Alcantara vs. Alcantara

A marriage is not void for absence of a marriage license where the marriage contract bears a license number and the local civil registrar certifies to its issuance, the presumption of regularity of official duty having not been overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; mere irregularities in the license's issuance do not affect the marriage's validity.

Restituto and Rosita Alcantara were married in two ceremonies — first on 8 December 1982 before Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel, at Manila City Hall, and second on 26 March 1983 at San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila. They had two children and separated in 1988. The marriage was celebrated under the Civil Code, which was the law in effect at the time, the Family Code not yet having been enacted. Petitioner, a mechanical engineer by profession, later filed for annulment, which respondent opposed, alleging he filed the petition to evade a concubinage charge she had already filed against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City.

Petitioner Restituto Alcantara and respondent Rosita A. Alcantara were married on 8 December 1982 at the Manila City Hall. According to petitioner, they went to the Manila City Hall without securing a marriage license and dealt with a "fixer" who, for a fee, arranged their wedding before Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel. The ceremony reportedly took place at the stairs of Manila City Hall rather than at the chapel. On 26 March 1983, less than four months later, the parties went through a second marriage ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila. For this church wedding, petitioner presented to the church the marriage contract executed during the previous civil ceremony, and the church copied the marriage license number — No. 7054033 — from that contract onto the church marriage contract. Neither ceremony was preceded by the parties' own application for a marriage license; the license reflected on the marriage contract was allegedly procured in Carmona, Cavite, a place where neither party resided and which they never visited to apply for a license.

On 14 October 1985, respondent gave birth to their first child, Rose Ann Alcantara, and on 27 October 1992, to a second daughter, Rachel Ann Alcantara. In 1988, the parties parted ways and lived separate lives. Petitioner thereafter had a mistress with whom he had three children. Respondent filed a case for concubinage against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.

Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage before the RTC of Makati City, alleging that the marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. He contended that the license number appearing on the marriage contract was a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, Cavite, and they never went there to apply for a license. Respondent opposed the petition, asserting the validity of the marriage and presenting a certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, stating that Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario on 8 December 1982. Respondent alleged that petitioner filed the annulment petition solely to evade prosecution for concubinage.

The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit and ordered petitioner to pay ₱20,000 per month as support for their two children. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the marriage license was presumed regularly issued and that the marriage contract, being a public document, constituted prima facie proof of the marriage under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied.

• Absence of Marriage License: Petitioner argued that at the precise time of the marriage celebration, there was no marriage license, because he and respondent simply went to Manila City Hall and dealt with a "fixer" who arranged everything for them, and neither party went to Carmona, Cavite, to apply for a license.
• Discrepancy in License Numbers: Petitioner maintained that the certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, could not be given weight because it states that Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued, while the marriage contract bears No. 7054033, undermining the validity of the license.
• Non-Residency of Parties: Petitioner argued that assuming a marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was issued, neither he nor respondent was a resident of that place, rendering the license invalid.
• Failure to Apply Precedent: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in failing to apply the ruling in Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, 12 April 2000, where the marriage was held void for lack of a marriage license.
• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to relax the observance of procedural rules to protect and promote the substantial rights of party litigants.

• Validity of Marriage: Respondent asserted the validity of their marriage and maintained that a marriage license was issued, as evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite.
• Bad Faith of Petitioner: Respondent argued that petitioner had a mistress with whom he had three children, and that he filed the annulment petition only to evade prosecution for concubinage, which she had already filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.

• Validity of Marriage License: Whether the marriage was void for absence of a marriage license at the time of solemnization, notwithstanding that the marriage contract bore a license number and the local civil registrar certified to its issuance.
• Evidentiary Weight of Certification and Discrepancy: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving weight to the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar and in disregarding the discrepancy between the license number in the certification (7054133) and that on the marriage contract (7054033).
• Application of Precedent: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply the ruling in Sy vs. Court of Appeals.
• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to relax procedural rules to protect substantial rights.

• Validity of Marriage License: No. The marriage was not void for absence of a marriage license, the marriage contract bearing a license number and the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite having certified to its issuance, which certification enjoyed the presumption of regularity of official duty.
• Evidentiary Weight of Certification and Discrepancy: No. The discrepancy in license numbers was a mere typographical error attributable to the overlapping of the digits 0 and 1 on the marriage contract, and the certification enjoyed the presumption that official duty was regularly performed.
• Application of Precedent: No. Sy vs. Court of Appeals was distinguishable, as in that case the license was issued almost one year after the ceremony, whereas here the certification confirmed the license was issued on the same date as the marriage.
• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: No. The Court found no basis to relax procedural rules, as petitioner had not demonstrated any prejudice to his substantial rights.

