Handbook For Solemnizing Officers in The PDF

1
OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL
Administrative Order No. 1

Series of 2007
Subject: IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

GOVERNING THE REGISTRATION OF AUTHOR-
ITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH THE CIV-
IL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BISHOPS, HEADS/
FOUNDERS OF RELIGIONS AND RELIGIOUS
SECTS, PRIESTS, RABBIS, IMAMS, RELIGIOUS
MINISTERS, TRIBAL HEADS/LEADERS/CHIEF-
TAINS, COMMUNITY ELDERS, AND OTHER DES-
IGNATED AUTHORITIES.
Pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the

Philippines which took effect on 3 August 1988, the following
rules and regulations governing the registration of authority
to solemnize marriage by bishops, heads of religions and
religious sects, priests, rabbis, imams and other religious
ministers and their registration with the Office of the
Civil Registrar General are hereby promulgated for the
information, guidance and compliance of all concerned.
Pertinent provisions of marriage laws governing Muslim
Filipinos and Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
Peoples (ICCs/IPs), under P.D. 1083 and R.A. 8371 respectively
are likewise incorporated in these rules.
RULE 1 — GENERAL PROVISION

The National Statistics Office (NSO) through the Civil
Registrar General (CRG) is the authority having technical control
and supervision on the civil registration in the Philippines.
The Administrator of the NSO, concurrently the CRG, is
vested with authority to issue rules and regulations in carrying out
1
2 HANDBOOK FOR SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS
IN THE PHILIPPINES
the provisions of Act 3753 (entitled: “An Act to Establish a Civil

Register”) and other laws on civil registration including those on
the registration of the authority to solemnize marriages.
Prior to the enactment of Civil Registry Law on February 27,
1931, the system of civil registration was purely a local government
affair. Section 2 of said Act provides, among others that “The
Director of the National Library shall be the Civil Registrar General
and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. Thus, the system
became centralized because all rules and regulations pertaining
to civil registration emanates from the CRG”.
When Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted on August
19, 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library
was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now
NSO). Section 2 (f) of this law mandated the NSO to carry out and
administer the provisions of Act 3753.
On August 3, 1988, with the enactment of the Executive Order
No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines,
the function of registering the authority of priests or ministers of
any church and religious sect to solemnize marriage is vested
upon the Office of the Civil Registrar General [Art. 7 (2)].
NOTE:
It is important to know the new provisions contained in A.O.
No.1 S.2007 since it is a deviation from OCRG Administrative Order
No.1, of 17 October 1988. It is a welcome innovation, for it provides
a concrete premise on the relation of the Office of the Civil Registrar
General of the National Statistics Office (NSO) vis-à-vis functions
of Solemnizing Officers as embodied in the Family Code of the
Philippines.
RULE 2 — CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Unless otherwise given another meaning elsewhere in these
rules, each of these terms shall mean and be understood in
accordance with the following working concepts and definitions:
NOTE:
Concepts and definitions are paramount in understanding the
meaning, roles and functions of stakeholders which are repeatedly
discussed and mentioned in the succeeding provisions of the herein
Administrative Order.
OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL 3
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007
2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG)

The head of the NSO which is the national agency
mandated to carry out and administer the provisions of Act
No. 3753 and other laws on civil registration.
NOTE:
To know the role of Civil Registrar General (CRG) better, it is
necessary to look into its historical background, legal basis, functions
and duties and powers which are presented below.
Historical Background
The Civil Registrar General (CRG) is the same person as the
Administrator of the National Statistics Office (NSO). Prior to 27
February 1931, there was no CRG, as the system of civil registration
was purely local government affairs. It was only when Act No. 3753
took effect on 27 February 1931 that the system was centralized with
the Director of the National Library being designated as the Civil
Registrar General. Section 2 of Act No. 3753 provides among others
that “The Director of the National Library shall be Civil Registrar
General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act.”
However, when Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted
on 19 August 1940, the civil registration function of the National
Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics
(now, NSO). Section 2(f) of this law provides that one of the powers,
functions and duties of the Bureau of the Census and Statistics is “to
carry out and administer the provisions of Act No. 3753, entitled An
Act to Establish a Civil Register.” (Manual of Instructions, R.A. No.
9048 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations, pp. 6-7).
Likewise, The Civil Registry Law Act No. 3753 “An Act to
Establish a Civil Register” Sec. 2. Civil Registrar General: His
Duties and Powers. The Director of the National Library (now NSO
Administrator) shall be Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the
provisions of this Act. The (Director of the National Library), in his
capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare
and issue, with the approval of the (Secretary of Justice) (now
under the Director-General, National Economic and Development
Authority), regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and
to prepare and order printed the necessary forms for its compliance.
In the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the
Director of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) shall
IN THE PHILIPPINES
have the power to give orders and instructions to the local civil
registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such.
It shall be the duty of the Director of the National Library (now
NSO Administrator) to report any violation of the provisions of this
Act and all irregularities, negligence or incompetence of the part
of the officers designated as local civil registrars to the Chief of
the Executive Bureau or the Director of the Non-Christian Tribes
(now Department of Interior and Local Government or National
Commission on Indigenous People), as the case may be, who shall
take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders. (Manual of
Instructions, Unregistered Child Project 1, p. 52).
The Civil Registrar General shall have the technical control
and supervision on civil registrars and officials mentioned in Rule
3 (1). In the exercise of this technical and supervisory function, the
Civil Registrar General shall have the power to declare ultra vires
any act of civil registrars inconsistent with the prescribed standards,
criteria and procedures mentioned in this implementing rules and
regulations and other pertinent laws on civil registration. (Rule 4,
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993).
LEGAL BASIS GOVERNING REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY

OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
WITH OCRG
Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines states “Any
priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect and
registered with the civil registrar general, (underscoring ours) acting
within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church
or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting
parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious sect.”
Civil Code of the Philippines Art. 92. Every priest, or minister,
or rabbi authorized by his denomination, church, sect, or religion
to solemnize marriage shall send to the proper government office a
sworn statement setting forth his full name and domicile, and that
he is authorized by his denomination, church, sect or religion to
solemnize marriage, attaching to said statement a certified copy of
his appointment. The director of the proper government office, upon
receiving such sworn statement containing the information required,
and being satisfied that the denomination, church, sect, or religion
of the applicant operates in the Philippines, shall record the name
of such priest or minister in a suitable register and issue to him
an authorization to solemnize marriage. Said priest or minister or

rabbi shall be obliged to exhibit his authorization to the contracting
parties, to their parents, grandparents, guardians, or person in
charge demanding the same. No priest or minister not having the
required authorization may solemnize marriage. (Amended by
Article 7(2) of the Family Code of the Philippines).
The “proper government office” referred to in Art. 92 is the
Bureau of Public Libraries, formerly the Philippine National
Library, (now Office of the Civil Registrar General, Art. 7(2) of
the Family Code), which under Section 34 of Act 3613 discharged
the duties of issuing authorizations to priests and ministers to
solemnize marriage. The second paragraph of Section 34 which
reads: “The authorization shall be renewable on or before the first
of May of each year, upon payment of the required fee,” is not
found in Article 92. The provision was deleted because, as the
authority of the solemnizing officer is now an essential requisite
of marriage (Art. 53), it was feared that many marriages might be
held void due to the negligence or oversight of priests, ministers or
rabbis to renew their authorization on time (1 Capistrano, Civil
Code p. 108). However, the provisions on renewal are retained in
Section 10 of the regulations promulgated in 1951 by the Director of
Public Libraries.
MEMORANDUM RE LEGAL BASIS OF CRG’S DIRECTION AND

SUPERVISION OVER CITY/MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRARS
Issues:
1. Whether or not the power to direct and supervise the
City/Municipal Civil Registrars in the country by the
Civil Registrar General has been removed by Section 479
of the Local Government Code?
2. Whether or not City/Municipal Civil Registrars can still
perform their duties to administer oath?
IN THE PHILIPPINES
21 June 2001
MEMORANDUM
To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars
Subject : C/MCRS ARE UNDER THE DIRECTION AND
SUPERVISION OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR
GENERAL, AND C/MCRS ARE AUTHORIZED
TO ADMINISTER OATHS (DOJ Opinion No. 26,
Series of 2001)
Attached is a copy of Opinion No. 26, S. 2001 which was issued

by the Secretary of Justice on 17 May 2001. Here are the salient
points from this opinion:
1. The Local Government Code of 1999 did not amend or
repeal Section 2 of Act No. 3753 pertaining to the powers
and duties of the Civil Registrar General. The Civil
Registrar General continues to exercise the power of
“direction and supervision” over the City/Municipal Civil
Registrars. The Secretary of Justice defined “supervision”
as overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to
see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the
latter fails or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take
such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them
perform these duties. On the other hand, “direction” was
defined as an instruction or series of instructions for
doing something; a command; authoritative instruction;
information as to the method, route, etc; and in another
sense, it is nearly synonymous with instruction.
2. The power of City/Municipal Civil Registrars to administer
oath as provided in Section 12(g) of Act No. 3753 still
exists. This power is sufficiently within the purview of the
general clause in Section 479 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 which states that the civil registrar shall
“Exercise such other powers and perform such other
duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or
ordinance”. However, as stated in the Civil Registry Law,
the power of local civil registrars to administer oath shall
be limited to civil registry matters and the same must be
free of charge.
(SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTA

