G.R. No. 103047 - Republic vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103047)

Petitioner / Respondent Roles

Petitioner (Republic) challenges the appellate court’s finding that the marriage was void for lack of a valid marriage license. Private respondent (Castro) originally filed the annulment/nullity petition in the Regional Trial Court, which the trial court denied; she then prevailed in the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petition for review on certiorari.

Key Dates

Marriage solemnized: June 24, 1970 (civil ceremony in Pasay City).
Petition filed in RTC: February 19, 1987 (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-50117).
Trial court decision denying annulment: June 30, 1987.
Court of Appeals decision reversing and declaring marriage void: November 27, 1991.
Supreme Court decision: September 2, 1994.
Registrar’s certification dated February 20, 1987 (certifies nonexistence of marriage license no. 3196182 in Pasig records).

Applicable Law

Primary substantive law governing validity of marriage at the time of solemnization: New Civil Code (Articles 53(4), 58, 70, and 80(3) are cited in the decision). Procedural evidentiary provision relied upon: Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court (proof of lack of record). Constitutional framework applicable to judicial review: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990).

Procedural History

Castro filed for judicial declaration of nullity in the RTC on the ground that no marriage license was issued prior to the ceremony. Edwin Cardenas failed to answer and was declared in default; trial proceeded in his absence. The RTC denied the petition, finding the civil registrar’s certification inadequate. The Court of Appeals reversed and declared the marriage null and ordered cancellation of the marriage contract. The Republic sought Supreme Court review by certiorari, advancing errors in the appellate court’s reliance on the registrar’s certification and Castro’s uncorroborated testimony.

Core Facts

The parties were married in a civil ceremony before Judge Malvar on June 24, 1970. The marriage contract indicated marriage license no. 3196182 was issued on June 20, 1970 in Pasig. Castro testified she did not apply for or sign any marriage license application in Pasig prior to the ceremony, and she only signed the marriage contract on the date of solemnization. The parties initially lived separately; cohabitation commenced in March 1971 and lasted about four months. A child born October 19, 1971 was later adopted by Castro’s brother with Cardenas’ consent and is now in the United States. Through counsel, Castro procured from the Civil Registrar of Pasig a certification that a diligent search failed to locate marriage license no. 3196182 in the public records.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC denied Castro’s petition, concluding that the civil registrar’s certification of inability to locate the license was insufficient to prove non-issuance. The RTC emphasized that the inability to find a record in the registrar’s office was not conclusive proof that a license had never been issued, implicitly giving weight to the marriage contract attestation by the solemnizing judge that a license had been presented.

Appellate Court Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed. It found that the registrar’s certification, together with Castro’s testimony, sufficiently established that no marriage license had been issued. The appellate court declared the marriage null and ordered the cancellation of the marriage contract.

Issues Presented

Whether the certification by the Civil Registrar of Pasig that marriage license no. 3196182 could not be located, together with Castro’s testimony, sufficed to prove that no marriage license had been issued prior to the solemnization, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio for lack of an essential requisite.

Legal Standards Applied

Validity of marriage: Under the New Civil Code, at the time of the 1970 solemnization, a marriage required a prior marriage license; absence of such an essential requisite renders the marriage void ab initio (Articles cited in the decision).
Proof of nonexistence of public records: Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court permits the written statement of an officer having custody of an official record that, after diligent search, no record of a specified tenor exists, and makes such a certificate admissible as evidence that the public office’s records contain no such record or entry.
Presumption of regularity: The petitioner relied on the presumption that the solemnizing officer (Judge Malvar) regularly performed his duties and that his attestation in the marriage contract that a license was presented warranted deference; the courts assessed the weight of this presumption against the registrar’s certificate and the surrounding circumstances.

Evidence and Probative Assessment

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s assessment that the registrar’s certificate, issued under Section 29, Rule 132, has probative value as it comes from the public officer charged by law with custody of marriage license records. The Court held that such certification, unaccompanied by circumstances suggesting bad faith or suspicion, adequately proves that the particular marriage license does not exist in the registrar’s records. The Court further held that Castro’s solitary testimony was not inherently insufficient: the nature of the marriage as a “secret marriage” (a civil ceremony unknown to relatives) explained the absence of potential c

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 103047)

Procedural History

Petition filed by private respondent Angelina M. Castro in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas; case filed February 19, 1987 and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-50117.
Defendant Edwin F. Cardenas received notice but failed to answer and was declared in default; trial proceeded in his absence.
Trial court (Presiding Judge Antonio P. Solano, Quezon City RTC, Branch LXXXVI) denied Castro's petition by Decision dated June 30, 1987 (Rollo, pp. 46–48).
Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Sixteenth Division (penned by Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, with Mr. Justices Ricardo J. Francisco and Consuelo Ynares–Santiago concurring) reversed the trial court, declared the marriage null and void, and directed the Civil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract (Decision dated November 27, 1991; Rollo, pp. 38–42).
Petition for review on certiorari was brought to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 103047). The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Puno, denied the petition on September 02, 1994, affirming the appellate court’s decision; Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred.

Material Facts

On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City.
The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro’s parents; the marriage has been characterized in the record as a "secret marriage" (civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of relatives/friends).
Defendant Cardenas personally attended to processing the documents required for celebration of the marriage, including the alleged procurement of the marriage license.
The marriage contract states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila.
The couple did not immediately live together; their cohabitation began only in March 1971 after Castro discovered she was pregnant and lasted approximately four months.
Castro gave birth on October 19, 1971; the baby was adopted by Castro’s brother with Cardenas’ consent and is now in the United States.
Castro, wishing to regularize her marital status before following her daughter, consulted Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar regarding possible annulment, and through counsel discovered that no marriage license was recorded as issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the marriage.

Documentary Evidence Offered

Private respondent offered a certification from the Civil Register of Pasig, Metro Manila, dated February 20, 1987, signed by Cenona D. Quintos, Senior Civil Registry Officer, which states (as quoted in the record):
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that the names EDWIN F. CARDENAS and ANGELINA M. CASTRO who were allegedly married in the Pasay City Court on June 21, 1970 under an alleged (s)upportive marriage license no. 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 cannot be located as said license no. 3196182 does not appear from our records. Issued upon request of Mr. Ed Atanacio. (Sgd) CENONA D. QUINTOS Senior Civil Registry Officer"
The marriage contract itself, as an original document in evidence, indicates presentation to the solemnizing officer of a marriage license purporting to be no. 3196182.

Testimonial Evidence

Private respondent Castro testified she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig on or before June 24, 1970 to apply for a marriage license and did not sign any application therefor; she affixed her signature only on the mar