Formal Requisites – Marriage License
Alcantara vs. Alcantara The couple had two children and eventually parted ways.
G.R. No. 167746
August 28, 2007
Art. 3, FC.
The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2
of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of
not less than two witnesses of legal age.
Art. 9, FC.
A marriage license shall be issued by the local registrar of the city or
municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, except in
marriages where no license is required in accordance with Chapter 2 of this
Title.
Rule 130, Sec. 44, Rules of Court.
Entries in official records. – Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law, are
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
FACTS
A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by Restituto Alcantara
(petitioner) against Rosita Alcantara (respondent) alleging that, on December
8, 1982, he and respondent had paid a “fixer” in the Manila City Hall to
arrange their wedding before Rev. Aquilino Navarro. They were married on
the same day and went through another marriage ceremony four months
later. Petitioner claims that both were celebrated without a marriage license
and that the marriage license appearing on the marriage contract is a sham as
evidenced by the discrepancy between the license number in the certification
of the Civil Registrar (No. 7054133) and that which appears on the marriage
contract (No. 7054033).
Petitioner prays that marriage be declared void and marriage contract be
cancelled.
Respondent asserts validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a
marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of
the Civil Registry of Carmona (a location of which is neither party’s
habitual residence).
It is also worth noting that the petitioner has a mistress with whom he has
three children and that petitioner filed for annulment to evade prosecution for
concubinage. Respondent at this time has already filed a case for
concubinage against petitioner.
ISSUE
WON marriage is considered valid in light of alleged irregularities in
procurement of marriage license
HELD
YES. The CA held that the marriage license of the parties is presumed to
regularly issued and petitioner had not presented any evidence to overcome
the presumption. The parties’ marriage contract being a public document
is a prima facie proof of the questioned marriage under Section 44, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court.
To be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the
law requires that the absence of the marriage license 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.
The certification enjoys that presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done
in the regular conduct of official business.
That neither party’s habitual residence was not in Carmona, where the
license was issued, and the process for publication was not followed are mere
irregularities in a formal requisite that does not affect the validity of the
marriage. It is also not impossible to assume that the single digit discrepancy
between the license number in the certification and the contract is a mere
typographical error.
Formal Requisites – Marriage License
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.
The presumption is always in favour of the validity of the marriage.