Cariaga vs. Republic

A certification from the local civil registrar stating that there is no record of a specific marriage license being issued to the petitioning parties, and that the said license number was in fact issued to a different couple, is sufficient evidence to prove the absence of a valid marriage license and overcome the presumption of a valid marriage, especially when the State fails to present contrary evidence.

Lovelle Cariaga and Henry Cariaga were college sweethearts who married in 2000 after Lovelle became pregnant. Their parents arranged for a friend to handle the documentary requirements for the civil wedding. After thirteen years and three children, the couple separated in 2013 due to differences. In 2015, upon learning that Henry was in a relationship with another woman, Lovelle consulted a lawyer to have her marriage annulled. On her lawyer's advice, she verified the authenticity of the marriage license indicated on their Certificate of Marriage with the Civil Registry of Quezon City. This investigation led to the discovery that the license was issued to another couple, prompting her to file a petition to declare her marriage void.

• Lovelle S. Cariaga and Henry G. Cariaga were married on November 10, 2000.
• In 2015, Lovelle verified the marriage license number indicated on their Certificate of Marriage, which was Marriage License No. 131078 dated November 9, 2000.
• The Civil Registry Department of Quezon City (CRD-QC) issued a certification stating that, as per their records, there was "no record of Marriage License No. 131078 dated November 9, 2000 allegedly issued in favor of HENRY G. CARIAGA and LOVELLE F. SAPLARAN."
• The same certification specified that the said Marriage License No. 131078 was actually issued to another couple, Mamerto O. Yambao and Amelia B. Parado.
• Lovelle also obtained copies of the application documents filed by Yambao and Parado for that license number.
• Armed with this evidence, Lovelle filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC.
• Henry, the respondent-husband, was duly served with summons but did not file an answer or participate in the proceedings.
• The City Prosecutor conducted an investigation and reported that there was no collusion between the parties.
• During the pre-trial, the City Prosecutor stipulated on the genuineness and due execution of the 2015 QCCR Certification, dispensing with the testimony of the issuing officer.
• The RTC and subsequently the CA dismissed the petition, finding the certification insufficient to prove the absence of a marriage license, speculating that a different license might have been issued and the number on the certificate was merely a typographical error.

• The marriage is void ab initio for being contracted without a valid marriage license, a formal requisite under the Family Code.
• The 2015 QCCR Certification from the Assistant City Civil Registrar is sufficient proof of the non-issuance of the license, pursuant to Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• The certification clearly states that the license number on the marriage certificate was issued to another couple, which proves that no valid license was issued to the petitioner and her husband.
• Her unrebutted testimony, stating that she and her husband never applied for a license and that a third party handled the paperwork, corroborates the documentary evidence.
• Jurisprudence, particularly the cases of Republic v. Castro and Abbas v. Abbas, supports the position that similarly worded certifications are adequate to overcome the presumption of a valid marriage.

• The certification presented by the petitioner is insufficient to declare the marriage null and void.
• Prevailing jurisprudence requires that a certification must categorically state that the license does not exist in the records or could not be found "despite diligent search."
• The certification does not disprove the possibility that a valid marriage license with a different number was issued to the parties and that the number on the marriage certificate was simply a typographical error.
• The petitioner's testimony that she and her husband never personally applied for a license demonstrates that she came to court with "unclean hands" and should not be allowed to benefit from her own failure to comply with legal requirements.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the certification issued by the local civil registrar, which states that the marriage license number on the marriage certificate was issued to another couple, is sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of marriage.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the marriage between Lovelle S. Cariaga and Henry G. Cariaga is void ab initio under Article 35(3) of the Family Code for lack of a valid marriage license.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the evidence presented by the petitioner was sufficient. The Supreme Court ruled that courts must take a "holistic approach" in assessing the sufficiency of a certification from a local civil registrar. The assessment should not hinge solely on the presence or absence of specific phrases like "diligent search." The 2015 QCCR Certification, which explicitly stated that the license number belonged to another couple, corroborated the petitioner's testimony and was sufficient to overcome the presumption of a valid marriage. This shifted the burden of proof to the Republic to establish that a valid license was indeed issued, a burden which it failed to discharge.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the marriage is void ab initio. The absence of a valid marriage license is a fatal defect that renders a marriage void from the beginning under Articles 4 and 35(3) of the Family Code. Having successfully proven through documentary and testimonial evidence that no valid license was issued for their marriage, the Court declared the union between Lovelle and Henry void. The Court also noted that the doctrine of "unclean hands" does not operate to validate a marriage that the law itself declares void.