OIC-Civil Registrar General
DOJ OPINION RE AUTHORITY OF OCRG OVER LCRs AND THE

LCR’s DUTY TO ADMINISTER OATH
OPINION NO. 26 S. 2001
May 17, 2001

Administrator Tomas P. Africa
Civil Registrar General
National Statistics Office
EDSA corner Times St.
West Triangle, Quezon City 1104
S i r:
Subject of herein request for opinion are the following queries,
to wit:
1. Whether or not the power to control and supervise local
civil registry offices in the country by the Civil Registrar
General has been removed by Section 479 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991. In connection therewith, are City/Municipal
Registrars no longer under the control and supervision of
the Civil Registrar General; and
2. Whether or not the City/Municipal Civil Registrars can
still perform their duty to administer oath.
The first query, it appears, was precipitated by the view
expressed by some quarters that Section 479 of the Local Government
Code of 1991, which defines the “Qualifications, Powers and Duties”
of the local civil registrar, repealed Act No. 3753, otherwise known
as the Civil Registry Law of the Philippines.
It is the contention of that Office, however, that Section 479 of
the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed only Section 12 of the
Civil Registry Law which pertains to the duties of local civil registrars
and not Section 2 which pertains to the powers and duties of the
Civil Registrar General. It is stated that if it were true that the Civil
Registrar General has no more power to control and supervise local
civil registry offices, there would be chaos in the implementation of
the laws on civil registration as there would be no more single and
higher authority to give uniform orders and instructions to them,
and to enforce the provisions of the Civil Registry Law; that in such
IN THE PHILIPPINES
a case, the 1,607 City/Municipal Registrars would be having his or

her own rules and regulations governing civil registration in his or
her local government units, thereby creating the possibility, that one
vital event may not be acceptable for registration in one municipality,
but a similar vital event can be registered in another municipality.
It is the belief of the Office that removing or diminishing the power
of the Civil Registrar General “to control and supervise” local civil
registry offices were never intended by Congress in enacting the
Local Government Code of 1991.
The second query, on the other hand, was raised in view of the
absence of an expressed provision in the Local Government Code
of 1991 allowing local civil registrars to administer oath. It is the
position of that Office, however, that local civil registrars can still
administer oath based on the provisions of the Family Code which
expressly or impliedly give such authority to them. Cited in particular
is Article 24 which expressly authorizes the local civil registrar to
administer oath to all interested parties mentioned therein.
The crux of the first query lies on whether the Civil Registrar
General exercises supervision and control over local civil registrars.
We answer in the negative. Section 479 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 did not remove the power “to control and supervise
local civil registry offices’’ from the Civil Registrar General, because
there was nothing to remove in the first place.
Obviously, the first query reflects a misreading or misappre-
hension of Act No. 3753 entitled “An Act to Establish a Civil
Register”. It must be stressed that even under the said Act, the Civil
Registrar General has only “direction and supervision” over local
civil registrars and not “control and supervision” as claimed. The
Civil Registry Law, as amended, is clear and categorical:
Section 2 — Civil Registrar General: His duties and powers. —
The Administrator of the National Statistics Office shall be the Civil
Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The
Administrator of the National Statistics Office, in his capacity as
Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue
regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and to prepare
and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance.
Administrator of the National Statistics Office shall have the power
to give orders and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with
reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be the
duty of the Administrator of the National Statistics Office to report

any violation of the provisions of this Act and all irregularities,
negligence or in competency of the city/municipal civil registrars to
the City or Municipal Mayors, as the case may be, who shall take the
proper disciplinary action against the offenders.
SECTION 3 — City/Municipal Civil Registrars — The City/
Municipal Civil Registrar appointed by the City/Municipal Mayor
shall be under the direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar
General.” (Emphasis supplied)
The power of “control and supervision” is not the same as the
power of “direction and supervision”, which is the power expressly
granted by the Civil Registry Law (see Sec. 3, supra.) to the Civil
Registrar General over the City/Municipal Civil Registrars.
“Supervision and control” means and shall include authority
to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or
regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain
the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and
decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the
execution of plans and program; and prescribe standards, guidelines,
plans and programs (Section 38[1] Chapter 7, Book IV, E.O. No. 292,
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987.
“Supervision”, on the other hand, as defined in the case of
Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 (1955), means overseeing or the
power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers
perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them,
the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to
make them perform these duties, while “direction” is an instruction
or series of instructions for doing something; a command (Webster’s
New Dictionary and Roget’s Thesaurus); authoritative instruction;
information as to the method, route, etc. (Webster’s New International
Dictionary [Second Edition]; and in another sense, it is nearly
synonymous with instruction (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).
Applying the afore quoted definitions to the instant case, the
Civil Registrar General cannot modify, reverse or annul the acts and
decisions of the city or municipal civil registrars for that would be an
exercise of the power of control which he does not possess. What he
can only do is to see to it that the city or municipal civil registrars
perform their duties in accordance with existing laws, rules and
regulations on civil registration. And this is completely in line with
the powers expressly granted to the Civil Registrar General under
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Section 2 of the Civil Registry Law, which is the “power to give orders
and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with reference to
the performance of their duties as such” and “to report any violation
and all irregularities, negligence or in competency of the City/
Municipal registrars to the City/Municipal Mayors who shall take
the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.” To stress, it is
the city or municipal mayor concerned, acting upon the report of the
Civil Registrar General, who shall take disciplinary action against
any local civil registrar found to have violated the provisions of the
Civil Registry Law. (See Sec. 2, Act 3753, as amended).
In any case, Act No. 3753, as amended, a special law, is not
among the laws expressly and explicitly repealed by Section 534 of
the Local Government Code of 1991, a general law. This can only
mean that there was no such intent on the part of the legislature
to abrogate the power of direction and supervision of the Civil
Registrar General over local civil registrars in the country. For if
repeal of particular or specific law or laws is intended, the proper
step is to so express it. (Agujetas vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA
17) Neither is there an implied repeal. It is a well-settled rule of
statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not
favored (Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction [Third Edition],
p. 322, citing Valdez vs. Tuason, 40 Phil. 943 [1920]; Phil. American
Management Co., Inc. vs. Phil. American Management Employees
Assn., 49 SCRA 194 [1973]; Villegas vs. Subido, 41 SCRA 190
[1971]; De Jesus vs. People, 120 SCRA 760 [1983]). The presumption
against implied repeal is stronger when, of two laws, one is special,
and the other general, as obtaining in the instant case; and this rule
applies even though the terms of the general act are broad enough
to include the matter covered by the special statute (Ibid., citing
Manila Railroad Co vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 224 [1919]; Commissioner
of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487 [1992]).
Anent the second query, we believe that the power of local civil
registrars to administer oath as provided in Section 12(g) of the Civil
Registry law still exists. Section 12(g) provides:
SECTION 12 — Duties of local civil registrars — Local Civil
Registrars shall x x x (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil
register purposes.”
The power of local civil registrars to administer oath under the
afore quoted provision is sufficient within the purview of the general
clause in Section 479 of the Local Government of 1991 which states
that the local civil registrar shall “exercise such other powers and
perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law
or ordinance” (see par [3]). However, as stated in the Civil Registry
Law (see Sec. 12 (g), supra., the power of local civil registrars to
administer oath shall be limited to civil registry matters and the
same must be free of charge.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) HERNANDO B. PEREZ

Secretary
DOJ OPINION RE THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL TO FILE

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRARS
Opinion No. 128 S. 1979
The Civil Registrar General as head of office or agency may,
pursuant to Section 38 of P.D. No. 807 (The Civil Service Decree),
initiate, motu proprio and even without the complaint of a third
party, administrative proceedings against the Local Civil Registrar
who has been a party to a violation of Art. 66 of the Civil Code, a
provision of law in which he has the duty to implement. The basis
of this is the inherent right of the head of a department, office or
agency to discipline his subordinates. (Decision, Civil Service Board
of Appeals. In Re: Administrative Case vs. Filomeno L. Pacis,
respondent-appellant, 58 O.G. No. 26, pp. 4726-4727).
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON A MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE

PART OF OCRG TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATION TO SOLEMNIZE
MARRIAGES TO SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS PENDING COURT
DECISION
Mons. Juan Jamias, petitioner vs. Eulogio B. Rodriguez, Director of
Public Libraries, And Manuel V. Gallego, Secretary of Education,
respondents.
Isidoro A. Vera for petitioner.
Assistant Solicitor-General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. for respondents.
Claro M. Recto and Jose Nava for intervenor I. de los Reyes.
Ferdinand E. Marcos as amicus curiae.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
SYLLABUS
MANDAMUS; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES; MINISTE-

RIAL DUTY TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATIONS TO SOLEMNIZE MAR-
RIAGES; CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO FACTIONS OF PHILIPPINE
INDEPENDENT CHURCH; PENDENCY OF JUDICIAL DECISION;
CASE AT BAR. — There is nothing of record to show that the
Philippine Independent Church or its faction headed by Bishop J.
J. does not fulfill the “good repute” condition obligating respondent
director, under section 34 of Act No. 3613, to issue the authorization
to solemnize marriages, or that said church or faction has lost said
qualification as a result of which, according to section 35 of the
same law, the authorization may be cancelled. The second ground
provided by same section 35 cannot be considered in this case
because the conflict between the two factions in said church involving
the question as to who are the lawful authorities of said church is
yet to be settled in the pending litigation before the Court of First
Instance of Manila. There is no allegation or pretense to the effect
that the bishops and priests of the faction headed by petitioner have
disqualified themselves from continuing to solemnize marriages.
Held, That until the pending litigation as to who is who within the
Philippine Independent Church is finally decided, the respondent
Director of Public Libraries has a ministerial duty to issue
authorization to solemnize marriages to the bishops and priests
of the group headed by Bishop J. J. as bishops and priests of the
Philippine Independent Church.
DECISION
PERFECTO, J p:
Alleging to be the Bishop Maximus of the Philippine Independent
Church, petitioner seeks a peremptory order to compel respondents,
the Director of the Bureau of Public Libraries and the Secretary
of Education, to immediately issue to Bishops Leopoldo A. Ruiz
and Juan T. Kijano, of said church, authorizations to solemnize
marriages. It is alleged that on January 11, 1948, petitioner, as duly
elected Bishop Maximus of said church, filed with the respondent
Director of Public Libraries an application for removal of the
authority to solemnize marriages issued in favor of Bishop Leopoldo
A. Ruiz, which authority, as granted by said respondent expired
on April 30, 1948, said application having been accomplished as
required by law and accompanied by a tender of payment of the

