Kho vs. Republic of the Philippines

A certification from the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the absence of a marriage license in its records is adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license, thereby overcoming the presumption of validity of marriage and shifting the burden to the party alleging validity to prove that the license was secured. Failure to produce the license renders the marriage void ab initio.

Raquel G. Kho and Veronica B. Kho were married on June 1, 1972, in Arteche, Eastern Samar. Their marriage was celebrated prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, thus governed by the Civil Code. The dispute centers on whether their marriage was solemnized with the requisite marriage license, an essential requisite under Article 53 of the Civil Code.

Raquel G. Kho and Veronica B. Kho were married in a ceremony that took place before dawn on June 1, 1972, in Arteche, Eastern Samar. According to petitioner, the marriage was arranged hastily, with a clerk instructed to prepare the necessary papers on the afternoon of May 31, 1972. Petitioner claimed he never went to the Local Civil Registrar to apply for a marriage license and did not sign any documents for its procurement. He argued that given the shortness of the period, no marriage license could have been validly issued.

Years later, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the RTC, presenting a Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, which attested that the office had no record or copy of any marriage license issued to the parties for their June 1, 1972 marriage. Respondent countered that they had personally appeared before the local civil registrar and secured a marriage license, which they presented to the solemnizing officer.

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the evidence sufficiently established the absence of the requisite marriage license, rendering the marriage void ab initio under the Civil Code. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC, holding that the presumption that a marriage license was issued was not overcome. The CA also noted an "ethical dimension" regarding petitioner's motive, allegedly seeking to legitimize an illicit affair, and faulted petitioner for not attacking the marriage for 25 years. The CA deemed the absence of a marriage license entry in the marriage certificate a mere formal defect. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition.

• Credence to Documentary Evidence: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in disregarding his overwhelming documentary evidence of the lack of a marriage license, specifically the Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar, and instead giving weight to unsupported presumptions.
• Improper Ethical Considerations: Petitioner maintained that the CA erred in ascribing an "ethical dimension" to his cause and using his alleged motive for seeking nullity as a ground to reverse the lower court's judgment.
• Lapse of Time: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in appreciating against him the fact that he did nothing to attack his marriage for 25 years.
• Reversal of Lower Court Judgment: Petitioner contended that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC's judgment declaring the marriage a nullity for absence of a marriage license.

• Presumption of Validity: Respondent argued that there is a presumption that a marriage license was issued since a marriage was solemnized, and petitioner failed to overcome such presumption.
• Securing of License: Respondent claimed that both she and petitioner personally appeared before the local civil registrar and secured a marriage license which they presented before the marriage was solemnized.
• Mere Formal Defect: Respondent, supported by the OSG, contended that the absence of any indication in the marriage certificate that a marriage license was issued is a mere defect in the formal requisites which does not invalidate the marriage.

• Review of Factual Issues: Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual issue of the existence of a marriage license in a petition for review on certiorari.
• Sufficiency of Certification: Whether a certification from the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the absence of a marriage license is sufficient to prove the non-issuance of said license.
• Validity of Marriage: Whether the marriage is void ab initio for absence of a marriage license.

• Review of Factual Issues: Yes. The Court may review factual findings when the findings of the trial court and the appellate court are conflicting.
• Sufficiency of Certification: Yes. A certification from the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the absence of a marriage license in its records is adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license, overcoming the presumption of validity of marriage.
• Validity of Marriage: Yes. The marriage is void ab initio because the absence of a marriage license, an essential requisite under the Civil Code, was established, and the marriage does not fall under any exception.

