Sevilla vs. Cardenas

Certifications issued by the Local Civil Registrar to prove lack of marriage license must strictly comply with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by categorically stating that after diligent search, no record or entry of specified tenor exists; mere inability to locate records due to administrative reasons (e.g., retirement of custodian) without a showing of diligent search does not overcome the presumption of validity of marriage.

Parties married in civil rites on May 19, 1969, followed by a church wedding on May 31, 1969. Both ceremonies indicated Marriage License No. 2770792 allegedly issued in San Juan, Rizal. They lived together for several years, had two children, and separated in 1978. Petitioner obtained a divorce decree in the United States in 1983 and remarried in 1991. In 1994, he filed the instant petition for declaration of nullity, claiming he never applied for a marriage license and that the license number was fabricated.

• Filed in RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 94-1285) on March 28, 1994
• RTC Decision dated January 25, 2002: Declared marriage null and void for lack of marriage license
• Appealed to CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 74416)
• CA Decision dated December 20, 2004: Reversed RTC; upheld validity of marriage
• Motion for Reconsideration denied by CA on April 6, 2005
• Elevated to SC via Petition for Review on Certiorari

• Nature: Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under the Civil Code (marriage celebrated in 1969)
• Parties:
  • Petitioner: Jaime O. Sevilla (husband; medical student, later obtained US divorce and remarried in 1991)
  • Respondent: Carmelita N. Cardenas (wife; former model, lived with petitioner for years, had two children)
  • Marriage Contracts: Both civil (May 19, 1969, Manila City Hall) and church (May 31, 1969, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, Quezon City) ceremonies indicated Marriage License No. 2770792 allegedly issued in San Juan, Rizal on May 19, 1969
  • Cohabitation: Lived together from 1969 to 1978; had two sons (Jose Gabriel born 1970, second son born 1976); lived in Spain for petitioner's medical studies
• Evidence for Petitioner:
  • Certifications from Local Civil Registrar of San Juan dated March 11, 1994, September 20, 1994, and July 25, 2000 stating no Marriage License No. 2770792 was issued
  • Testimony of Perlita Mercader (Registration Officer III) that they "failed to locate the book wherein marriage license no. 2770792 is registered" because "the employee handling it is already retired"
  • Evidence for Respondent: Testimony that parties lived as husband and wife for 25 years; petitioner exhibited abnormal sexual behavior and drug addiction; petitioner's family prepared church wedding

• Marriage is void ab initio under Article 80(3) of the Civil Code for lack of essential requisite (marriage license)
• Certifications from Local Civil Registrar constitute adequate proof of non-issuance under Section 28, Rule 132 and Republic v. Court of Appeals
• Marriage License No. 2770792 is fictitious; he never applied for any license
• Presumption of regularity of official acts regarding issuance of marriage license is rebutted by affirmative evidence of non-issuance

• Presumption of validity of marriage (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio) applies; every intendment of law leans toward validity
• Certifications are defective because they fail to state that diligent search was conducted; mere inability to locate logbook due to retirement of custodian does not prove non-existence of license
• Parties lived as husband and wife for 25 years, producing children; petitioner is estopped from denying validity after long cohabitation and remarriage
• Public policy favors indissolubility of marriage bonds; courts should not reward petitioner's deceit and perfidy in obtaining freedom to remarry

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar sufficiently proved non-issuance of marriage license
  • Whether the presumption of regularity of official acts was overcome by the evidence presented
  • Whether the presumption of validity of marriage bars the declaration of nullity under the circumstances

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Insufficient Proof of Non-Issuance: The certifications did not comply with Section 28, Rule 132 because they failed to categorically state that despite diligent search, no record was found; instead, they indicated the office could not exert "full force" due to "loaded work" and the retirement of the custodian
  • Presumption of Regularity Not Overcome: The presumption of regularity of official acts (issuance of license) was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; the certifications themselves showed lack of diligent search, effectively defeating their purpose
  • Presumption of Validity Prevails: The presumption in favor of marriage (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio) requires that any doubt be resolved in favor of validity; the SC refused to grant petitioner his freedom where he had already remarried and would profit from his own wrongdoing

• Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — Every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity of marriage and the indissolubility of marriage bonds; persons deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. This presumption is of great weight and not to be lightly repelled.
• Presumption of Regularity of Official Acts — Under Section 3(m), Rule 131, official duty has been regularly performed is a disputable presumption that may be overcome only by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty; it prevails until overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence.
• Proof of Lack of Record (Section 28, Rule 132) — A written statement signed by the custodian of records must categorically state that after diligent search, no record or entry of specified tenor is found to exist; certifications indicating mere inability to locate records due to administrative reasons (retirement, heavy workload) without showing diligent search are insufficient to prove non-existence.
• Policy on Marriage and Family — The 1987 Constitution mandates protection and strengthening of the family; marriage is a social institution, not merely a contract; courts will not allow a party to profit from his own deceit in seeking nullity.

• "Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio" — Always presume marriage.
• "The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
• "The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite diligent search."
• "We are not ready to reward petitioner by declaring the nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy."
• "The rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds."

• People v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 106025) — Established that presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity, but requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome.
• Republic v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103047) — Held that certifications from civil registrars enjoy probative value only if they comply with Section 28, Rule 132; custodians must certify that despite diligent search, no record exists.
• Cariño v. Cariño (G.R. No. 132529) — Distinguished; held that certifications stating no record exists are adequate proof of non-issuance, but only where the certification shows diligent search was conducted.
• Bobis v. Bobis (391 Phil. 648) — Reiterated the presumption in favor of marriage validity.
• Ty v. Court of Appeals (399 Phil. 647) — Cited for the principle that courts will not allow a party to profit from his own wrongdoing.
• Vda. de Jacob v. Court of Appeals (371 Phil. 693) — Established that persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed lawfully married.

• Article 53, Civil Code — Essential requisites of marriage (includes marriage license)
• Article 58, Civil Code — Marriage license requirement; must be issued by local civil registrar where either party habitually resides
• Article 80(3), Civil Code — Marriages solemnized without license are void from the beginning (except marriages of exceptional character)
• Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed
• Section 28, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Proof of lack of record; requirements for certification by custodian of official records