legal fee. It is also alleged that sometime prior to January 11,
1948, Bishop Juan T. Kijano was duly authorized by respondent
Director of Public Libraries to solemnize marriages as a bishop of
the Philippine Independent Church, which authority, however, was
later withdrawn or cancelled when said bishop refused to recognize
Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., as the supreme head of the church. On
January 11, 1948, petitioner filed an application for authority to
solemnize marriages for Bishop Juan T. Kijano.
On January 22, 1948, respondent Director of Public Libraries turned
over to petitioner a letter stating that renewal of the authorization
to solemnize marriages in favor of Bishop Leopoldo A. Ruiz “may be
granted provided that Mons. Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. is recognized as
Supreme Head of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, in accordance
with the administrative decision of the Secretary of Education of
June 23, 1947 . . . it must be shown in the application of Mons.
Kijano that he recognizes Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as the Supreme
Head of the Church.”
The administrative decision of respondent Secretary of Education
dated June 23, 1947, provides that Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., “is
hereby recognized, for administrative purposes, as the sole Head of
the said religious organization. Applications of priests of the Iglesia
Filipina Independiente for permits to solemnize marriages may
be granted provided that it is shown thereon that they recognize
Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as the Obispo Maximo of the Church they
represent.”
On July 12, 1947, the Secretary of Education addressed to respondent
Director of Public Libraries a memorandum to the effect that the
authorization given to the bishops and priests of the Iglesia Filipina
Independiente under Juan Jamias, was a misinterpretation of the
ruling of the Department dated June 23, 1947, but it appearing that
the permits were already renewed since May, 1947, said permits
are declared valid up to May 1, 1948. Petitioner complains that
respondent Secretary of Education, in recognizing Isabelo de los
Reyes, Jr., as the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent
Church, has gravely abused his power and has committed a clear case
of contempt of court, the question as to who is the Bishop Maximus
or Supreme Head of the church being the subject of litigation in
civil case No. 72138 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
entitled “Iglesia Filipina Independiente, et al. versus Santiago A.
Fonacier.” Petitioner complains also that respondents are guilty of
IN THE PHILIPPINES
downright discrimination in favor of the faction headed by Isabelo

de los Reyes, Jr., and against the faction headed by petitioner, for
while authorization to solemnize marriages is allowed to Isabelo
de los Reyes, Jr. faction, the same is denied to those of petitioner
and, furthermore, that the action of the Secretary of Education is
a flagrant violation of the following constitutional provision that
guarantees freedom of religion:
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and
enjoyment of religion profession and worship, without discrimination
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” (Sec. 1, Cl. 7, Art.
III of the Constitution).
Petitioner alleges also that respondents’ action is contrary to a legal
opinion of the Department of Justice dated June 3, 1946, where it
is stated:
“As a matter of principle, and in order to avoid conflicts of decisions,
officers pertaining to the executive department refrain from deciding
questions pending decision before the courts of justice. Adhering
to this principle, and following well-established precedents, the
Department of Justice has consistently declined to render opinion on
questions which are subjudice. Similarly, it would seem advisable,
therefore, that the Department of Instruction refrain from passing
upon the question referred to in the first endorsement thereon.”
The present case is one of the aftermaths of a schism within the
Philippine Independent Church, where the members have been
divided into two opposing groups, one formerly headed by Bishop
Santiago A. Fonacier, who is now substituted by petitioner Bishop
Juan Jamias, and the other headed by Bishop Gerardo P. Bayaca,
now substituted by Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr.
The former charges the members of the second with having merged
themselves with the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United
States of America and having abandoned the teachings, tenets,
and rituals of the Philippine Independent Church as originally
founded by Bishop Gregorio Aglipay. The members of the second
group deny that they have joined the Protestant Episcopal Church
and allege that the granting of apostolic succession by the Episcopal
Church of America to the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, through
the reconsecration of its bishops, does not mean the absorption
of the said Iglesia Filipina Independiente by, or its merger with,
the said Episcopal Church and, as alleged by respondents, Bishop

Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. and his faction have neither seceded from
the Iglesia Filipina Independiente nor effected a fusion with the
American Episcopal Church “the truth on the matter, as disclosed
by the records in the office of the Director of Public Libraries,
being that the negotiations and/or agreement had between the two
religious groups were for the purpose of securing the reconsecration
of the Bishops of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente by those of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in order to erase any doubt in the
validity of the consecration and ordination of the bishops and priests
of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, but in no way to incorporate
or fuse, much less to subordinate the Iglesia Filipina Independiente
to the American Episcopal Church. “We are not concerned here with
the above controversy between the two groups. That controversy,
especially the question as to who is the legitimate Supreme Head
of the Philippine Independent Church and is entitled to represent
it, is directly raised in civil case No. 72138 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila. To elide the contrary allegation of respondents,
it is enough to peruse the complaint, the amended complaint and the
answer in said case. Said pleadings will show that the controversies
in the case hinge on the question as to who should be recognized as
the Bishop Maximus of the Philippine Independent Church.
The question that we have to decide is whether respondents, pending
final decision of the suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila,
can refuse to issue in favor of the bishops and priests headed by
the petitioner Juan Jamias the authorization provided by law to
solemnize marriages.
The pertinent legal provisions are those of sections 34 and 35 of Act
No. 3613, which read as follows:
“SEC. 34. Authorization of priests and ministers. — Every priest
or minister authorized by his church, sect, or religion to solemnize
marriage shall send to the Philippine National Library a sworn
statement setting forth his full name and domicile, and that he is
authorized by his church, sect, or religion to solemnize marriage,
attaching to said statement a certified copy of his appointment. The
director of the Philippine National Library, upon receiving such
sworn statement containing the information required, and being
satisfied that the church, sect, or religion of the applicant operates
in the Philippine Islands and is in good repute, shall record the
name of such priest or minister in a suitable register and issue to
him an authorization to solemnize marriage. Said priest or minister
IN THE PHILIPPINES
shall be obliged to exhibit his authorization to contracting parties,

to their parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons in charge of
demanding the same. No priest or minister not having the required
authorization may solemnize marriage. “The authorization shall be
renewed on or before the first day of May of each year, upon payment
of the required fee.
“SEC. 35. Cancellation of authorization. — The Director of the
Philippine National Library shall cancel the authorization issued
to a bishop, chief, priest, pastor or minister of the gospel of any
denomination, church, sect, or religion, on his own initiative or at
the request of any interested party, upon showing that the church,
sect, or religion whose ministers have been authorized to solemnize
marriage is no longer of good repute. The cancellation of the
authorization granted to a priest, pastor, or minister shall likewise
be ordered upon the request of the bishop, chief, or lawful authorities
of the church, sect, or religion to which he belongs.”
There is nothing of record to show that the Philippine Independent
Church or its faction headed by Bishop Juan Jamias does not fulfill
the “good repute” condition obligating respondent Director, under
section 34 of Act No. 3613, to issue the authorization to solemnize
marriages, or that said church or faction has lost said qualification
as a result of which, according to section 35 of the same law, the
authorization may be cancelled. The second ground provided by same
section 35 cannot be considered in this case because the question as
to who are the lawful authorities of said church is yet to be settled in
the pending litigation before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
There is no allegation or pretense to the effect that the bishops
and priests of the faction headed by petitioner have disqualified
themselves from continuing to solemnize marriages. The conflict
between the two factions, until finally decided by the competent
court, cannot have the effect of automatically divesting the members
of one group or the other of their legal rights as bishops and priests
of the Philippine Independent Church. Until the litigation is
finally decided, both groups are entitled to represent themselves
as members of the same church to which they belonged before
the conflict has arisen. The question as to who is who within the
Philippine Independent Church is undoubtedly a judicial question
and both parties have agreed to settle that question in the proper
court. Respondents have misstepped their official function when,
without waiting for the competent judicial decision on the question,
they have decided to recognize Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as
the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, thereby

materially effecting the ouster of the bishops and priests of the
faction headed by Bishop Juan Jamias. There is no provision of law
that authorizes respondents to make such decision and much less to
steal the show from the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Until the pending litigation is finally decided, respondent Director
of Public Libraries has a ministerial duty to issue authorization to
solemnize marriages to the bishops and priests of the group headed
by Bishop Juan Jamias as bishops and priests of the Philippine
Independent Church. The followers of said faction, in the meantime,
should not be deprived of the means of satisfying one of their
fundamental necessities, that their marriages be solemnized by
bishops and priests they recognize as true representatives of their
religion in whom they have faith. To compel them against their
conviction to have their marriages solemnized by the bishops and
priests of the opposing faction or of other religions is to violate their
freedom of worship. There is a strong reason of public policy why
the bishops and priests under petitioner Juan Jamias should be
granted immediately the corresponding authorizations to solemnize
marriages. The members of said religious group who want to be
married should not be kept waiting for an indefinite period pending
final decision of the litigation. All inducements for concubinage and
illicit relationship should be avoided. It is not easy to keep under
control for a long time natural impulses, such as the sexual urge.
The orders of respondent Secretary of Education dated June 23 and
July 12, 1947, are set aside and, as prayed for, respondent Director
of Public Libraries is ordered to issue to Bishops Leopoldo A. Ruiz
and Juan I. Kijano the corresponding authorizations to continue
solemnizing marriages, without costs. Considering the urgent
nature of the case, this decision shall be immediately executory
upon promulgation.
Feria, Pablo, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.
Paras, Actg. C.J., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
BENGZON, J., concurring:

In agreeing to the decision, I do not wish to be understood as denying
to the administrative authorities their duty and power to determine
in the first instance the reputation and standing of the sect or church
IN THE PHILIPPINES
of the minister requesting for authorization to solemnize marriages.

