Case Summary (G.R. No. 167684)
Key Dates
- May 19, 1969: Alleged civil marriage before Rev. Gonzales at Manila City Hall
- May 31, 1969: Religious marriage before Rev. Velasco at Most Holy Redeemer Parish, Quezon City
- March 28, 1994: Filing of petition for declaration of nullity by Sevilla
- January 25, 2002: RTC Makati decision declaring marriage void ab initio
- December 20, 2004: Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC
- July 31, 2006: Supreme Court decision affirming Court of Appeals
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (pro-marriage and family policy)
- Civil Code (1964) Articles 53, 58, 80 (marriage requisites and void marriages)
- Rules of Court: Section 28, Rule 132 (proof of lack of record); Section 3(m), Rule 131 (presumption of regularity of official acts)
Factual Background
Sevilla and Cardenas lived together from October 1968 and agreed to marry. On May 19, 1969, they signed a “marriage contract” before a minister at Manila City Hall, indicating License No. 2770792 purportedly issued by San Juan, Rizal. They later held a church ceremony on May 31, 1969, using the same license number. They cohabited, had two sons (born March 1970 and later), lived in Spain during Sevilla’s studies, but separated in 1976 and formally in 1978. Sevilla obtained a U.S. divorce in 1981 and judicial separation in 1983. Cardenas remained in the Philippines with their children.
Procedural History
- Trial Court (RTC Makati): Upon certifications from the San Juan Civil Registrar stating that License No. 2770792 was never issued, the RTC declared both civil and religious marriage void for lack of a valid license (Jan. 25, 2002).
- Court of Appeals: Reversed RTC on the ground that failure to locate registry books did not conclusively prove non-issuance and that the presumption of regularity of official acts remained unrebutted (Dec. 20, 2004); motion for reconsideration denied (Apr. 6, 2005).
- Supreme Court: Petitioner’s certiorari seeks reversal of CA decision.
Issues Presented
- Whether a valid marriage license was issued prior to the civil and religious ceremonies.
- Whether the presumption of regularity of official acts (issuance of a license) was properly applied.
- Whether respondent may invoke the presumption of marital validity based on cohabitation and the admitted fact of marriage.
Trial Court’s Findings and Rationale
- Civil Registrar issued certifications (1994, 2000) stating License No. 2770792 was never issued.
- Under Section 28, Rule 132, a registrar’s written statement of no record is admissible proof of non-issuance.
- Absence of a license rendered both ceremonies void ab initio (Civil Code Articles 53, 58, 80).
Court of Appeals’ Analysis
- The presumption of regularity prevails until rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
- Registrar’s inability to produce registry books was due to “failure to locate” and not affirmatively proving non-issuance.
- On balance, the licensure presumption stood; marriage upheld.
Supreme Court’s Legal Discussion
Disputable Presumption of Official Regularity
- Under Rule 131, Sec. 3(m), the presumption that public officers regularly perform duty is rebuttable by evidence of irregularity or failure to perform.
- The first two 1994 certifications stated that “loaded work” prevented full search; testimony confirmed no diligent effort to locate logbook or former custodian.
- Inadequate certifications fail to meet Section 28, Rule 132 requirement of a categorical statement after diligent search.
- Absence of registry entries may mean only that books are misplaced, not that the license was never issued.
Policy Favoring Marital Validity
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167684)
Facts of the Case
- On 19 May 1969, Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas appeared before Rev. Cirilo D. Gonzales at Manila City Hall, where they executed a marriage contract (Exh. “A”) indicating Marriage License No. 2770792, which Jaime asserts he never applied for.
- Subsequent verifications with the San Juan Civil Registry produced Certifications (Exhs. “E”, “C”, and “EE”) confirming that no such license was ever issued.
- On 31 May 1969, the couple underwent a church wedding at Most Holy Redeemer Parish in Quezon City (Exh. “F”), again citing License No. 2770792; preparations were arranged and funded by the Sevilla family.
- The spouses lived together in Brixton Hills; their first son was born in March 1970; they later resided in Spain during Jaime’s medical studies.
- Marital relations soured, leading to separation in 1976 and formal departure in 1978; disputes arose over the paternity of their second son.
- Jaime secured a United States divorce in 1981 and a judicial separation of their conjugal partnership in 1983.
Procedural History
- 28 March 1994: Jaime filed a Complaint for nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Civil Case No. 94-1285).
- 25 January 2002: RTC rendered judgment declaring both the civil and religious marriages void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license; ordered cancellation of the marriage registration.
- 20 December 2004: Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 74416) reversed the RTC, upholding the marriages based on the presumption of regularity of official acts.
- 6 April 2005: CA denied Jaime’s motion for reconsideration.
- 31 July 2006: Supreme Court resolved the Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 167684).
Issues Presented
- Whether a valid marriage license was validly issued before the civil and religious ceremonies.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the presumption of regularity of official acts in favor of license issuance.
- Whether the Respondent could