• Holistic Approach in Assessing Evidence of Non-Issuance of Marriage License — The Court clarified that in resolving nullity cases based on the absence of a marriage license, courts must not rely solely on the literal language of the civil registrar's certification. Instead, they must appreciate its probative value in the context of the cause of action, the other evidence on record, and the applicable laws and procedures governing marriage registration.
• Presumption of Validity of Marriage — This is a disputable presumption that can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the certification stating the license was issued to another couple, coupled with the petitioner's testimony, was deemed sufficient to rebut and overcome this presumption.
• Proof of Lack of Record (Rule 132, Section 28, Rules of Court) — A written statement from a public officer having custody of a record that no such record is found to exist is admissible as evidence of its non-existence. The Court held that this rule does not mandate the use of specific language like "diligent search" for the certification to have probative value.
• Presumption of Regularity of Official Duty — This disputable presumption applies to the actions of the civil registrar in issuing the certification. The Court held that absent any evidence of irregularity, the registrar is presumed to have properly checked the records before issuing the certification.
• Doctrine of Unclean Hands — The Court held that this doctrine does not apply to petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage based on the absence of a license. A marriage declared void by law cannot be validated by the fact that one or both parties participated in the irregularity. Any liability arising from such action must be determined in a separate and proper proceeding.

• "Hence, lest there be any confusion, the Court here clarifies that in cases where the absence of a marriage license is sought to be established through a certification issued by the local civil registrar, courts must take a holistic approach in resolving the case. To borrow the language in Vitangcol, the appreciation of the probative value of the certification cannot be divorced from the purpose of its presentation, the cause of action in the case, and the context of the presentation of the certification in relation to the other evidence presented in the case."
• "A contrary ruling would operate to validate marriages which the law itself declares void."

• Abbas v. Abbas — Relied upon heavily by the Court. This case established that the absence of the words "despite diligent search" in a civil registrar's certification does not diminish its probative value, and that a certification showing the license number pertained to another couple is strong evidence of non-issuance.
• Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro — Cited as precedent where a certification of "due search and inability to find" was deemed sufficient to prove a license's non-issuance. The Court in Cariaga clarified that the ruling in Castro did not mandate specific wording.
• Cariño v. Cariño — Referenced as another case where a certification of "no record" of a marriage license was sufficient to overcome the presumption of a valid marriage and shift the burden of proof.
• Sevilla v. Cardenas — Distinguished and clarified. The Court noted that the pronouncement in Sevilla requiring a categorical statement of "diligent search" was a possible misapplication of the Castro ruling and that any doubt it created was clarified in Abbas.
• Vitangcol v. People — Distinguished on its facts (as it involved a criminal prosecution for bigamy where the certification was suspect), but its language regarding a holistic assessment of evidence was adopted by the Court as the proper analytical framework.

• Family Code, Articles 2, 3, and 4 — Cited to establish the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage and to confirm that the absence of a formal requisite, such as a valid marriage license, renders the marriage void ab initio.
• Family Code, Article 35(3) — The specific provision declaring marriages solemnized without a license as void from the beginning, unless falling under the statutory exceptions.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 28 (Proof of lack of record) — The procedural rule invoked as the basis for the admissibility and probative value of the civil registrar's certification proving the non-existence of a record.
• Act No. 3753 (Civil Registry Law) and its Implementing Rules (Administrative Order No. 1-93) — Discussed extensively to detail the duties of the local civil registrar and the strict procedures for the application, issuance, and registration of marriage licenses, thereby supporting the conclusion that the absence of an application in the registry implies the absence of a validly issued license.