Abbas vs. Abbas

A marriage solemnized without a valid marriage license is void ab initio under Articles 4 and 35(3) of the Family Code, and a certification from the Local Civil Registrar that no marriage license was issued to the parties—absent any affirmative evidence of irregularity in the registrar's performance of official duty—enjoys probative value sufficient to prove non-issuance of the license.

Syed Azhar Abbas, a Pakistani citizen, and Gloria Goo-Abbas, a Filipino citizen, met in Taiwan in 1991 and were first married on August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan. They later underwent a second marriage ceremony on January 9, 1993 at the residence of Gloria's mother in Manila, solemnized by Rev. Mario Dauz, a minister of the Gospel and barangay captain. The Marriage Contract stated that Marriage License No. 9969967, issued at Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing officer. Neither party was a resident of Carmona, Cavite. Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code of the Philippines, governs the marriage as it was solemnized on January 9, 1993.

Syed Azhar Abbas, a Pakistani citizen, met Gloria Goo-Abbas, a Filipino citizen, in Taiwan in 1991. They were first married on August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan. Syed arrived in the Philippines in December 1992. On January 9, 1993, at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, while at his mother-in-law's residence at 2676 F. Muñoz St., Malate, Manila, his mother-in-law arrived with two men. Syed testified that he was told he was going to undergo some ceremony, described as a requirement for his stay in the Philippines, but was not told of the nature of the ceremony. During the ceremony, he and Gloria signed a document. He claimed he did not know the ceremony was a marriage until Gloria told him later. The marriage was solemnized by Rev. Mario Dauz, a minister of the Gospel and barangay captain authorized to solemnize marriages, with Atty. Lorenzo Sanchez and Mary Ann Ceriola as witnesses. The Marriage Contract stated that Marriage License No. 9969967, issued at Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing officer. Neither Syed nor Gloria was a resident of Carmona, Cavite.

According to Gloria and her mother Felicitas Goo, they sought the help of Atty. Sanchez in securing the marriage license. A certain Qualin went to their house, obtained the marriage license, and returned with an application for them to sign. After Qualin returned with the marriage license, they gave it to Atty. Sanchez, who then gave it to Rev. Dauz the day before the wedding. Atty. Sanchez testified that he did not know where the marriage license was obtained. Felicitas Goo admitted she did not read all the contents of the license and was only told it was obtained from Carmona. Rev. Dauz testified that the marriage contract was prepared by his secretary and that, after solemnization, the marriage contract and a copy of the marriage license were submitted to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.

In July 2003, Syed went to the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, to check on their marriage license, on advice of counsel. The Municipal Civil Registrar, Leodivinia C. Encarnacion, issued a certification on July 11, 2003 stating that Marriage License No. 9969967 was issued in favor of Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan on January 19, 1993, and that no marriage license appeared to have been issued to Syed and Gloria on January 8, 1993. A certified machine copy of Marriage License No. 9969967 was presented, confirming that the names of Gloria and Syed do not appear in the document. Norberto Bagsic, an employee of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, testified that their office issues serial numbers for marriage licenses chronologically and that no other license of the same serial number was issued to any other person.

Gloria filed a bigamy case against Syed, who had married a certain Maria Corazon Buenaventura during the existence of the previous marriage, docketed as Criminal Case No. 02A-03408 before the RTC of Manila. Syed filed his petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on August 1, 2003, after the information for bigamy dated January 10, 2003 was filed against him. Gloria and Syed had one daughter, Aliea Fatima Goo Abbas, born on June 15, 1993. The RTC found that no valid marriage license was issued and declared the marriage void ab initio. The CA reversed, finding sufficient evidence of a valid marriage and giving weight to the parties' conduct as husband and wife and to Syed's motive in filing the petition only after the bigamy case was filed.

• Misapplication of Precedent: Petitioner argued that the CA committed serious error in citing Republic vs. Court of Appeals because the citation was diametrically inconsistent and contrary to the CA's own findings and conclusions in the case.
• Reversal Without Basis: Petitioner maintained that the CA gravely erred in reversing and setting aside the RTC decision granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage without any factual and legal basis.

