Case Summary (G.R. No. 189538)
Key Dates
Marriage Certificate Date: June 24, 2002.
RTC Decision: May 5, 2009.
RTC Reconsideration Order: August 25, 2009.
SC Decision: February 10, 2014.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 case).
Rule 108, Rules of Court (Cancellation or Correction of Registry Entries).
Family Code Articles 35 and 36 (void marriages).
Family Courts Act (Republic Act No. 8369).
Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC.
Facts of the Case
Respondent sought a CENOMAR and discovered an existing marriage to Ye Son Sune in 2002 before Judge Mamerto Califlores at the MTCC, Cebu City. She denied any knowledge of or appearance at such marriage and claimed forgery of her signature. Respondent identified two pension-house employees as witnesses and alleged that a third party, Johnny Singh, misused her identity.
Procedural History
Respondent filed a Rule 108 petition to cancel all entries under “wife” in the marriage certificate, impleading the Local Civil Registrar and Ye Son Sune. The RTC conducted adversary proceedings: respondent, a court stenographer, and a document examiner testified, and documentary evidence was received. The RTC granted cancellation (May 5, 2009) and denied reconsideration (August 25, 2009). Petitioner elevated the matter via Rule 45 certiorari, raising pure questions of law.
Issues Presented
- Whether Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may be invoked when cancellation of registry entries, in effect, nullifies a marriage.
- Whether cancelling all entries in the wife’s portion of the certificate constitutes a declaration that the marriage is void ab initio.
Supreme Court’s Jurisprudential Framework on Rule 108
Rule 108 allows cancellation or correction of civil-registry entries for good and valid grounds, whether clerical or substantial. Post-Valencia jurisprudence (1986) confirms that even substantial errors affecting civil status may be remedied under Rule 108 through adversary proceedings complying with notice, publication, party inclusion, hearing, and evidence requirements.
Analysis on Rule 108’s Scope
The Court held that Rule 108 is not limited to innocuous errors; it accommodates substantial corrections that alter civil status, provided adversarial safeguards are observed. Procedural steps—petition, notice to interested parties, publication, opposition, hearing—parallel formal adjudication, thereby safeguarding due process.
Examination of Evidence and Identity Findings
Trial-court findings established that the signature in the contested marriage certificate did not match respondent’s authenticated signatures. The stenographer confirmed the purported wife was not respondent. A document examiner testified to forgery. No credible evidence supported the existence of a genuine marriage.
Distinction between Record Correction and Nullity of Marria
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189538)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
- Respondent: Merlinda L. Olaybar, who petitioned for cancellation of entries in her alleged marriage contract.
- Regional Trial Court (Branch 6, Cebu City) presided by Judge Ester M. Veloso.
- RTC rendered a Decision on May 5, 2009 granting respondent’s petition.
- RTC issued an Order on August 25, 2009 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court review sought via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Facts of the Case
- Respondent requested a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) from the National Statistics Office as requirement to marry her boyfriend.
- The CENOMAR revealed an alleged marriage between respondent and Ye Son Sune (a Korean national) on June 24, 2002 at the MTCC, Cebu City.
- Respondent denied ever contracting that marriage, appearing before the solemnizing officer, or knowing the named husband.
- She asserted her signature on the marriage certificate was forged and that an individual named Johnny Singh may have used her identity.
- Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City and Ye Son Sune as parties.
- In trial: – Respondent testified she was in Makati working on the alleged marriage date and only recognized witnesses from her former job.
– MTCC employee Eufrocina Natinga confirmed a marriage ceremony occurred but identified the woman as not respondent.
– A document examiner concluded the signature on the marriage contract was not respondent’s.
RTC Decision
- Found respondent’s signature on the marriage contract