Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Castro

A certification of "due search and inability to find" a marriage license record issued by the local civil registrar, when unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion, is admissible and sufficient evidence to prove the non-issuance of the license, rendering the marriage void ab initio.

Angelina M. Castro filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of her 1970 marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas, alleging that no marriage license was ever issued prior to its solemnization. The marriage, a civil ceremony performed by a city court judge, was initially kept secret from Castro's parents. Cardenas handled the documentary requirements, and the marriage contract indicated a specific license number purportedly issued in Pasig. The couple cohabited briefly before separating. Years later, while seeking to regularize her status, Castro discovered through her lawyer that the local civil registrar had no record of the indicated license.

• Nature of the Action: A petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Angelina M. Castro against Edwin F. Cardenas, with the Republic of the Philippines as petitioner before the Supreme Court challenging the appellate court's ruling.
• The Marriage and Alleged License: On June 24, 1970, Castro and Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony before Judge Pablo M. Malvar in Pasay City. The marriage contract stated that Marriage License No. 3196182 was issued on June 24, 1970, in Pasig, Metro Manila. Cardenas personally processed the documents.
• Subsequent Events and Discovery: The marriage was initially secret. The couple lived together briefly in 1971 after Castro became pregnant but separated after four months. Castro later consulted a lawyer, who discovered that the Civil Register of Pasig had no record of the indicated license.
• Evidence Presented: Castro presented (1) a certification from the Senior Civil Registry Officer of Pasig stating that License No. 3196182 "does not appear from our records," and (2) her own testimony that she never applied for or signed an application for a marriage license in Pasig.
• Lower Court Proceedings: Cardenas was declared in default. The RTC denied the petition, deeming the certification insufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the evidence sufficient to prove the absence of a license.

• Sufficiency of Certification: Petitioner Republic argued that the civil registrar's certification of inability to find the license record was inadequate to prove its non-issuance, as the inability to locate a record is not conclusive proof of its non-existence.
• Presumption of Regularity: Petitioner maintained that the appellate court disregarded the presumption that the solemnizing officer regularly performed his duties, as evidenced by his attestation in the marriage contract that the license was duly presented.
• Insufficiency of Uncorroborated Testimony: Petitioner faulted the appellate court for relying on the "self-serving and uncorroborated testimony" of private respondent Castro, arguing it was insufficient to overthrow the legal presumption of the marriage's validity.

• Evidentiary Weight of Certification: Respondent Castro countered that the certification from the local civil registrar, as the officer charged with keeping such records, sufficiently proved the non-issuance of the license under the Rules of Court.
• Lack of Collusion and Default of Spouse: Respondent argued that the absence of corroboration was due to the secretive nature of the marriage and the fact that her husband was declared in default; no evidence of collusion existed.
• Void Marriage for Lack of Essential Requisite: Respondent maintained that the absence of a marriage license, an essential requisite under the New Civil Code, rendered the marriage void ab initio.

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: Whether the certification from the local civil registrar of "due search and inability to find" the marriage license record, together with the testimony of one spouse, is sufficient evidence to prove the non-issuance of the license and nullify the marriage.
• Presumption of Validity: Whether the presumption of the validity of a marriage and the regularity of the solemnizing officer's acts prevails over the presented evidence of a missing license record.

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar, as the official custodian of such records, is admissible and sufficient evidence under Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court to prove that the office did not issue the indicated marriage license. The uncorroborated testimony of private respondent Castro was acceptable given the circumstances of a "secret marriage" and the default of her spouse, with no evidence of collusion.
• Presumption of Validity: The presumption of a marriage's validity was overcome by the affirmative evidence presented. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the solemnizing officer does not preclude proof that the attested license was, in fact, non-existent or spurious. The appellate court correctly found that the documentary and testimonial evidence sufficiently established the absence of the license.

• Proof of Lack of Record (Section 29, Rule 132, Rules of Court) — A written statement signed by the officer having custody of an official record, certifying that after diligent search no record of a specified tenor is found, is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such entry. The Court applied this rule to hold that the civil registrar's certification enjoys probative value and sufficiently proves the non-issuance of the marriage license.
• Marriage License as an Essential Requisite (Articles 53, 58, 80(3), New Civil Code) — No marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. The Court applied this provision to declare the marriage null and void.

• "The certification of 'due search and inability to find' issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license."
• "Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of 'due search and inability to find' sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties."
• "The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case."

• N/A (The decision does not explicitly cite prior jurisprudence, relying primarily on statutory provisions and the Rules of Court.)

• Section 29, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the admissibility of a written statement from a records custodian as proof of a lack of a record. Applied to admit the civil registrar's certification.
• Articles 53(4) and 58, New Civil Code — Establish marriage license as an essential requisite for a valid marriage.
• Article 80(3), New Civil Code — Provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void ab initio, unless falling under specific exceptions (not applicable here).
• Article 70, New Civil Code — Imposes the duty on local civil registrars to maintain a register book of marriage license applications and related data.

• Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa
• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla
• Justice Florenz D. Regalado
• Justice Jose A.R. Mendoza

• N/A (No dissenting opinion is recorded in the provided text.)