• Existence of a Marriage License: Respondent argued that the lower court erred in declaring the marriage null and void due to the absence of a marriage license despite evidence clearly showing that there was one.
• Compliance with Marriage Requisites: Respondent maintained that the lower court erred in not considering the overwhelming evidence showing that a marriage ceremony took place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they took each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
• Estoppel by Laches: Respondent argued that the lower court erred in not ruling on the issue of estoppel by laches on the part of the petitioner, an issue timely raised in the court below.

• Probative Value of Civil Registrar's Certification: Whether the certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, stating that no marriage license was issued to the parties, enjoys probative value despite the absence of the words "despite diligent search."
• Validity of Marriage Without License: Whether the marriage between Syed and Gloria is void ab initio for absence of a valid marriage license under Articles 4 and 35(3) of the Family Code.
• Effect of Petitioner's Motive: Whether the petitioner's motive in filing the petition for nullity—purportedly to evade a bigamy suit—affects the determination of the marriage's validity.

• Probative Value of Civil Registrar's Certification: Yes. The certification enjoys probative value, the presumption of regularity of official acts under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court having not been rebutted by any affirmative evidence of irregularity in the registrar's performance of duty.
• Validity of Marriage Without License: Yes. The marriage is void ab initio under Articles 4 and 35(3) of the Family Code, the absence of a valid marriage license being a formal requisite whose absence cannot be cured by proof of compliance with other requisites.
• Effect of Petitioner's Motive: No. The petitioner's motive does not cure the absence of a valid marriage license, which is a formal requisite whose absence renders the marriage void ab initio regardless of the parties' intent or conduct.

• Probative Value of Civil Registrar's Certification: The certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, stating that Marriage License No. 9969967 was issued to another couple and that no marriage license was issued to the parties, enjoys probative value. Under Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record that no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist is admissible as evidence. The CA erred in requiring the categorical words "despite diligent search" in the certification. In Republic vs. Court of Appeals, the Court sustained a certification that merely stated the alleged marriage license could not be located, without any categorical declaration of diligent search. Under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, there is a disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and this presumption may be rebutted only by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. No such affirmative evidence was presented. In fact, the registrar located Marriage License No. 9969967 and certified that it belonged to another couple, demonstrating that a search was conducted. Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license or a copy thereof, failed to explain why the license was secured in Carmona where neither party resided, and failed to present Qualin, the person who allegedly secured the license. The solemnizing officer testified that the marriage contract and a copy of the marriage license were submitted to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, from which a copy could have been secured, but Gloria inexplicably failed to do so. Following Cariño vs. Cariño, the certification was adequate to prove non-issuance, and the burden shifted to the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that a marriage license had been secured—a burden Gloria failed to discharge.

• Validity of Marriage Without License: Under Article 4 of the Family Code, the absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2). Article 35(3) provides that marriages solemnized without a license are void from the beginning, except those covered by Chapter 2 (Articles 27–34). The marriage was not among the exemptions under Chapter 2. All the evidence cited by the CA—testimonial and documentary evidence of a wedding ceremony, the parties' signatures on the marriage contract, photographs, and the parties having comported themselves as husband and wife—does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. The absence of a formal requisite cannot be cured by proof of compliance with other requisites. No marriage license was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed, based on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar and Gloria's failure to produce a copy of the alleged license.

• Effect of Petitioner's Motive: While Syed's motives in seeking annulment may be less than pure—he may seek to evade a bigamy suit—this does not make up for the failure of the respondent to prove that a valid marriage license was issued. The lack of a valid marriage license cannot be attributed to Syed, as it was Gloria who took steps to procure the license. The law must be applied regardless of motive; as the marriage license, a formal requisite, is clearly absent, the marriage is void ab initio.

• Presumption of Regularity of Official Acts — Under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, there is a disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the contrary. The presumption may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. In this case, no affirmative evidence was presented to show that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her duty, so the presumption stood. The fact that Marriage License No. 9969967 was located and found to belong to another couple demonstrated that a diligent search was conducted.

