Pascua vs. Republic

A negative certification proving the non-issuance of a marriage license must be issued by the Local Civil Registrar, who is the legal custodian of the Register of Applications for Marriage License and of duly accomplished sworn applications; a certification from the Municipal Treasurer, whose custody extends only to blank and unaccomplished accountable forms kept for inventory purposes, possesses no probative value on the matter.

Arthur V. Pascua and Shirley Bullos Pascua were married on February 8, 2005, at the Life Christian Fellowship Center in Caloocan City, with Rev. Saturnina V. Palero as solemnizing officer. Their Certificate of Marriage reflected Marriage License No. 5013850 allegedly issued on January 6, 2005 in Taytay, Rizal. Neither party resided in Taytay, Rizal. The marriage was celebrated on the same day as the marriage of Arthur's brother-in-law, Alexander Bullos, before the same solemnizing officer. The couple had two children and lived together for nine years before separating in 2014.

Arthur V. Pascua and Shirley Bullos Pascua were married on February 8, 2005, at the Life Christian Fellowship Center in Caloocan City, solemnized by Rev. Saturnina V. Palero. Their Certificate of Marriage reflected Marriage License No. 5013850 purportedly issued on January 6, 2005 in Taytay, Rizal. The marriage was arranged in haste, as Arthur's brother-in-law, Alexander Bullos, brought them to the same solemnizing officer on the day of Alexander's own marriage. Neither Arthur nor Shirley resided in Taytay, Rizal, which prompted Arthur to suspect the validity of the license's issuance.

The couple had two children and lived together as husband and wife for nine years. Sometime in 2014, they separated, allegedly because Shirley had engaged in an illicit affair. On March 30, 2017, Arthur filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC of Malabon City, asserting that the marriage was void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license under Article 3 in relation to Article 4 of the Family Code. Arthur testified that he visited the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Taytay, Rizal in early 2017 and discovered that it did not issue Marriage License No. 5013850 on January 6, 2005. He obtained a Certification dated March 8, 2017 from the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal, stating that Accountable Form No. 54 with Serial Number 5013850 dated January 6, 2005 — Marriage License — was not included in the series issued by the municipality.

During trial, the Certification was identified by Victorino E. Pangilinan, Jr., the authorized representative of the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal. Pangilinan, Jr. also identified several pages of the Marriage License Record Book (Logbook) of Accountable Form No. 54 kept in the Municipal Treasurer's Office, testifying that on pages 36 to 37, covering the period October 11, 2004 to August 22, 2006, there was no record of Accountable Form No. 54 with serial number 5013850 issued on January 6, 2005. Shirley failed to file an answer or present evidence despite service of summons and notices of hearings, and the case was submitted for decision after Arthur's presentation of evidence.

The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of evidence, ruling that the government officer responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses is the Local Civil Registrar, not the Municipal Treasurer, and that the latter had no authority to certify the issuance or non-issuance of marriage licenses. The CA affirmed this ruling in toto, agreeing that while the issuance of a marriage license requires payment of fees to the Municipal Treasurer, the duty to issue one and keep a record thereof remains with the Local Civil Registrar.

• Probative Value of the Certification: Petitioner maintained that the Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal has probative value because the Municipal Treasurer is vested by law to be the custodian of marriage license certificates or Accountable Form No. 54.
• Statutory Basis for Custodial Authority: Petitioner argued that the Municipal Treasurer's custodial authority is based on Article II, Section 470 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), in relation to Section 23(c) and Section 59(B)(l) of the Local Treasury Operations Manual (LTOM), which designate the Municipal Treasurer as custodian of all accountable forms requisitioned by the local government unit.
• Sufficiency of the Logbook: Petitioner contended that the relevant pages of the Logbook identified by Pangilinan, Jr. are sufficient to prove that the municipal government of Taytay, Rizal did not issue the marriage license in question.
• Referral by the Local Civil Registrar: Petitioner asserted that when he and his counsel inquired with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Taytay, Rizal about the existence of the marriage license, the Registrar repeatedly referred them to the Municipal Treasurer as the custodian of marriage licenses.

• Proper Certifying Officer: Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, insisted that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar — not the Municipal Treasurer — is the sufficient proof of the lack or absence of a marriage license.
• Blank Forms vs. Issued Licenses: The OSG pointed out that under the LTOM, Accountable Form No. 54 in the custody of the Municipal Treasurer refers to blank forms, not to duly accomplished marriage licenses that have been issued to applicants.
• Non-Compliance with Rule 132, Section 28: The OSG asserted that the Certification should be disregarded because it failed to comply with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which requires the authorized custodian to include in the certification that diligent efforts had been exerted to locate the specified documents from its records.

• Probative Value of the Certification: Whether the Certification of the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal possesses probative value and may serve as proof that no valid marriage license was issued to Arthur and Shirley before their marriage on February 8, 2005.
• Res Judicata: Whether the dismissal of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for lack of evidence bars the petitioner from refiling the same action.

• Probative Value of the Certification: No. The Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer possesses no probative value because the Municipal Treasurer is not the legal custodian of records of duly accomplished marriage licenses; that function belongs exclusively to the Local Civil Registrar under Articles 9 and 25 of the Family Code and Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
• Res Judicata: No. The dismissal for insufficiency of evidence does not constitute res judicata because the judgment did not contain a legal declaration on the parties' respective rights and liabilities and did not resolve the substantial issues; petitioner may refile the action.

• Probative Value of the Certification: Article 3 of the Family Code requires a valid marriage license as a formal requisite of marriage, and Article 4 renders the marriage void ab initio in the absence of such license. Under Article 9, the marriage license is issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, upon payment of the authorized fee to the treasurer. Article 25 mandates the Local Civil Registrar to enter all applications for marriage licenses in a registry book, recording the names of applicants, the date of issuance, and other necessary data. The marriage license and its application, as records required by law to be kept by the Local Civil Registrar, are official and public documents. Under Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, proof of the absence of an official record requires a written statement signed by the officer having custody of that record — or the officer's deputy — certifying that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist. The Local Civil Registrar is indisputably the custodian who must maintain the Register of Applications for Marriage License and record therein the data relative to the issuance of a marriage license; the absence of the proper entry in that Register necessarily implies the absence of a marriage license. The Certification in this case was issued by the Municipal Treasurer, who is not the custodian of the Register of Applications for Marriage License, sworn applications, or other data relative to the issuance of marriage licenses. The probative value of public documents and entries in official records flows from the presumption that the public officer regularly performed his or her duty as legal custodian; where the certifying officer is not the legal custodian, that presumption cannot arise. Petitioner's reliance on Article II, Section 470(e) of the Local Government Code and Sections 23(c) and 59(B)(l) of the LTOM was rejected because the Municipal Treasurer's custody over Accountable Form No. 54 extends only to blank and unaccomplished booklets of forms purchased from the Bureau of Internal Revenue and transferred to the Local Civil Registrar for the latter's use. The Logbook maintained by the Municipal Treasurer records only serial numbers of blank forms released in batches of 50 per entry, without the names of applicants or dates of actual issuance. The Municipal Treasurer's permanent record is maintained solely for inventory purposes — to track the quantity of forms received, issued, and remaining unused. The Certification therefore could not serve as reliable proof that no valid marriage license was issued. Petitioner could have availed of remedies to compel the participation of the Local Civil Registrar, such as a subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court and Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, or corroborated the existence or non-existence of the marriage license through the solemnizing officer, who is required to keep the original marriage license under Article 23 of the Family Code.

• Res Judicata: The doctrine of res judicata does not apply when there is no conclusive adjudication in the proceedings, as when the case is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. A judgment is considered rendered on the merits only when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts; where the judgment does not contain a legal declaration on the parties' respective rights and does not resolve the substantial issues, it does not constitute res judicata. In declaration of nullity cases, the petitioner aims to establish a status or fact — that the marriage is void. A void marriage is inexistent from the beginning, and a judicial decree is necessary only for purposes of remarriage under Article 40 of the Family Code. Any judgment in favor of the petitioner would merely serve as a judicial confirmation of the nullity. The dismissal for lack of evidence means only that the petitioner failed to prove his cause with adequate evidence; it does not convert a void marriage into a valid one. Accordingly, the petitioner may refile the action.

• Presumption of Validity of Marriage — Every intendment of the law leans toward the validity of marriage; any doubt should be resolved in favor of the marriage's existence and continuation, and against its dissolution and nullity. The Court applied this doctrine to underscore that the burden rests heavily on the petitioner to prove the nullity of marriage with clear and convincing evidence.

• Proof of Lack of Official Record (Rule 132, Section 28) — A written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record — or the officer's deputy — that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of the office, accompanied by a certificate as provided, is admissible as evidence that the office's records contain no such record or entry. The Court held that this provision requires the certifying officer to be the legal custodian of the relevant record; a certification issued by an officer who is not the legal custodian cannot be relied upon as adequate proof of the absence of a public record.

• Probative Value of Negative Certification by Legal Custodian — The probative value accorded to public documents and entries in official records flows from the presumption that the public officer concerned regularly performed his or her duty as legal custodian to prepare such public documents or make entries in public records. Where the certifying officer is not the legal custodian, the presumption of regular performance cannot arise, and the certification is devoid of probative value. The Court has repeatedly ruled that a certification by the Local Civil Registrar on the absence or non-issuance of a marriage license has probative value, as the absence of the proper entry in the Register of Applications for Marriage License necessarily implies the absence of a marriage license.

• Res Judicata Does Not Apply to Dismissal for Insufficiency of Evidence — Res judicata does not apply when there is no conclusive adjudication in the proceedings, as when the case is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. A judgment is considered on the merits only when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts; a dismissal for lack of evidence that does not resolve the substantial issues does not constitute res judicata, and the petitioner may refile the action.

• "Thus, to prove the absence or non-issuance of a valid marriage license, its custodian must issue the negative certification required by Rule 132, Section 28. Indisputably, the Local Civil Registrar is the custodian who must maintain the Register of Applications for Marriage License and to record in the said Register the necessary data relative to the issuance of a marriage license." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: only the Local Civil Registrar, as legal custodian, may issue a negative certification sufficient to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license.

• "In several cases where a certification as to a public record is issued by a government officer who is not its legal custodian, the Court refused to consider the document as proof of the facts therein stated." — This formulation defines the rule that a certification issued by a non-custodian lacks probative value, a principle frequently invoked in subsequent evidence jurisprudence.

• "Clearly, the supposed marriage licenses in the custody of the Municipal Treasurer pertain only to blank booklets of forms for marriage licenses, which have not yet been accomplished or signed by the Local Civil Registrar." — This passage clarifies the distinction between the Municipal Treasurer's custody over blank accountable forms and the Local Civil Registrar's custody over issued marriage licenses, resolving the statutory interpretation question at the heart of the case.

• "[A] judgment may be considered as one rendered on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections." — This formulation of the res judicata exception is commonly cited to explain why a dismissal for insufficiency of evidence does not bar refiling.

• Cariaga vs. Republic, 918-A Phil. 770 (2021) — Followed. Held that a certification by the Local Civil Registrar on the absence or non-issuance of a marriage license has probative value, and that the absence of the proper entry in the Register of Applications for Marriage License necessarily implies the absence of a marriage license.
• Kho vs. Republic of the Philippines, 786 Phil. 43 (2016) — Followed. Cited among cases establishing that the Local Civil Registrar's certification on the non-issuance of a marriage license is the proper proof.
• Abbas vs. Abbas, 702 Phil. 578 (2013) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the absence of a formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio.
• Cariño vs. Cariño, 403 Phil. 861 (2001) — Followed. Cited among cases recognizing the probative value of the Local Civil Registrar's certification.
• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 306 Phil. 284 (1994) — Followed. Cited among cases recognizing the probative value of the Local Civil Registrar's certification.
• Rivera vs. Woo Namsun, 916 Phil. 296 (2021) — Followed. Cited for the rule that a certification issued by a government officer who is not the legal custodian of the relevant record cannot be considered as proof of the facts stated therein.
• DCD Construction, Inc. vs. Republic, 672 Phil. 212 (2011) — Followed. Cited for the same rule regarding certifications by non-custodians.
• Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., 578 Phil. 441 (2008) — Followed. Cited for the same rule regarding certifications by non-custodians.
• Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals, 296 Phil. 356 (1993) — Discussed in the dissent. Recognized that accountable forms bearing serial numbers from the National Printing Office are distributed upon proper requisition by city/municipal treasurers; the dissent used this to argue that the Municipal Treasurer is competent to certify as to the existence or inexistence of a marriage license form.
• Superiora Locale Dell' Instituto Delle Suore Di San Giuseppe Def Caburlotto, Inc. vs. Republic, 923 Phil. 472 (2022) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that res judicata does not apply when there is no conclusive adjudication, as when the case is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
• David vs. Calilung, 894 Phil. 752 (2021) — Followed. Cited for the definition of a judgment on the merits.

• Article 3, Family Code — Enumerates the formal requisites of marriage, including a valid marriage license except in cases where the requirement is legally dispensed with. Applied to establish that a marriage license is indispensable for the validity of the marriage.
• Article 4, Family Code — Provides that the absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio. Applied to establish the consequence of the lack of a valid marriage license.
• Article 9, Family Code — States that a marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides. Applied to identify the Local Civil Registrar as the officer authorized to issue marriage licenses.
• Article 25, Family Code — Mandates the Local Civil Registrar to enter all applications for marriage licenses in a registry book, recording the names of applicants, the date of issuance, and other necessary data. Applied to establish the Local Civil Registrar as the legal custodian of marriage license records.
• Article 23, Family Code — Requires the solemnizing officer to retain the original of the marriage license in his or her file. Applied to identify an alternative source of proof of the existence or non-existence of the marriage license.
• Article 40, Family Code — Provides that a judicial declaration of nullity is necessary before a person may contract a subsequent marriage. Applied to explain that a judicial decree is not necessary to establish the nullity of a void marriage except for purposes of remarriage.
• Section 28, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Governs proof of lack of record, requiring a written statement signed by the officer having custody of an official record certifying that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found. Applied to determine the proper certifying officer for proving the non-issuance of a marriage license.
• Article II, Section 470, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Enumerates the powers and duties of the municipal treasurer, including a catch-all provision for other powers prescribed by law or ordinance. Petitioner invoked it to argue that the Municipal Treasurer is custodian of marriage licenses; the Court rejected this interpretation.
• Sections 23(c) and 59(B)(l), Local Treasury Operations Manual — Designate the local treasurer as custodian of all accountable forms requisitioned by the LGU and identify Accountable Form No. 54 (Marriage License Certificate) as an accountable form with money value. The Court interpreted these provisions as referring only to blank and unaccomplished forms, not to duly issued marriage licenses.
• Section 5, Judicial Affidavit Rule — Allows the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum when a government employee unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or produce documents. Applied to identify a remedy available to petitioner to compel the Local Civil Registrar's participation.
• Rule 21, Rules of Court — Governs subpoenas. Applied in conjunction with the Judicial Affidavit Rule as a remedy available to petitioner.

Gaerlan, J., and Dimaampao, J., concurred in the majority opinion.

• Caguioa, J. (Chairperson) — The dissent argued that the Petition should be granted and the marriage nullified, on the ground that Arthur proved there was no valid marriage license issued prior to his marriage. The dissent contended that the Municipal Treasurer, as legal custodian of all accountable forms bearing identified and specific serial numbers received by the LGU, is competent to certify as to the existence, receipt, and release of each marriage license form used and issued by the municipality. Relying on Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals, the dissent reasoned that only accountable forms originating from the Municipal Treasurer — bearing serial numbers duly requisitioned, inventoried, and recorded — can be said to have been officially issued by the LGU. If the Municipal Treasurer's records show that a form with a particular serial number was never received or released, that is competent and highly reliable proof of the non-existence of the corresponding marriage license. The dissent further proposed a hierarchy of certifications: where both the Municipal Treasurer and the Local Civil Registrar issue negative certifications, the latter's is merely corroborative; where both are positive, the Municipal Treasurer's is corroborative; and where the Municipal Treasurer's certification is negative but the Local Civil Registrar's is positive, the former carries greater weight. The dissent criticized the majority for conflating the Municipal Treasurer's inventory of blank forms with the question of whether a specific serial number was ever issued by the municipality, and faulted the majority for penalizing Arthur for the Local Civil Registrar's own referral of his inquiry to the Municipal Treasurer.