Such power must be acknowledged; and their determination must
be accorded all the presumptions of correctness to which executive
rulings are entitled. But in this particular case, the error is so patent
and the need for appropriate remedy so urgent that nothing less
than mandamus will do. Let it be issued.
Rule 2.2 Solemnizing Officer (SO)

An officer vested with the authority to solemnize or
officiate the marriage of a man and a woman in accordance
with law or with the rites, practices, and ceremonies as
prescribed or granted by their religion/religious sect or tribe
or ethnic aggrupation.
These include:
a. Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the
court’s jurisdiction; as provided in the Family Code of
the Philippines;
b. Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or
religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious
sect and registered with the CRG, acting within the
limits of the written authority granted him by his church
or religious sect and provided that at least one of the
contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s
church or religious sect;
c. Any ship captain or airplane chief only in cases of
marriage in articulo mortis;
d. Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is
assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military
operation, likewise in cases of marriage in articulo
mortis;
e. Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul, in cases of
marriage between Filipino citizens abroad;
f. City or Municipal Mayors within their area of jurisdiction
under R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of the Philippines;
As provided in Article 18, Section 1, Chapter II Book Two
of Presidential Decree 1083:
g. proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be

wedded;
h. any person who is competent under Muslim Law upon
authority of the proper wali; or
i. judge of the Shari’a District Court of the Shari’a Circuit
Court or any person designated by the judge, should
the proper wali refuse without justifiable reason, to
authorize the solemnization.
As provided by OCRG Administrative Order No. 3,
Series of 2004, otherwise known as “Rules and Regulations
Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning the
Civil Status of Indigenous Peoples”, marriages between
members of ethnic cultural communities or indigenous
peoples may be solemnized by:
j. community elders;
k. tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio
political structures certified by National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); or
l. Authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal
communities who perform and solemnize marriage in
accordance with the customs, traditions and practices
of the community.
NOTE:
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES

court’s jurisdiction; as provided in the Family Code of
the Philippines;
Any incumbent member of the Judiciary is authorized to

solemnize civil marriage. This includes even Shari’a or Muslim
Judges. The only exception or limitation to their authority is that
the judge concerned must do so within his territorial jurisdiction as
defined by the Supreme Court. (Justice Jainal D. Rasul. Comparative
Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and the Muslim Code.
p. 57)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE

BY A MEMBER OF JUDICIARY OUTSIDE COURT’S JURIS-
DICTION
Navarro vs. Judge Domagtoy

A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088
July 19, 1996
Facts:
Mayor Rodolfo G. Navarro filed an administrative
complaint against Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy, a Municipal
Circuit Trial Court Judge of the municipalities of Sta. Monica,
Surigao del Norte and Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The complaint
alleges that Judge Domagtoy solemnized the wedding between
Gaspar Tagadar and Arlyn Borga, despite having knowledge
that the groom is merely separated from his wife. Likewise,
it is alleged that Judge Domagtoy performed the marriage
between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside his
court’s jurisdiction in his residence in the municipality of Dapa,
Surigao del Norte which does not fall within his jurisdictional
area of the municipalities of M and B.
Judge Domagtoy seeks exculpation from his act of having
solemnized the marriage of Gaspar, a married man separated
from his wife, and Arlyn by stating that he relied on the affidavit
issued by the Municipal Trial Court Judge of the municipality
of Basey, Samar, confirming that Gaspar and his wife have not
seen each other for almost seven years.
With respect to the second charge, he maintains that in
solemnizing the marriage between Floriano and Gemma, he
did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Code which
states that: “Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent
member of the Judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction,” and
that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.
Issue:
Did Judge Domagtoy comply with the requirements of
Article 8 of the Family Code on the public solemnization of
marriage?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said that Judge Domagtoy’s reliance
on Article 8 of the Family Code and its exceptions is misplaced.
Under said article, a marriage can be held outside of the

judge’s courtroom or chambers only in the following instances:
1) at the point of death; 2) in remote places in accordance with
Article 29 of the Family Code; and 3) upon request of both
parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. Neither
Floriano nor Gemma del Rosario was at the point of death or in
a remote place. The written request was made only by Gemma
del Rosario. The law requires that both parties should make
the written request.
The Supreme Court further ruled that Article 8 of the
Family Code is merely directory referring only to the venue
of the marriage ceremony and does not qualify or alter the
authority of the solemnizing officer. Thus, non-compliance
therewith does not invalidate the marriage but subjects the
solemnizing officer to administrative liability.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A MEMBER OF A JUDICIARY WHO

CELEBRATED MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE
AND OUTSIDE OF COURT’S JURISDICTION
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390 April 11, 2002

(Formerly IPI No. 01-1049-MTJ)
Mercedita Mata Arañes, petitioner,
vs.
Judge Salvador M. Occiano, respondent.
PUNO, J.:
Petitioner Mercedita Mata Arañes charges respondent judge with
Gross Ignorance of the Law via a sworn Letter-Complaint dated
23 May 2001. Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that on
17 February 2000, respondent judge solemnized her marriage to
her late groom Dominador B. Orobia without the requisite marriage
license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial
jurisdiction.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
They lived together as husband and wife on the strength of this

marriage until her husband passed away. However, since the
marriage was a nullity, petitioner’s right to inherit the “vast
properties” left by Orobia was not recognized. She was likewise
deprived of receiving the pensions of Orobia, a retired Commodore
of the Philippine Navy.
Petitioner prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge
for his illegal acts and unethical misrepresentations which allegedly
caused her so much hardships, embarrassment and sufferings.
On 28 May 2001, the case was referred by the Office of the Chief
Justice to then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño
for appropriate action. On 8 June 2001, the Office of the Court
Administrator required respondent judge to comment.
In his Comment dated 5 July 2001, respondent judge averred that
he was requested by a certain Juan Arroyo on 15 February 2000 to
solemnize the marriage of the parties on 17 February 2000. Having
been assured that all the documents to the marriage were complete,
he agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala at the Municipal Trial
Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. However, on 17 February 2000,
Arroyo informed him that Orobia had a difficulty walking and could
not stand the rigors of traveling to Balatan which is located almost
25 kilometers from his residence in Nabua. Arroyo then requested if
respondent judge could solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which
request he acceded.
Respondent judge further avers that before he started the ceremony,
he carefully examined the documents submitted to him by petitioner.
When he discovered that the parties did not possess the requisite
marriage license, he refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested
it’s resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of
the parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for
the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human
compassion. He also feared that if he reset the wedding, it might
aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered from a
stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the
marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to
give it would render the marriage void. Petitioner and Orobia assured
respondent judge that they would give the license to him in the
afternoon of that same day. When they failed to comply, respondent
judge followed it up with Arroyo but the latter only gave him the
same reassurance that the marriage license would be delivered to
his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur.
Respondent judge vigorously denies that he told the contracting

parties that their marriage is valid despite the absence of a marriage
license. He attributes the hardships and embarrassment suffered by
the petitioner as due to her own fault and negligence.
On 12 September 2001, petitioner filed her Affidavit of Desistance
dated 28 August 2001 with the Office of the Court Administrator.
She attested that respondent judge initially refused to solemnize
her marriage due to the want of a duly issued marriage license
and that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he
eventually solemnized the same. She confessed that she filed this
administrative case out of rage. However, after reading the Comment
filed by respondent judge, she realized her own shortcomings and is
now bothered by her conscience.
Reviewing the records of the case, it appears that petitioner and
Orobia filed their Application for Marriage License on 5 January
2000. It was stamped in this Application that the marriage license
shall be issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither petitioner nor
Orobia claimed it.
It also appears that the Office of the Civil Registrar General issued
a Certification that it has no record of such marriage that allegedly
took place on 17 February 2000. Likewise, the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur issued another Certification
dated 7 May 2001 that it cannot issue a true copy of the Marriage
Contract of the parties since it has no record of their marriage.
On 8 May 2001, petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge
so the latter could communicate with the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur for the issuance of her marriage
license. Respondent judge wrote the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua,
Camarines Sur. In a letter dated 9 May 2001, a Clerk of said office,
Grace T. Escobal, informed respondent judge that their office cannot
issue the marriage license due to the failure of Orobia to submit the
Death Certificate of his previous spouse.
The Office of the Court Administrator, in its Report and
Recommendation dated 15 November 2000, found the respondent
judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued
marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction.
A fine of P5,000.00 was recommended to be imposed on respondent
judge.
We agree.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P. 129, the

authority of the regional trial court judges and judges of inferior
courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial
jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court.
The case at bar is not without precedent. In Navarro vs.
Domagtoy, respondent judge held office and had jurisdiction in the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del
Norte. However, he solemnized a wedding at his residence in the
municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte which did not fall within the
jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos.
We held that:
“A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local

ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do so only
within the area or diocese or place allowed by his Bishop.
An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has
jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages,
regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are
complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specific
jurisdictions may officiate in weddings only within said areas
and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside
his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the
formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while it may not
affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating
official to administrative liability.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In said case, we suspended respondent judge for six (6) months
on the ground that his act of solemnizing a marriage outside his
jurisdiction constitutes gross ignorance of the law. We further held
that:
“The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not
experts, are at least, proficient in the law they are sworn to
apply, more than the ordinary laymen. They should be skilled
and competent in understanding and applying the law. It is
imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles
like the ones involved in the instant case. x x x While magistrates
may at times make mistakes in judgment, for which they are
not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of
elementary provisions of law, in an area which has greatly
prejudiced the status of married persons.”
In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent
judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His
act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua,

Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to
administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance
of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human
compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating
the law on marriage.
Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage
without the requisite marriage license. In People vs. Lara, we
held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage
license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license
cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage.
Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that
gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage.
Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized
the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in
gross ignorance of the law. 1âwphi1.nêt
Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of

Desistance filed by petitioner. This Court has consistently held in
a catena of cases that the withdrawal of the complaint does not
necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from
disciplinary action. Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration
of justice, as well as the discipline of court personnel, would be
undermined. Disciplinary actions of this nature do not involve purely
private or personal matters. They can not be made to depend upon
the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another,
condone a detestable act. We cannot be bound by the unilateral act of
a complainant in a matter which involves the Court’s constitutional
power to discipline judges. Otherwise, that power may be put to
naught, undermine the trust character of a public office and impair
the integrity and dignity of this Court as a disciplining authority.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano, Presiding
Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur, is
fined P5, 000.00 pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
LIABILITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER WHO SIGNS MAR-

RIAGE CONTRACT BEFORE THE MARRIAGE LICENSE IS
OBTAINED
Negre vs. Rivera

Adm. Matter No. 343- MJ.
June 22, 1976
If a Judge signs a marriage contract before the marriage

license is obtained (and then postdates the marriage contract) on
the request of the mother of the bride (who had been raped), he can
be said to have acted imprudently, and should be admonished.
THE LEGALITY OF A CASE ON MARRIAGE WHERE THE

SOLEMNIZING OFFICER JUDGE WHO MERELY SAID “YOU
ARE MARRIED”
Where the Judge who performed the marriage said nothing
except “You are married.”, the court held that the marriage contract
which was signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and
the Judge, gives rise to the presumption that the officer solemnized
the marriage in due form, unless the contrary is proved. The marriage
is legal (Martinez vs. Tan, G.R. No. 4904, February 5, 1909).
b. Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or

religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious
sect and registered with the CRG, acting within the
limits of the written authority granted him by his church
or religious sect and provided that at least one of the
contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s
church or religious sect;
A “priest,” according to lexicographers, means one especially

consecrated to the service of a divinity and considered as the medium
through whom worship, prayer, sacrifice, or other service is to be
offered to the being worshipped, and pardon, blessing, deliverance,
etc., obtained by the worshipper, as a priest of Baal or of Jehovah;
a Buddhist priest. “Minister of the Gospel” means clergymen of
all denomination and faith (Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No.
L-18081, March 3, 1922).
A “rabbi” means the chief religious official of a synagogue trained

usually in a theological seminary and duly ordained, who delivers
the sermon at a religious service and performs ritualistic, pastoral,
educational, and other functions in and related to his capacity as a
spiritual leader of Judaism and the Jewish community. It is a title
of respect for a Jewish scholar or teacher; a Jewish scholar qualified
to rule on questions of Jewish law; any of the Jewish scholars of the
first to sixth centuries A.D. who contributed to the writing, editing,
or compiling of the Talmud. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language).
“Imam” means the officiating priest of a mosque; the title for
a Muslim religious leader or chief; one of a succession of seven or
twelve religious leaders, believed to be divinely inspired, of the
Shiites. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary).
A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE WHERE BOTH CONTRACTING

PARTIES DO NOT BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF THE
SOLEMNIZING OFFICER
Problem:
Rev. Pedro, a solemnizing officer solemnized the marriage
between Ben and Lina in the church where he is assigned. Both Ben
and Lina do not belong to the church to which Rev. Pedro belongs. Is
their marriage valid?
Held:
It is admitted that the marriage is valid. The Family Code
provides that “any irregularity in the essential or formal requisite
does not invalidate the marriage but the person who is responsible
for such irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively
liable. Moreover, the fact that Ben and Lina do not belong to the
church of Rev. Pedro is only considered an irregularity which does
not invalidate the marriage provided all the other requisites are
present. However, the solemnizing officer shall be subject to civil,
criminal and administrative liability. (Article 4, par. 3, Family Code
of the Philippines).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE IN

ARTICULO MORTIS FOR FAILURE OF THE PARISH PRIEST TO
SUBMIT THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO THE MUNICIPAL
SECRETARY (NOW LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR)
Madridejo vs. De Leon, et al.

G.R. No. 32473
October 6, 1930
Facts:
Flaviana Perez, a widow lived with Pedro Madridejo, a
bachelor. The registry of births of their municipality shows that
on June 1, 1917 a child was born to Flaviana and Pedro who was
named Melencio Madridejo. On July 8, 1920, Flaviana, being at
death’s door, was married to Pedro by the parish priest who failed
to submit the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary. (now
Local Civil Registrar) The following day Flaviana died. The validity
of the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro was questioned on the
ground that the parish priest who solemnized the marriage failed to
submit the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary.
Issue:
Whether the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro solemnized
in articulo mortis is invalid for failure of the parish priest to submit
the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Flaviana
and Pedro is valid. The mere fact that the parish priest who
solemnized the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro in articulo
mortis failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the
municipal secretary does not invalidate the marriage. It does not
appear that in the celebration thereof all the requisites were not
present, and the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate is
not being one of the said requisites.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

WHO PERFORMED MARRIAGE CEREMONY WHERE ONE
OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WAS UNDER THE AGE OF
CONSENT

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-8502 October 10, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
Domingo San Juan, defendant-appellant.
Vicente Rodriguez for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.
MORELAND, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, convicting the accused of performing a marriage
ceremony where one of the contracting parties was under the age
of consent, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of four years
of suspension from practicing his profession as a minister of the
National Evangelical Church of the Philippines, to pay a fine of
1,500 pesetas and one-fifth of the costs.
The information was originally filed against the spouses, the
two witnesses to the marriage, and the minister performing the
ceremony. At the request of the prosecuting attorney the case was
dismissed with respect to the defendant Antonio de la Llana, one
of the witnesses to the marriage, in order that he might be used as
a witness for the Government, under the provisions of section 34
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With respect to the defendants,
Florencio San Miguel and Eulogia Dizon, the spouses, and Teofilo
San Miguel, the other witness to the marriage, the case was also
dismissed, under paragraph 2 of article 475 of the Penal Code, for
the reason that Esteban Dizon, the father of Eulogia Dizon, the
bride, having, subsequent to the ceremony, given his consent to the
marriage. The only defendant remaining, therefore, is Domingo San
Juan, the minister who performed the ceremony.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
General Orders, No. 68, section 7 (as amended by Act No. 1451),
reads as follows:
SEC. VII. The person solemnizing a marriage must make and
sign a certificate showing:
1. The real and full names of the parties and their places of
residence.
2. Their ages.
3. The consent of the father, mother, or guardian, or of one
having the charge of such person, if any such be given, if the male
be under the age of twenty years or the female be under the age
of eighteen years. For the purpose of ascertaining these facts, the
person solemnizing the marriage is authorized to examine parties
and witnesses on oath and receive affidavits, and he must state
such facts in his certificate. The marriage shall not be performed in
case of non-age, unless the consent herein before required shall be
personally given by the parent or guardian or person having charge
of the infant, or certified in writing over his or her signature, attested
by two or more subscribing witnesses and proved by the oath of one
of them.”
There is no penalty in the General Orders attached to the
solemnization of a marriage between persons under age. The
prosecution must be sustained, therefore, if at all, under the Penal
Code in connection with said General Orders.
Article 479 of the Penal Code reads as follows:
ART. 479. Any ecclesiastical or civil authority who shall perform
or authorize the ceremony in any marriage prohibited by law, or
barred by an impediment not capable of dispensation, shall suffer
the penalties of suspension in its medium and maximum degrees
and a fine of not less than 625 and not more than 6,250 pesetas.
If the impediment shall be subject to dispensation, the penalty
shall be destierro in its minimum degree and a fine of not less than
325 and not more than 3,250 pesetas.”
Article 475 of that Code reads:
ART. 475. Any minor who shall marry without the consent
of his or her parents, or other person standing in loco parentis,
shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium degrees.
The offender shall be pardoned as soon as the parents or the

persons referred to in the next preceding paragraph shall prove the
marriage.”
In the case of the United States vs. Peñalosa (1 Phil. Rep. 109),
this court held that “a minor who marries without parental consent
in the false belief that she is of age is not criminally responsible,”
and that, “it is not criminal negligence for a husband to rely upon his
wife’s statement of her age nor for the wife to rely upon that of her
father.” In that case the facts relative to the guilt of the husband,
who was charged with a violation of article 475 of the Penal Code in
that he had married a woman who at the time of the ceremony was
under the age of consent, are stated by the court as follows:
As for the husband, it has been proved that two days before
the marriage was celebrated he received a letter from the woman
in which she said that she was 21 years of age. This letter the
defendant showed to the clergyman who married them. The woman
when the marriage ceremony was performed took an oath before the
clergyman, in the presence of her husband, that she was 21 years
of age. The defendant testifies that he had no suspicion that the
woman was a minor. This statement has not been contradicted and
we consider that it suffices to demonstrate that the defendant acted
under a mistake of fact, and in conformity with the principle laid
down in this opinion he has not been guilty of a violation of article
475 in connection with article 13, No. 3, nor in any other manner.”
The principles referred to are as follows:
The accused were convicted in the lower court for the violation
of this article, it appearing from the evidence adduced that the
accused, Marcosa Peñalosa, was not 21 years of age on the 3rd day
of May, 1901, when she married the co-defendant, and that she
contracted the marriage without the consent of her father.
Should the judgment appealed from be affirmed if the woman
was in fact less than 21 years of age, without taking into consideration
what was her belief concerning her age? Many instances can be called
to mind in which there may exist an error in good faith concerning
this point. A man who is about to marry and is ignorant of his exact
age seeks and obtains a certified copy of the registry of his baptism.
From this it appears that he was born twenty-one years before the
1st day of June, let us say. He marries on the 15th day of June.
It develops later that the person who took the copy of the registry
of baptism read July as June, and as a matter of fact the man in
IN THE PHILIPPINES
question did not complete his twenty-one years until the 1st day of
July, fifteen days after his marriage. Can such a one be convicted of
a violation of article 475? It would seem that this case is included
within those of the article. He was in fact a minor when he married,
and he married without the consent of his parents. It is true that
so far as the parent is concerned the offense has been committed,
but can the same be said with reference to the State in the absence
of a voluntary violation of the law? Article 1 of the Code does not
contain the words ‘with malice’ that are to be found in the Code
of 1822; nevertheless Pacheco, the eminent commentator, has said
that those words are included in the word ‘voluntary’ (El Codigo
Penal Concordado y Comentado, Vol. I, folio 74, third edition); and
he states positively that crime cannot exist without intent.
Other commentators, without being in entire conformity with
Pacheco, nevertheless are agreed up to a certain point. Groizard
says: ‘Such is the general rule; so it is ordinarily.’ (Codigo Penal de
1870, Vol. I, folio 37.) Viada says that ‘in the majority of cases, in the
absence of intent there has been no crime; but that there can exist
in some cases the latter without the former.’ (Vol. I, Codigo Penal
Reformado de 1870, folio 16.) Silvela says: ‘In effect it suffices to
remember the first article, which states that where there is no intent
there is no crime, . . . in order to assert without fear of mistake that
in our Code the substance of a crime does not exist if there is not a
deed, an act which falls within the sphere of ethics, if there is not a
moral wrong.’ (Vol. 2, Derecho Penal, folio 169.)
The theory that the absence of the words ‘with malice’ in the
prevailing Code has this effect is supported by the provisions of
article 568 which says: ‘He who by reckless negligence commits an
act which would constitute a grave crime if malice were present
shall be punished,’ etc.
The Supreme Court in several successive sentences has
followed the same doctrine: ‘It is indispensable that this (action) in
order to constitute a crime should carry with it all the malice which
the volition and intention to cause the evil which may be the object
of the said crime suppose.’ (Judgment of May 31, 1882)
“In a case for falsity the facts involved were that the defendant
had married ‘before the municipal judge of the pueblo of Rubete
without other ceremony than the simple manifestation and
expression of his wishes and those of the woman Leonor with whom
he married before said municipal judge; that relying upon that, on
account of his ignorance and lack of instruction, on the 27th of June,

1882, and the 5th of April, 1884, in the municipal court of the pueblo
of Polopos he registered as legitimate children his sons, Jose and
Emilio, the offspring of the illicit union of the defendant and Leonor
Gonzales.’ For the crime of falsity committed by reckless negligence
the Criminal Audiencia of Albuñol condemned the said defendant
to the penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor. The
Supreme Court annulled said sentence ‘considering that whatever
might be the civil effects of the registration of his three sons entered
by the accused in the Civil and Parochial Registers, it cannot partake
of the nature of a crime for lack of the necessary element of volition
or intent to offend, essential to every punishable act or omission;
neither did he act with negligence.’ (Judgment of March 16, 1892).
In a case prosecuted against the Chinese Sy-Ticco and against
Don Guillermo Partier, in the court of Quiapo, for falsification of
trademarks, the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia of Manila
condemned the Chinaman to two years and some months of presidio
correccional, and Partier to one year and some months of similar
imprisonment. A writ of error was sued out in the name of Partier. The
Supreme Court annulled this sentence, considering that the moral
element of the crime, or, in other words, existence or nonexistence
of intent and malice in the commission of an act designated and
punished by the law as criminal is essentially a question of fact for
exclusive judgment and determination of the trial court.
‘Considering that the act charged against the accused, Guillermo
Partier, of having printed in his lithographic establishment the
trademark of the cigarette packages of the Insular factory by
virtue of a supposed order of the owner of said factory, to whose
injury the Chinaman Abelardo Zacarias Sy-Ticco ordered him to do
the said fraudulent printing, cannot be considered (from the facts
declared proved in the final sentence of acquittal of the Court of
First Instance, accepted in its entirety and without any addition
by the Appellate Court) as constituting intentional participation
or cooperation in deed of falsification and defraudation committed
by the former, since it does not appear in any part of the sentence
that Partier was in connivance with Sy-Ticco nor that he had any
reason to suspect the true character of him who, styling himself the
representative of Señor Santa Marina, the owner of the La Insular
factory, gave him the order to print the trademark of this factory on
the packages, which were to be used to hold cigarettes.’ (Judgment
of December 30, 1896).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The judgment of October 4, 1893, is of the same tenor. It is

not necessary to hold in this action that no crime mentioned in the
Code can exist without intent. It suffices for the present to decide, as
we do decide, that one cannot be convicted under article 475 when
by reason of a mistake of fact there does not exist the intention to
commit the crime.
In the case of the United States vs. De los Reyes (1 Phil. Rep.
375), it was held that “a woman who marries a second time under
a bona fide belief that her former spouse is dead is not guilty of
bigamy,” the court saying:
We have recently held, in the United States vs. Marcosa
Peñalosa and Enrique Rodriguez, decided January 27, 1902, that
there can be no conviction under article 475 of the Penal Code,
where by reason of a mistake of fact the intention to commit the
crime does not exist, and we think the same principle must apply
to this case. The defendant was therefore properly acquitted of the
crime charged in the complaint.
This court having held that neither of the spouses can be
convicted for a violation of article 475 if he acted in good faith and
without the knowledge that the other was under the age of consent,
the question naturally arises whether the person solemnizing the
marriage may plead similar good faith in defense to an action
brought against him under article 479. We are of the opinion that
he may. This presents itself to us no reason why the rule applicable
to the persons married should not be alike applicable to the person
performing the ceremony which makes them man and wife. It
is very easy to deceive an officiating clergyman as to the ages of
the persons who present themselves for marriage — much easier
than it is to deceive either of the spouses in relation to the same
matter. Persons who are sufficiently acquainted with each other to
desire marriage are naturally presumed to know the age of each
other. If a man desiring to marry a woman may be excused from
criminal prosecution upon the ground that he has been deceived
and mistaken as to her age, it would seem that the clergyman, who
knows neither of the parties and who must of necessity depend upon
an independent investigation in order to determine the ages of the
parties, would be in a far better position to invoke the protection of
the principle than would the husband.
Moreover, it is evident from the sections of General Orders, No.
68, above quoted, that it was the intention of the makers of that law
to permit the officiating clergyman or other person solemnizing the

marriage to determine the fact of age or non-age upon the testimony
of witnesses. To that end he is given the authority to examine on oath
the persons who present themselves for marriage and any witnesses
which they may produce or which he may desire to call relative to
age. Having the right to determine a question upon the testimony of
witnesses, it would seem strange indeed that he could be prosecuted
criminally for a wrong determination of that question. The mere fact
that two persons might differ as to the conclusion which ought to be
reached upon a given state of facts or upon the testimony of certain
witnesses is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that the one whose
conclusion is wrong is guilty of a crime, while he whose judgment is
right is innocent. Both have exercised the same qualities, the same
functions, and the same good faith. That the one may be wrong
and the other right furnishes no reason for classifying the one as a
criminal and the other as an innocent person.
There is some evidence in the record tending to show that the
clergyman did not act in good faith in determining the question of
age, one of the witnesses for the prosecution intimating that the
accused was informed by one of the contracting parties that the girl
was under eighteen, and that he, instead of refusing thereupon to
go forward with the marriage, suggested to her that she declare
herself to be eighteen or over and that he would obtain witnesses to
substantiate her declaration. We have some difficulty in finding the
facts sought to be established by this testimony. The witnesses who
testified were those released from prosecution for that purpose. Such
testimony, while under proper circumstances entirely acceptable, is
at the outset always subject to suspicion and it requires only very
little credible evidence to ripen that suspicion into a certainty.
That additional evidence is found in this case in the form of written
statements made by these witnesses and declared by them under
oath to be true. These written statements are those prepared by the
accused at the time of the ceremony and presented to the contracting
parties and their witnesses for signature. They were duly signed
and sworn to by those parties and witnesses. Although the oath is
not in the form prescribed by General Orders, No. 68, nevertheless
it contains all of the requisites essential to a valid declaration under
that Act.
It appears in the record that the father of the girl gave his
consent to her marriage some few days after the ceremony, and,
IN THE PHILIPPINES
therefore, under Article 475 of the Penal Code, “pardoned” the

offending parties. It is contended that this consent is retroactive and
deprives the acts complained of all illegality, and that the accused
should be acquitted for that reason. We do not find it necessary to
decide this question, as there are other grounds upon which the
acquittal may be based. Nor do we decide the question whether, in
fact, the marriage performed was one “prohibited by law,” under
Article 479 of the Penal Code, above quoted. While this is, of course,
a fundamental question and in all reason should be taken up and
decided first of all, there having been some difference of opinion on
the court on the matter and the decision of the case being plain and
unanimous along other lines, we have decided not to dispose of that
question at this time.
It appearing clear to us that, even though it be admitted that
the marriage complained of was illegal and that the subsequent
consent of the parent did not relieve the defendant of liability for the
part he had taken therein, the accused acted in good faith without
criminal intent, and that he made the investigation required by law
in a reasonably satisfactory manner, the conviction cannot stand.
The judgment is reversed and the accused acquitted of the
crime charged. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Trent, JJ.,
concur.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A UCCP MINISTER WHO