• Review of Factual Issues: While a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is generally limited to questions of law, exceptions exist when the findings of fact of the lower courts are conflicting. Here, the RTC found the absence of a marriage license, while the CA found the presumption of its issuance was not overcome. This conflict warranted the Supreme Court's review of the factual findings.
• Sufficiency of Certification: The Court relied on Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which does not strictly require a categorical statement that a diligent search was conducted. A certification of due search and inability to find the record issued by the civil registrar enjoys probative value. Citing Nicdao Cariño vs. Yee Cariño and Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that such a certification is adequate to prove non-issuance. Once presented, the presumption of validity of the marriage is overcome, shifting the burden to the party alleging validity to prove the license was secured. Respondent failed to produce the license or a copy from the National Archives, and the marriage certificate contained no entry regarding the license.
• Validity of Marriage: The marriage was celebrated in 1972, prior to the Family Code, thus governed by the Civil Code. Article 53(4) requires a marriage license, and Article 80(3) declares marriages performed without a license void. The marriage did not fall under any exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79. The petitioner's motive for seeking nullity does not cure the absence of a valid marriage license. Since the essential requisite was absent, the marriage is void ab initio.

• Presumption of Validity of Marriage — Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. However, this presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, such as a certification from the Local Civil Registrar attesting to the absence of a marriage license. Once overcome, the burden shifts to the party alleging validity to prove that the marriage license was secured.
• Probative Value of Certification from Local Civil Registrar — A certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar, attesting to the absence of a marriage license in its records, is adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license. It enjoys probative value as the civil registrar is the officer charged with keeping records of marriage licenses. It need not categorically state that a "diligent search" was conducted, pursuant to Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• Exceptions to Rule 45 Factual Review — While the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition generally does not review factual issues, exceptions exist, including when the findings of fact of the lower courts are conflicting. In such cases, the Supreme Court may review the factual findings to resolve the conflict.

• "Apropos is the case of Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño. There, it was held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar, that their office had no record of a marriage license, was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license." — This passage states the ratio decidendi that a civil registrar's certification of no record is sufficient proof of non-issuance of a marriage license.
• "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 defines the evidentiary standard required to prove the absence of a marriage license for purposes of declaring a marriage void.
• "As to the motive of petitioner in seeking to annul his marriage to respondent, it may well be that his motives are less than pure - that he seeks a way out of his marriage to legitimize his alleged illicit affair with another woman. 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 law must be applied." — This passage emphasizes that the subjective motives of a party in seeking nullity cannot override the objective absence of an essential requisite of marriage.

• Nicdao Cariño vs. Yee Cariño, 403 Phil. 861 (2001) — Applied as controlling precedent holding that a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of no record of a marriage license is adequate to prove non-issuance, overcoming the presumption of validity and shifting the burden of proof.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994 — Followed to establish that a certification of due search and inability to find a record enjoys probative value even without a categorical statement of diligent search under Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• Sevilla vs. Cardenas, 529 Phil. 419 (2006) — Distinguished; the OSG argued it required a categorical statement of diligent search, but the Court applied the more lenient standard from Republic vs. CA and Abbas vs. Abbas.
• Abbas vs. Abbas, 702 Phil. 578 (2013) — Followed, reiterating that Section 28, Rule 132 does not require a categorical statement of diligent search and applying the disputable presumption of regular performance of official duty under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131.
• Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan, Jr., G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013 — Followed, reiterating the ruling in Nicdao Cariño regarding the sufficiency of the civil registrar's certification.

• Article 53, Civil Code of the Philippines — Enumerates the essential requisites of marriage, including a marriage license. Applied to determine that a license was necessary for the 1972 marriage.
• Article 58, Civil Code of the Philippines — States that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued, save marriages of exceptional character. Applied to emphasize the compulsory character of the license.
• Article 80(3), Civil Code of the Philippines — Declares a marriage performed without the corresponding marriage license void. Applied as the direct legal basis for declaring the marriage void ab initio.
• Section 28, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs proof of lack of record. Applied to hold that a certification of due search and inability to find a record is admissible and enjoys probative value even without a categorical statement of diligent search.
• Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed. Applied to uphold the probative value of the civil registrar's certification absent evidence of irregularity.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur. Brion, J., on leave.