Comparaciones Internacionales

G.R. No. 103047 ll Sep. 2, 1994

32 332 Cruz

Persons and Family Relations

PETITIONER: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINA M. CASTRO FACTS:

Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, without the knowledge of Castro's parents (thus, a secret marriage).

Defendant Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license (license no.3196182). The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife, but only did so when Castro was pregnant. However, they only lived together for 4 months and eventually parted ways. Their baby was later adopted by Castro's brother, with the consent of Cardenas, and brought to the US. Desiring to follow her daughter, Castro consulted a lawyer regarding the possible annulment of her marriage. They discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage. She was issued by the Civil Registry of Pasig a certification of “due search and inability to find” to back this claim.

The trial court denied Castro’s petition for nullity of marriage, ruling that the certification was inadequate to establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license. Castro then appealed to the appellate court, which reversed the trial court’s decision and declared the marriage between the contracting parties null and void. Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, then filed for petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

WON the certification of “due search and inability to find” marriage license presented as evidence is sufficient to render the marriage void.

HELD:

Yes. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court³, a certificate of "due

3Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

search and inability to find" sufficiently proved that the local civil registry office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties. Since no marriage license was issued, marriage is rendered void ab initio (under the Family Code, Art.4).

*Also worth noting that Castro failed to offer any other witness regarding the celebration of her marriage. This is because of its peculiar circumstance being a “secret marriage”. Cardenas did not appear during the annulment trial, so he is considered in default.

Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry

Alcantara v. Alcantara

(1) The wedding was performed without first securing a marriage license

 Even though the couple was married twice (first at the stairs in Manila City Hall before a certain Minister Aquilino Navarro through a

“fixer” and second at San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo), the ceremonies were celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license.

(2) The alleged ML, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said annulment with the intent to evade prosecution for concubinage.

ISSUE:

WON the irregularities relating to the ML are sufficient to render the marriage void.

HELD: supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such ML was issued to the

parties. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a ML number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona. The certification⁴ moreover is precise that it specifically identified the parties.

Issuance of a ML in a city or municipality, not the residence of either of the contracting parties, and issuance of a ML despite the absence of publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage⁵.

On the discrepancy in ML numbers, it is not impossible to assume that it is a mere typographical error. It therefore does not distract the Court in its conclusion regarding the existence and issuance of said ML to the parties.

Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands, he cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party to the marriage celebration which he now insists to be rendered invalid. He is an educated person (mechanical eng’r) and he knowingly and voluntarily entered into marriage. The Court ruled, “he cannot benefit from his action and be allowed to extricate himself from the marriage bond at his mere say-so when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle. We cannot countenance such effrontery. His attempt to make a mockery of the institution of marriage betrays his bad faith.”

Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage. Every intendment of the law or fact leans towards the validity of the marriage bonds. This presumption is of great weight.

Note: The marriage involved herein having been solemnized on 1982 thus, prior to the

4 This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done in the regular conduct of official business.

5 An irregularity in any of the formal requisites of marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly, criminally and administratively liable.

Alcantara v. Alcantara

Aug. 28, 2007

34 332 Dolot

Persons and Family Relations

effectivity of the Family Code, will be assessed on its validity based on the Civil

Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration.

Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless ALL these requisites are complied with: (a) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;

(b) Their consent, freely given;

(c) Authority of the person performing the

marriage; and

(d) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.

The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested.

Vda. De Jacob v. CA

Aug. 19, 1999

35 332 Hermosisima

Persons and Family Relations

PETITIONER:

Tomasa
Vda.
De
Jacob
as
Special
administratix
of
the
Intestate
Estate
of