• Proof of Lack of Record — Under Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record, stating that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist, is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry. The Court clarified that a categorical declaration of "diligent search" is not absolutely necessary for the provision to apply; the certification need only state that the record or entry does not appear in the office's records. Civil registrars, as custodians of public documents, are charged with maintaining a register book where they enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of applicants, the date of issuance, and other relevant data.

• Burden of Proof in Marriage Validity — Once the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that no marriage license was issued overcomes the presumed validity of the marriage, the burden shifts to the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was valid and that the required marriage license had been secured. Failure to produce the actual marriage license or a copy thereof, or to present witnesses who can testify to its procurement, results in the conclusion that no valid marriage license was issued.

• Absence of Formal Requisites Renders Marriage Void — Under Article 4 of the Family Code, the absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2). A marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning under Article 35(3), unless exempt under Chapter 2 (Articles 27–34). Proof of compliance with other requisites—authority of the solemnizing officer, conduct of the ceremony, consent of the parties—does not cure the absence of a valid marriage license.

• "All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi that compliance with other formal and essential requisites cannot supply the absence of a marriage license, a principle central to the void ab initio ruling.

• "Nowhere in the Certification was it categorically stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent search, nor is a categorical declaration absolutely necessary for Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court to apply." — This clarifies the evidentiary standard for certifications of non-issuance from civil registrars, correcting the CA's overly literal reading of Section 28, Rule 132.

• "No marriage license was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed, based on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and Gloria's failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license." — This states the Court's factual conclusion on non-issuance, tying together the probative value of the registrar's certification and the respondent's evidentiary failure.

• "Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure of the respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The lack of a valid marriage license cannot be attributed to him, as it was Gloria who took steps to procure the same. The law must be applied." — This addresses and rejects the equitable consideration of petitioner's motive, foregrounding the imperative of applying the Family Code's formal requisites regardless of the parties' subjective intentions.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 257 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court held that a certification from the civil registrar that a marriage license could not be located was sufficient to prove non-issuance, and that civil registrars are public officers charged with maintaining records of marriage licenses. The Court clarified that this case did not require a categorical declaration of "diligent search" in the certification, contrary to the CA's reading.

• Cariño vs. Cariño, 403 Phil. 861 (2001) — Followed. The Court held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove non-issuance, and that the burden shifted to the party alleging a valid marriage to prove its validity and that the required marriage license had been secured.

• Alcantara vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 446 — Cited for the principle that the presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. Applied to uphold the presumption of regularity in the Municipal Civil Registrar's certification, as no affirmative evidence of irregularity was presented.

• Article 3, Family Code — Lists the formal requisites of marriage: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) a valid marriage license except in cases provided for in Chapter 2; and (3) a marriage ceremony with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration in the presence of at least two witnesses of legal age. The Court found no issue with the authority of the solemnizing officer or the conduct of the ceremony; the case hinged on the absence of a valid marriage license.

• Article 4, Family Code — Provides that the absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2). A defect in any essential requisite renders the marriage voidable under Article 45. An irregularity in the formal requisites does not affect the validity of the marriage but gives rise to civil, criminal, and administrative liability. The Court applied this provision to declare the marriage void for absence of a valid marriage license, distinguishing absence from mere irregularity.

• Article 9, Family Code — Requires that a marriage license be issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides. The RTC noted that neither party was a resident of Carmona, Cavite, where the license was allegedly issued.

• Article 35(3), Family Code — Declares void from the beginning those marriages solemnized without a license, except those covered by Chapter 2. The Court held the marriage void ab initio under this provision, as it was not among the exemptions in Articles 27–34.

• Section 28, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Allows a written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record that no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist as admissible evidence. Applied to uphold the probative value of the Municipal Civil Registrar's certification of non-issuance.

• Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Establishes the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Applied to uphold the presumption of regularity in the Municipal Civil Registrar's certification, absent any affirmative evidence of irregularity.

Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred.