Liezl Joy M.

Mabansag
Civil Law Review Sat. 8-12

G.R. No. 187462, June 01, 2016 - RAQUEL G. KHO, Petitioner, v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA B. KHO, Respondents
Petition for review on certiorari challenging the decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals in holding that the marriage is valid despite the issue
with the absence of marriage license.

A valid marriage license is requisite to a marriage, the absence of which

renders the marriage void ab initio. 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.(1)

The marriage between Raquel Kho and Veronica was celebrated on June 1,
1972 so the law that applies is the Civil Code.

Article 53 of the Civil Code states that one of the 4 requirements in

solemnization of marriage is a marriage license (except in marriage of
exceptional character).

Article 58 of the Civil Code states that no marriage shall be solemnized

without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the
municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, save
marriages of an exceptional character authorized by the Civil Code, but
not those under Article 75 (marriage between 2 Filipinos abroad).

Article 80(3) of the Civil Code clearly provides that a marriage

solemnized without a license is void from the beginning, except
marriages of exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the same
Code.

Facts:

Raquel Kho filed a petition for annulment of his marriage to Veronica on the
ground that there is no valid marriage license at the time of the celebration
of the marriage. Veronica on the other hand alleged she and Raquel

1 Alcantara vs. Alcantara G.R. No. 167746 August 28, 2007

personally appeared before the local civil registrar and secured a marriage
license before their marriage was solemnized.

The RTC ruled that the marriage is void ab initio and granted Raquels
petition. Among the pieces of evidence presented by Raquel, the petitioner,
is a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern
Samar which attested that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has neither
record nor copy of a marriage license issued to petitioner and respondent
with respect to their marriage celebrated on June 1, 1972. It found that the
Certification of the local Civil Registrar together with the absence of marriage
license number on the marriage certificate presented by Raquel are enough
to establish the absence of the requisite marriage license. The RTC anchored
the ruling on Articles 53(4), 58 and 80(3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines
and stated that the absence of the said marriage license rendered the
marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio.

Veronica filed an appeal to the CA which reversed the RTCs decision. The
marriage was declared valid and subsisting. The CA held that since a
marriage was, in fact, solemnized between the contending parties, there is a
presumption that a marriage license was issued for that purpose and that
petitioner failed to overcome such presumption. The CA also ruled that the
absence of any indication in the marriage certificate that a marriage license
was issued is a mere defect in the formal requisites of the law which does not
invalidate the parties' marriage.

The motion for reconsideration filed by Raquel was denied by the CA. Raquel
filed a petition for review on certiorari to the SC challenging the decision and
resolution of the CA.

RULING:

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the case despite the case involving a
question of fact because of the conflicting findings of the RTC of Eastern
Samar and the Court of Appeals.

In Raquels petition to the CA one of the issues raised by him is whether or

not the CA erred when it ascribed a so called Ethical Dimension to his
cause disregarding documentary evidence of the lack of a marriage license
and giving weight to unsupported presumptions.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the CA and held that the
marriage is void from the beginning.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court cited several cases where in which
the certification of the local civil registrar as well as the lack of any entry on
the marriage certificate which will indicate that there is a marriage license
obtained were held sufficient proof that there was no valid marriage license
issued. Among the cases cited are the following: Cario vs. Cario, Republic
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Abbas vs Abbas

In Cario vs. Cario(2), a case decided in 2007, the Court considered the
marriage of Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santiago S. Carino as
void ab initio. According to the records, the marriage contract of Nicdao and
Cario bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil
Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such
marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local civil
registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license. Their
marriage having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license
and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license
requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly
void ab initio.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals(3), the Local Civil Registrar

issued a certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry to
the effect that a marriage license was issued to the parties. The Court held
that the certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry as to
the purported marriage license, 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. Based on said
certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that
would render the marriage void ab initio.

In addition to the cases cited, the 2013 case of Abbas v. Abbas(4) was also
cited, the court again followed the ruling in Republic vs. CA and held that the
Certification of the Local Civil Registrar is sufficient as proof that no marriage
license was issued to the parties. The court in the said case stated the

2 Susan Nicdao cario vs.Susan Yee Cario G.R. no. 132529. February 2, 2001

3 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 103047, September 2,

1994

4 Syed Azhar Abbas Vs.Gloria Goo Abbas G.R. No. 183896 January 30, 2013
following when the lack of categorical statement that indicates that a
diligent search was made was assailed :

Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is a disputable

presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed, absent
contradiction or other evidence to the contrary. "The presumption of
regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty." No such affirmative evidence
was shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her
duty of checking the records of their office, thus the presumption must
stand.

Based on the cases cited the court decided that 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(5).

In this Veronica claimed that she and Raquel obtained a marriage license yet
she failed to present evidence to prove it. She did not present the alleged
marriage license or a copy of it in court. In addition the certificate of
marriage issued by the officiating priest does not contain any entry regarding
the said marriage license. The court said that she could have obtained a
copy of their marriage contract from the National Archives and Records
Section where the information regarding the marriage license can be
obtained. The SC also mentioned that it is settled in the rule that one who
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not an
evidence.

As reiterated in the case of Abbas vs Abbas, the certification issued by the

municipal registrar attesting to the lack of records of the marriage license
enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Thus
unless the presumption is rebutted, which in this case wasnt, it becomes
conclusive.

Its been told time and again that the law is what the Supreme Court says it
to be. It was harsh on the part of Veronica but it is the law and the Supreme
Court applied it strictly in her case. The Supreme Court said that although
the motive of Raquel in petitioning for the annulment is not pure, that fact

5 Alcantara vs. Alcantara G.R. No. 167746 August 28, 2007

does not make up for the fact that there was failure on the part of Veronica
to prove that there is a valid marriage license.

The ethical considerations that Raquel raised in the Supreme Court which he
said was a factor in the Court of appeals ruling is something worthy of
consideration. It was alleged that Raquel has a mistress and that is the
reason why he wants the marriage annulled. In the case of Alcantara, the
marriage was held as valid despite the issue with the marriage license. It is
somewhat similar to this case because in the case of Alcantara, Restituto has
a mistress and has 3 illegitimate children with her. I would think that the
court in a way made some ethical considerations which also became a factor
in ruling on the validity of the Alcantara case. In that case the Supreme Court
stated the following: Under the principle that he who comes to court must
come with clean hands, petitioner cannot pretend that he was not
responsible or a party to the marriage celebration which he now insists took
place without the requisite marriage license. Petitioner knowingly and
voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and
voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his
action and be allowed to extricate himself from the marriage bond at his
mere say-so when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited
to his lifestyle.

It will be interesting to see how the so called ethical considerations in ruling

in annulment cases will evolve as time passes by.

Applicable law on marriage license:

Article 53 of the civil code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a
contract. It reads:

Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are
complied with:

(1) legal capacity of the contracting parties;

(2) their consent, freely given;
(3) authority of the person performing the marriage; and
(4) a marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.13

Marriages of exceptional character:

(1) Marriages in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or war;
(2) Marriages in remote places;
 (3) Consular marriages;
(4) Ratification of marital cohabitation;
(5) Religious ratification of a civil marriage;
(6) Mohammedan or pagan marriages; and
(7) Mixed marriages. Petitioners and respondents marriage does not fall
under any of these exceptions.

The issues involve a determination and application of law and jurisprudence

intertwined with a question of fact: whether or not a marriage license was
obtained by the parties prior to marriage. Despite the OSG arguing that the
issue involves a question of fact, the court took cognizance of the case due
to the conflicting findings of the RTC and CA.

The exceptions to the rule that Supreme Court shall not entertain questions
of fact:
1. When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises and conjectures;
2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
3. Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
6. When the court of appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee;
7. When the findings arc contrary to those of the trial court;
8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents;
1O. When the findings of fact of the court of appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on rccord.

Why marriage license is an essential requisite of marriage

In Nial vs. Bayadog, the court stated that the requirement and issuance of a
marriage license is the States demonstration of its involvement and participation in
every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested.