a differently numbered marriage license issued to the parties. Lovelle’s testimony was deemed uncorroborated and self-serving.

Lovelle moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asserting sufficiency of the 2015 QCCR Certification to prove the absence of a valid marriage license. The Republic argued that a certificate must categorically state that no license was issued despite diligent search, which the 2015 certification did not, and challenged Lovelle’s testimony as showing unclean hands.

Applicable Law

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Family Code governs marriages contracted after its effectivity, such as in 2000.

Relevant provisions of the Family Code:

Article 2 mandates essential requisites for valid marriage – legal capacity and consent.
Article 3 prescribes formal requisites – authority of solemnizing officer, valid marriage license (except exceptions), and ceremony with personal declaration before witnesses.
Article 4 states absence of any essential or formal requisite renders marriage void ab initio, except those exempted by law.

Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides guidelines on proof of lack of record via certification by the record custodian stating no record exists after diligent search.

Act No. 3753 and its Implementing Rules, as well as the Local Government Code, prescribe the duties of local civil registrars, including:

Filing, indexing, and compiling civil registry documents including marriage licenses and certificates.
Issuing certified copies and statements regarding records.
Recording applications for marriage licenses in the Register of Applications for Marriage License, a necessary precursor to issuing a valid license.

Legal Analysis: Duties of Civil Registrar and Registration Procedure

The local civil registrar must receive and register applications for marriage license in proper order and enter all pertinent data in the registry book before issuing a license. Registration of marriage certificates must also be timely and duly recorded.

A valid marriage license requires:

Filing of sworn application verified and recorded in the Register of Applications for Marriage License.
Issuance of marriage license with corresponding record.
Correct entry of the license number on the Certificate of Marriage.

The issuance or non-existence of such licenses may be proven through certifications issued by the local civil registrar.

Standards for Considering Certification on Non-Existence of Marriage License

The Court recognizes that no prescribed wording exists for certifications issued by local civil registrars to prove non-existence of records. The sufficiency of such certifications depends on a holistic consideration of:

The language of the certification.
The circumstances under which it was issued.
The totality of evidence on record including testimony and other documents.
Compliance with procedural and legal requirements relative to marriage license issuance and registration.

Earlier jurisprudence demonstrates this holistic method:

Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro: Certification stating inability to locate marriage license in records was sufficient absent suspicious circumstances.
CariAo v. CariAo: Certification of no record of marriage license overcome presumption of valid marriage.
Sevilla v. Cardenas: Certification was insufficient due to evident lack of diligent search and contradictory evidence.
Abbas v. Abbas: Lack of "diligent search" wording did not diminish probative value; certification assessed along with surrounding evidence; mere absence of words does not defeat presumption that registrar conducted due diligence.

Later decisions uphold that certificates lacking explicit "diligent search" phrasing may still be sufficient absent contrary evidence, but diligent search must be reasonably inferred or proven.

Application to Present Case: Sufficiency of 2015 QCCR Certification

The 2015 QCCR Certification states:

There is no record of Marriage License No. 131078 issued in favor of Lovelle and Henry.
The license number actually belongs to different individuals (Yambao and Parado).

Lovelle’s affidavit and testimonies corroborate that neither she nor Henry ever applied for a marriage license. The Certification’s statement that the license number appearing in their Certificate of Marriage belongs to another couple, supported by documentary copies of the application and license fee receipt for Yambao and Parado, reinforces the legitimacy of the certification.

The possibility raised by the Republic that another marriage license with a different number might have been issued to Lovelle and Henry, or that the incorrect license number is a typographical error, is speculative and unsupported by any proof. If the solemnizing officer or civil registrar erred in recording the license number, the local civil registrar’s duty to verify entries should have caught and corrected such errors.

Lovelle’s diligent efforts to obtain certifications from CRD-QC, including a second similar certification in 2017 after the RTC decision, and the inability of the registry to issue a definitive certification stating “no marriage license was ever issued” due to incomplete archival records, do not detract from the probative value of the original certification.

The Republic’s failure to call the Assistant City Civil Registrar who issued the 2015 QCCR Certification to testify limits their ability to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.

Presumption of Validity of Marriage and Burden of Proof

Under the law, there is a presumption that marriages are valid. However, this presumption may be overcome by evidence such as a local civil registrar’s cer

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 64279)

Nature of the Case and Procedural History

This case concerns a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Lovelle S. Cariaga (petitioner) under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
The petition assails the decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) Sixth Division which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s Nullity Petition by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate City.
The Nullity Petition sought a declaration that the petitioner’s marriage to Henry G. Cariaga was void ab initio due to the absence of a valid marriage license.
The CA and RTC decisions found the evidence insufficient to prove the absence of a valid marriage license for the marriage solemnized on November 10, 2000.
Petitioner filed her appeal insisting that her marriage was contracted without a valid license and that the certifying documents from the Civil Registry Department of Quezon City (CRD-QC) were sufficient evidence of non-issuance.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity due to insufficiency of evidence.

Facts of the Case

Lovelle and Henry met in college; Lovelle was 17 and Henry 21 when they began their relationship in July 1999.
After Lovelle turned 18 and became pregnant, they agreed to marry civilly on November 10, 2000, after the birth of their first child.
Three children were born from their union, but they separated in 2013 due to differences.
In 2015, petitioner discovered from the CRD-QC that the marriage license number indicated in their Certificate of Marriage was actually issued to another couple, Mamerto O. Yambao and Amelia B. Parado.
She obtained a Certification dated July 16, 2015 (2015 QCCR Certification) from the Assistant City Civil Registrar of Quezon City (ACCR Carino, Jr.) affirming that no record of Marriage License No. 131078 existed in favor of Lovelle and Henry, and that the number was issued to the aforementioned couple.
Copies of related documents issued to Yambao and Parado were furnished to petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity based on lack of a valid marriage license.
Henry failed to participate in the proceedings, and the investigating prosecutor found no collusion between the parties.
The RTC denied the Nullity Petition on grounds that the 2015 QCCR Certification failed to categorically declare the non-existence of any marriage license issued to Lovelle and Henry aside from the contested license number.
The CA affirmed the dismissal, holding the evidence insufficient as the certification did not exclude the possibility that a marriage license with another number was issued.
Petitioner presented a new certification in 2017 similarly worded as the 2015 certification.
The Supreme Court took cognizance of the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of the Nullity Petition on grounds that the evidence—particularly the 2015 QCCR Certification—was insufficient to prove that Lovelle and Henry’s marriage was solemnized without a valid marriage license.
Whether the 2015 QCCR Certification is sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of marriage.
The applicability of jurisprudence regarding the proof required to declare marriages null and void for absence of a valid marriage license.
The implications of the doctrine of unclean hands vis-à-vis petitioner’s knowledge of irregularities related to the alleged lack of a marriage license.

Applicable Law and Procedural Framework

The Family Code governs marriages solemnized after its effectivity, including November 10, 2000 (date of the parties’ marriage).
Essential requisites for valid marriage: legal capacity of parties and freely given consent in the presence of a solemnizing officer (Family Code, Art. 2).
Formal requisites: authority of solemnizing officer, valid marriage license (except in specific statutory exceptions), and marriage ceremony with personal declaration before witnesses (Family Code, Art. 3).
Absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, except where a defect applies (Family Code, Art. 4).
Valid marriage license is indispensable except in statutory exceptions such as marriages in articulo mortis or among Muslims and ethnic cultural communities (Family Code, Art. 27-34).
The marriage license authorizes the solemnizing officer and imparts legal effect to the marriage.
Absence of valid marriage license must be apparent on the contract or proven by certification from the local civil registrar co