• Validity of Marriage License: Under Article 53 of the Civil Code — the law in effect at the time of the marriage on 8 December 1982 — a marriage license is a formal requisite, and its absence renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58. However, the cases where the Court found absence of a marriage license — Republic vs. Court of Appeals, Cariño vs. Cariño, and Sy vs. Court of Appeals — all involved either a certification of "due search and inability to find" from the local civil registrar, no marriage license number on the marriage contract, or a license issued after the ceremony. In the present case, the marriage contract reflected a marriage license number, and the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite issued a certification confirming that Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued to the parties on 8 December 1982. This certification enjoyed the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which prevails unless overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner failed to present such evidence; indeed, he admitted through counsel that a marriage license was issued in Carmona, Cavite. The presumption of regularity thus became conclusive.
• Evidentiary Weight of Certification and Discrepancy: The discrepancy between the license number in the certification (7054133) and on the marriage contract (7054033) was attributed to a typographical error, as closer scrutiny of the marriage contract revealed the overlapping of the numbers 0 and 1, such that the license number could read either way. This did not detract from the conclusion that a license was issued. Moreover, the issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality where neither contracting party resides is a mere irregularity that does not affect the validity of the marriage; the party responsible for the irregularity is civilly, criminally, and administratively liable, but the marriage itself remains valid. The authority of the solemnizing officer was also presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary, and the officer was not duty-bound to investigate whether the license was duly and regularly issued.
• Application of Precedent: Sy vs. Court of Appeals was distinguishable because in that case the marriage license was issued on 17 September 1974, almost one year after the ceremony on 15 November 1973, making it ineluctable that the marriage was contracted without a license. Here, the certification confirmed the license was issued on 8 December 1982 — the same date as the marriage. The factual premises were therefore fundamentally different.
• Relaxation of Procedural Rules: Petitioner had not demonstrated any specific prejudice warranting relaxation of procedural rules. Moreover, under the clean hands doctrine, petitioner — an educated mechanical engineer who knowingly and voluntarily went through two marriage ceremonies and even presented the marriage contract from the first ceremony to the church for the second — could not benefit from his own actions to extricate himself from the marriage bond. The presumption in favor of the validity of marriage (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio) was upheld, every intendment of law or fact leaning toward the validity of the marriage bond.

• Presumption of Validity of Marriage (Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio) — Every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bond; the presumption is of great weight and is not to be lightly repelled. Applied here to uphold the marriage despite petitioner's challenges to the marriage license, the Court finding that the presumption had not been overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
• Presumption of Regularity of Official Acts — Official duty is presumed to have been regularly performed under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court; the presumption prevails until overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and unless rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Applied to uphold the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, confirming the issuance of Marriage License No. 7054133.
• Distinction Between Absence and Irregularity of a Formal Requisite — The absence of a marriage license renders the marriage void ab initio, but mere irregularities in its issuance — such as issuance in a place where neither party resides, or absence of or premature publication — do not affect the validity of the marriage, though the responsible party may be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. Applied to reject petitioner's argument that the license was invalid because neither party resided in Carmona, Cavite.
• Clean Hands Doctrine — He who comes to court must come with clean hands; a party cannot benefit from his own voluntary participation in a transaction to later invalidate it. Applied to bar petitioner, who knowingly and voluntarily initiated and participated in two marriage ceremonies, from later asserting the absence of a marriage license to annul the marriage.
• Standard for Proving Absence of Marriage License — To render a marriage void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the absence must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such license was issued to the parties. Applied to reject petitioner's claim, as the marriage contract bore a license number and the civil registrar certified to its issuance.

• "Clearly, from these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties." — This passage articulates the evidentiary standard for proving absence of a marriage license, synthesizing the Court's reading of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, Cariño vs. Cariño, and Sy vs. Court of Appeals, and serves as the controlling test for distinguishing void marriages from those affected by mere irregularities.

• "Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage." — This is the canonical formulation of the presumption favoring marital validity, invoked to reject petitioner's challenge and affirm the marriage's validity despite alleged defects in the license.

• "Petitioner is an educated person. He is a mechanical engineer by profession. He knowingly and voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. 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." — This passage applies the clean hands doctrine to marital validity cases, emphasizing that a party who voluntarily participates in a marriage ceremony cannot later exploit alleged defects to escape the marital bond.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 257 — Cited as authority that a certification of "due search and inability to find" from the local civil registrar proves the absence of a marriage license, rendering the marriage void ab initio. Distinguished from the present case, where the civil registrar certified to the issuance of the license rather than its non-existence.
• Cariño vs. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 127 — Cited for the proposition that a certification from the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license. Distinguished from the present case, where the marriage contract bore no license number and the civil registrar had no record of issuance, unlike here where both a license number and a certification of issuance existed.
• Sy vs. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 760 (2000) — Cited for the rule that a marriage license issued after the ceremony demonstrates the marriage was contracted without a license. Distinguished; petitioner argued it should apply, but the Court found it factually inapposite because here the license was certified as issued on the same date as the marriage, not a year later.
• Niñal vs. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661 (2000) — Cited for the principle that the marriage license requirement reflects State involvement and participation in every marriage.
• Magsucang vs. Balgos, 446 Phil. 217 (2003) — Cited for the presumption of regularity of official acts and the standard for rebutting it.
• People vs. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176 (1929) — Cited for the proposition that the solemnizing officer is not duty-bound to investigate whether a marriage license was duly and regularly issued.
• Carating-Siayngco vs. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004, 441 SCRA 422; Sevilla vs. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 428 — Cited for the presumption in favor of the validity of marriage.

• Article 53, Civil Code — Lists the formal requisites of marriage, including a marriage license (except in marriages of exceptional character). Applied as the governing law because the marriage was celebrated on 8 December 1982, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code.
• Article 80(3), Civil Code — Provides that marriages solemnized without a marriage license (save marriages of exceptional character) are void ab initio. Applied in relation to Article 58 to define the consequence of absence of a marriage license.
• Article 58, Civil Code — States that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar, except marriages of exceptional character. Applied to establish the license requirement under the Civil Code.
• Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Applied to uphold the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, confirming the issuance of the marriage license.
• Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Applied by the Court of Appeals to treat the marriage contract as prima facie proof of the marriage.
• Article 3, Family Code — The current equivalent of Article 53 of the Civil Code, cited as the modern formulation of the formal requisites of marriage, including a valid marriage license.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Ruben T. Reyes concurred.