Case Summary (G.R. No. 187462)
Evidence Presented at Trial
Petitioner introduced a certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, stating that no record or copy of a marriage license for the June 1, 1972 union exists. Respondent’s answer denied this, asserting both spouses personally appeared before the civil registrar and secured a license which they presented to the solemnizing officer.
RTC Ruling on Absence of License
The Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, found petitioner’s evidence credible and respondent’s unsubstantiated claims insufficient. Relying on Civil Code Articles 53(4), 58, and 80(3) and Family Code Articles 4 and 5, the RTC declared the marriage void ab initio for absence of the essential requisite—a valid marriage license.
CA Reversal Based on Presumption of Validity
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the solemnization of a marriage gives rise to a presumption that a license was duly issued and that any omission in the marriage certificate constitutes a mere formal defect not affecting validity. It deemed petitioner’s delay of 25 years and purported ethical motives further reasons to uphold the marriage.
Issues Framed in the Supreme Court Petition
Petitioner raised four principal issues:
- Whether the CA improperly relied on ethical considerations and alleged personal motives.
- Whether the CA erred in penalizing petitioner’s delay in seeking nullity.
- Whether the CA disregarded petitioner’s documentary evidence and favored unfounded presumptions.
- Whether the CA erred in reversing the lower court’s declaration of nullity for lack of a license.
Procedural Review and Factual Conflicts
The Solicitor General challenged this Court’s jurisdiction over disputed facts in a Rule 45 petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that conflicting findings on the existence of a marriage license—central to the petition—fell within recognized exceptions permitting review, notably where appellate findings diverged from those of the trial court.
Governing Law on Marriage and License Requirement
Under the Civil Code (applicable to marriages before August 3, 1988), four requisites are mandatory: legal capacity, consent, authority of solemnizer, and a marriage license, save for exceptional marriages (Articles 72–79). Article 80(3) expressly voids marriages solemnized without a license. The licensing requirement embodies the State’s oversight in forming a foundational social institution.
Presumption of Validity and Burden of Proof
Although Philippine jurisprudence presumes the validity of marriages, such presumption is rebuttable. A certification by the local civil registrar that no license exists overcomes it, shifting the burden to the party asserting validity to produce affirmative proof of a duly issued license.
Controlling Precedents on Non-issuance Certifications
In Nicdao Carialo v. Yee Carialo and subsequent cases (Republic v. CA; Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr.; Abbas v. Abbas), this Co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187462)
Procedural History
- Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Raquel G. Kho with the RTC of Oras, Eastern Samar (Civil Case No. 464).
- Venue transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2.
- RTC Decision (September 25, 2000) declared the marriage null and void ab initio for want of a valid marriage license.
- Respondent Veronica B. Kho appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 69218).
- CA Decision (March 30, 2006) reversed the RTC, upheld validity of marriage, and CA Resolution (January 14, 2009) denied motion for reconsideration.
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner’s parents instructed a municipal treasurer’s clerk on May 31, 1972 to prepare papers for a secret wedding planned for midnight June 1, 1972.
- The marriage ceremony actually occurred at about 3:00 AM, June 1, 1972, after a public dance ended at 2:00 AM.
- Petitioner never applied for or signed any marriage license at the Local Civil Registrar’s office.
- Certification by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar attested to the absence of any record or copy of a marriage license for the June 1, 1972 marriage.
- Respondent claimed both parties personally obtained and presented a valid marriage license before the solemnization.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in introducing an “ethical dimension” and alleged personal motives into the legal determination.
- Whether the CA improperly weighed petitioner’s long delay in attacking his marriage.
- Whether the CA disregarded petitioner’s documentary evidence of non-issuance of a marriage license and relied on mere presumptions.
- Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s declaration of nullity for absence of a valid