RESIGNED AND RAN FOR MAYOR
Pedro V. Villar vs. Gaudencio V. Paraiso

G.R. No. L-8014
March 14, 1955
Facts:
Pedro Villar and Gaudencio Paraiso were candidates for the
office of municipal mayor of a certain town. After the canvass was
made, Villar obtained 1,467 votes while Paraiso garnered 1,509
votes. Consequently, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed
Paraiso as the duly elected mayor with a plurality of 41 votes.
Contending that Paraiso was ineligible to assume the office
as mayor for being an ecclesiastic, Villar instituted quo warranto
proceedings praying that Paraiso be declared ineligible to assume

the office and his proclamation be declared null and void. He prayed
further that he be declared duly elected mayor in lieu of Paraiso.
Paraiso denied his ineligibility by claiming that he resigned as
minister of UCCP; that his resignation was accepted by the cabinet
of his church at a special meeting; and that even if he be declared
ineligible to the office, Villar could not be declared to take his place
as mayor.
Issue:
Whether or not Paraiso has actually resigned as minister of
UCCP making him eligible to assume the office of mayor and his
resignation was duly accepted removing his ineligibility.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Paraiso is ineligible to hold office
as mayor. He never ceased as minister of UCCP. The resignation he
claims to have been filed months before the election is but a mere
scheme to circumvent the prohibition of the law regarding ecclesiastic
who desires to run for municipal office. If it is true that he sincerely
intended to resign as minister of the religious organization to which
he belonged to launch his candidacy, why did he not resign in due
form and the acceptance of his resignation registered with the Bureau
of Public Libraries (now Office of the Civil Registrar General)?
The importance of his resignation cannot be under-estimated. The
purpose of resignation is to inform the public not only of the authority
of the minister to discharge his functions, but also to inform it of
any change in his religious status. This information is necessary
for the protection of the public. This is especially so with regard
to the authority to solemnize marriages, the registration of which
is made mandatory by law. It is incumbent upon Paraiso to secure
the cancellation of his registration. Furthermore, he failed to attach
to his certificate of candidacy a copy of his alleged resignation as
minister of UCCP knowing fully well that a minister is disqualified
by law to run for a municipal office.

A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew

members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane
IN THE PHILIPPINES
pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight, but also
during stopovers at ports of call. (Article 31, Family Code).
A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS BY AN

AIRPLANE PILOT
Problem:
Greg and Alma are on board a PAL airbus bound for USA.
Suddenly, Greg became sick such that he is now at the point of
death. They asked Capt. Rudy, the airplane pilot to solemnize their
marriage but the pilot refused on the ground that there was no
marriage license. Is the pilot correct?
Held:
No, the pilot is not correct because this is one of the exceptional
cases where marriage can be solemnized without a marriage license.
Under the Law, an airplane pilot can solemnize marriage in articulo
mortis. Such marriage can be solemnized even if the plane is in flight
or during stopovers at ports of call. (Art. 31, Family Code).
A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS BY A SHIP

CAPTAIN
Problem:
Manuel and Jinky were engaged to be married. While they
were on board on a boat bound for Cebu City, Manuel had a quarrel
with a certain passenger who stabbed him. The physician on board
the boat attested to the fact that Manuel would die at any time. So,
Manuel and Jinky requested Melchor, the ship captain to solemnize
their wedding. Is the marriage between Manuel and Jinky valid?
Held:
Yes, the marriage between Manuel and Jinky is valid. Under
the law, a marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew
members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane
not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight, but also
during stopovers at ports of call. (Article 31, Family Code)
d. Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is

assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military
operation, in cases of marriage in articulo mortis;
A military Commander of a unit who is a commissioned officer,

shall likewise has authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis
between persons within the zone of military operation, whether
members of the armed forces or civilians. (Article 32, Family Code)
The requisites to be complied with in order that a military
commander can validly solemnize marriage are as follows: 1) the
marriage must be in articulo mortis; 2) only in the absence of the
chaplain; 3) the military commander must be a commissioned officer;
and 4) the marriage must be solemnized within the zone of military
operation.
A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS SOLEMNIZED BY

A MILITARY COMMANDER
Problem:
Rogelio, a soldier stationed at a camp in Cagayan de Oro City
has girlfriend named Juliet. While on vacation in Bohol province,
Rogelio contracted H-fever and was hospitalized to the point of death.
Col. Santos, his military commander in Cagayan de Oro Camp and
a personal friend, was summoned to proceed to Bohol to officiate the
marriage ceremony of Rogelio and Juliet without the benefit of a
marriage license. Is their marriage valid?
Held:
No, the marriage is not valid because the marriage was
solemnized without a marriage license. A military commander of
a unit can solemnize a marriage in articulo mortis only within the
zone of military operation. Since Bohol province is not part of the
zone of military operation, the marriage is void. (Art. 32, Family
Code of the Philippines).
IN THE PHILIPPINES

Marriage between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized

by a consul-general, consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the
Philippines. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of
the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing officer with regard
to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular
official. (Article 10, Family Code as cited in Paras, The Civil Code of
the Philippines, Vol. 1, 15th, p. 379).
Marriage between Filipino citizens abroad solemnized in
Philippine diplomatic or consular office shall comply with the
requirements of the Philippine law. This is based on the legal
principle that Philippine diplomatic or consular office abroad is an
extension of the Philippine territory. This is based on the principle
of exterritoriality.
The consul general is an official of the Department of Foreign
Affairs who is issued a consular commission by the President and/or
Secretary of Foreign Affairs. In a foreign -service establishment of the
Philippines where there is no Consul-General, the civil registration
function and duties under R.A. No. 9048 and its implementing rules
and regulations shall be exercised and performed by the Consul or
Vice Consul who should be similarly issued consular commission by
the President and/or the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
Actually, the Consul-General is the civil registrar outside
the Philippines. Under Article 5 (f) of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations (1963), it is provided that one of the consular
functions is “Acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of
similar kind, and performing certain functions of an administrative
nature, provided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws
and regulations of the receiving state.” (Underscoring supplied).
Also, under Article 10 of the Family Code, it is provided:
“Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized
by a consul-general, consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the
Philippines. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of
the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing officer with regard
to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular
official.” (Manual of Instructions, RA No. 9048 and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations, pp. 4-5).
REASON WHY AMBASSADOR CANNOT SOLEMNIZE

MARRIAGE
Consuls-general, Consuls, Vice-consuls — A person must be
designated as consul-general, consul, or vice-consul of the Republic in
some foreign post in order to have authority to solemnize marriages.
An ambassador, even if he is the head of a diplomatic mission,
has no authority. The reason for this is that, while an ambassador
takes care of the relations between the Philippines and the country
to which he is assigned, the consuls take care of matters affecting
Filipino citizens in the area of their responsibility. (See Tolentino,
Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence
with the Family Code, Vol. 1, p. 243).
MARRIAGE OF FILIPINOS ABROAD

A marriage license is required for marriages of Filipinos abroad
by Philippine Consuls-general, consuls or vice-consuls. The license
is issued by the consular officials.
The contracting parties need not be permanent residents or
immigrants in the foreign country where they are married. They
may be only temporarily there.
Philippine laws are applicable to marriages of Filipinos abroad
under this article. The marriage must therefore comply with the
requisites provided by the Family Code. (See Tolentino, Civil Code of
the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence with the Family
Code, Vol. 1, p. 245).
f. City or Municipal Mayors within their area of

jurisdiction under R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the
Local Government Code of the Philippines;
Under the Family Code, governors, mayors, and ambassadors

are not authorized to perform marriages. (Inclusio unius exclusio est
alterius — What the law does not include, it excludes.)
Under the Local Government Code, however, mayors are now
authorized to perform marriages within their jurisdiction. (See Secs.
444-455, Local Government Code of the Philippines).
Acting mayor or acting as mayor has authority to solemnize
marriage once he assumes the office of the mayor (People vs.
Bustamante, 56 O.G. 1169).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE CONCERNING AN ISSUE OF

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF A VALID
MARRIAGE LICENSE AND THE LACK OF AUTHORITY TO
SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER
Cristina Vergara vs. Reynaldo Pascua

Civil Case No. 351-(95)
Regional Trial Court, Branch 66
Capas, Tarlac
Facts:
Cristina Vergara and Reynaldo Pascua, together with their
parents and witnesses went to the town mayor on October 12, 1992
to have their marriage solemnized. The mayor was however absent.
The secretary of the mayor advised them to apply for a marriage
license and return for the wedding ceremonies after 10 days.
Cristina Vergara and Reynaldo Pascua wanted to be married right
away, so they decided to proceed to another municipality to have
their marriage solemnized there. The mayor was out of town, so they
went to the office of the vice mayor who instructed his personnel to
prepare the documents and they were told to go to a certain office to
pay a certain amount.
Thereafter, the vice mayor solemnized their marriage and
made them sign, together with their sponsors, a blank marriage
contract, and they were told to come back on November 3, 1992 for
their marriage papers. They lived together as husband and wife at
Cristina Vergara’s parents’ house until May 1993 when she went to
Saipan to work leaving her husband behind in her parents’ house.
From May 1993 to August 1993, Cristina Vergara’s and
Reynaldo Pascua exchanged letters. However in September 1993,
Reynaldo Pascua stopped writing letters and Cristina Vergara
was informed by her parents that her husband left their home
and never returned. She wrote letters to her parents-in-law but
she was informed that they did not know his whereabouts. When
she returned home for vacation, she learned from friends that her
husband is living with another woman in Manila. Hence, she filed
a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of her marriage
with Reynaldo Pascua.
Issue:
Whether or not Cristina Vergara’s marriage with Reynaldo
Pascua can be declared null and void on the ground that the
solemnizing officer is not authorized by law to solemnize marriage
and they had no marriage license at the time of the marriage despite
their knowledge of these grounds at the time of the marriage.
Ruling:
The trial court said that “a mere cursory examination of the
marriage certificate between Cristina Vergara and Reynaldo Pascua
shows that it is in compliance with all the essential and formal
requisites of the law on marriage.’’ Therefore, it is presumed to be
valid.
The courts look upon the presumption of marriage with great
favor as it is founded on the following rationale: “The basis of human
society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in
this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but is a new relation and
institution the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested.
Every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony.”
(Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43 quoted in Alvarado vs. City
Government of Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230; Mariataqui vs. Court of
Appeals, 205 SCRA 337).
Article 4 of the Family Code provides: “An irregularity in the
formal requisites shall not affect the validity of marriage but the
party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly,
criminally and administratively liable.”
The trial court notes with significance Cristina Vergara’s
testimony that she and her husband insisted to get married right
away, even if advised of the necessity of marriage license.
Article 1411 of the Civil Code provides: “When the nullity
proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract
and the article constitutes an offense, both the parties being in pari
delicto, they shall have no action against each other and both shall
be prosecuted.”
Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code punishes persons
contracting marriage against the provisions of the laws.
Article 50 — Marriage Contracted Against the Provision of Law
– The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon who without being included in the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
provision of the next preceding article shall contract marriage

knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied
with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment.
From the above provisions of the law, Cristina Vergara has
no remedy against Reynaldo Pascua. The doctrine of in pari delicto
provides: The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement
and it leaves them where they are. (Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In
pari delicto est conditio defendatis.)
One is expected to come to court with clean hands. One is
not allowed to seek redress from the law which he himself openly
violated. Cristina Vergara was a party to the illegal marriage. She
cannot claim that she is an injured party. Hence, her petition for the
declaration of nullity of her marriage with Reynaldo Pascua should
be dismissed.
As provided in Article 18, Section 1, Chapter 11 Book Two of

Presidential Decree 1083:
g. proper Wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be
wedded;
h. any person who is competent under Muslim Law upon
authority of the proper wali; or
i. judge of the Shari’a District Court or any person
designated by the judge, should the proper wali
refuse without justifiable reason, to authorize the
solemnization.
From the above provision of the Muslim Code, the emphasis

is on the authority to solemnize which means license to solemnize
marriage. By implication, therefore, in Islamic marriage, license
is not needed or required for two reasons: Firstly, Article 18 of
the Muslim Code, which is predicated on Islamic jurisprudence,
impliedly clothes or covers those specified or enumerated persons
with authority or license to solemnize marriage. It is not, therefore,
necessary to exert further effort in securing one, which may be
considered a loss of valued time. Secondly, in Islamic jurisprudence,
law is personal in its application to Muslims. That is to say, it is not
affected by the constitution of a political society. The authority of law,
according to Islamic Theory, is primarily based on men’s conscience
and not on political force. Thus, if a Muslim goes from one state to
another, he is bound by the same personal or family laws which
apply to his conscience wherever he goes. It is for this reason that

marriage license is intertwined or ingrained with the very authority
of the person authorized to solemnize marriage and consequently,
with the validity of such marriage, according to Islamic laws and
traditions. (Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines
and The Muslim Code, Justice Jainal D. Rasul, pp. 66-67).
DOJ OPINION RE COVERAGE OF MUSLIM SOLEMNIZING

OFFICERS TO REGISTER THEIR AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE
MARRIAGE WITH OCRG
February 28, 2005

Ms. CARMELITA N. ERICTA
Administrator
P.O. Box 779 Manila
Madam:
This has reference to your request for opinion on the queries
stated herein relating to the effect/s, if any, of the provisions of
Article 7 of Executive Order No. 209, as amended, upon the pertinent
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1083. Article 7 of E.O. No. 209,
as amended, in part reads:
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:
xx xx;
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or
religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and
registered with the civil register general, acting within the limits
of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect
xxx;
xx xx.
In general, you inquire “whether or not Article 7(2) of the
Family Code of the Philippines repealed or amended Presidential
Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as ‘Code of Muslim Personal
Laws (of the Philippines)’.” In particular, you may ask “whether
the requirement for registration of written authority to solemnize
marriage found in the Family Code takes precedence over P.D. No.
1083”.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The queries, it appears, are raised in connection with Article

18 of P.D. No. 1083 which pertinently provided, to wit:
Art. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. — Marriage may be
solemnized:
(a) By the proper wali of the woman to be wedded;
(b) Upon authority of the proper wali, by any person who is
competent under Muslim law to solemnize marriage; or
(c) By the judge of the Shari’a District Court of Shari’a Circuit
Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali
refuse without justifiable reason, to authorized the solemnization.
You state that the above-quoted legal provision of the decree
is silent as to the prior registration of the imams before they can
solemnize marriage. In view of your perceived conflict between the
aforesaid provision and the earlier-quoted provision of the Family
Code, you now elevate the matter to this Department for opinion.
To us, the resolution of the issues raised would require a look
into the other pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1083 and E.O. No.
209, as amended, respectively, specifically those relating to the
interpretation and application of their respective provisions.
The subject Code of Muslim Personal laws, insofar as material,
states:
Art. 3. Conflict of provisions. — (1) In case of conflict between
any provisions of this Code and laws of general application, the
former shall prevail.
(2) Should the conflict be between any provision of this Code
and special laws or laws of local application, the latter shall be
liberally constructed in order to carry out the former.
(3) The provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to
Muslim and nothing herein shall be constructed to operate to the
prejudice of a non-Muslim.
xxx xxx
Art. 13. Application. — (1) The provision of this Titles shall
apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslim,
or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is
solemnized in accordance with Muslim Law or this Code in any part
of the Philippines.
(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and non-Muslim,

solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law of this Code, the Civil
Code of the Philippines shall apply.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs,
the essential requisites and legal impediments of marriage, xxx
solemnization and registration of marriage xxx, shall be governed
by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.
On the other hand, Article 254 of the Family Code is clear,
thus:
ART. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book
I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the
Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, a8, a9, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known
as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and all laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclaiming, rules and regulations, on
parts thereof, inconsistent the herewith are hereby repealed.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction to give effect to
the general intent of the legislature that can be ascertained from a
consideration of the whole statute and not only a particular provision
thereof. The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from any single
part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses
or sentence but from a general consideration or view of the act as a
whole.
Equally basic is the rule that when the words and phrases of
the statute are clear and unequivocal, the meaning thereof must be
determined from the language used and the statute must be taken
to mean exactly what it says. The rationale is because when the law
is clear, there is no room for interpretation-only for application.
The provisions of P.D. No. 1083, earlier quoted, governing
the construction of its provisions vis-a-vis other laws as well as the
application thereof are clear and categorical. Thus, in case of conflict
between the provisions of said Code or decree which, incidentally,
is a special law and those of laws of general application, the Family
Code or E.O. No. 209 included, the former shall govern. This is true
even if the general law is a latter enactment and broad enough
to include the provisions of the Code. The reason is because the
Code itself has expressly and explicitly revealed the intent of the
legislature. Moreover and as especially applied to the Family Code,
its repealing clause uses a general one, i.e., save for provisions of
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Civil Code, as amended, and P.D. No. 603, as amended, it does not
repeal in express terms the provisions of the Muslim Personal Code.
For the same reasons stated above, a similar conclusion would be
reached even if we assume that E.O. No. 209, as amended, is also a
special law.
As the Decree itself explicitly states, however, the above
conclusion should be qualified. This is because under Article 3
thereof, “the provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to
Muslim and nothing herein shall be constructed to operate to the
prejudice of a non-Muslim”.
Likewise, by expressed mandate of Article 13 of the Decree,
“the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage” and
“solemnization and registration” the marriage of the persons
mentioned therein, among other things, shall be governed by this
code other applicable Muslim laws.”
Consequently, when the parties to the marriage are both
Muslim or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized
under the Muslim laws, the provision of Section 18 of P.D. No. 1083
enumerating those persons authorized to solemnize marriage,
which undeniably includes an imam, governs. Conversely, when the
aforesaid elements or conditions are not present, the provision on
the authority of solemnizing officer, including the registration with
the civil registrar general, under Article 7 of the Family Code, which
further amended the Civil Code of the Philippines, applies. This is
explicit even from a reading of Article 13(2) of the Muslim Personal
laws itself.
Your queries are thus answered accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) RAUL M. GONZALEZ

Secretary
A PROBLEM ON ABSENCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE TO

MUSLIM MARRIAGE
Problem:
Tingcap and Sorayda are both Muslims. They got married,
with Judge Guerrero as the solemnizing officer. The marriage was
solemnized at the Judge’s chamber but in accordance with the

Christian rites. There was no marriage license. Is the marriage
between Tingcap and Sorayda valid?
Held:
No, the marriage between Tingcap and Sorayda is not
valid. The law provides that marriages between Muslims may be
solemnized without marriage license provided they are solemnized
in accordance with their customs, rites and practices. (Article 33,
Family Code) Since the marriage was solemnized in accordance with
Christian rites, the marriage is void for lack of a marriage license.
As provided by OCRG Administrative Order No. 3, Series

of 2004, otherwise known as “Rules and Regulations Governing
Registration of Acts and Events Concerning the Civil Status of
Indigenous Peoples”, marriages between members of ethnic
cultural communities or indigenous peoples may be solemnized
by:
j. community elders;
k. tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio
political structures certified by National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); or
l. Authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal
communities who perform and solemnize marriage in
accordance with the customs, traditions and practices
of the community.
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE ON

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (IP).
Administrative Order No. 3 Series of 2004, Rule 2, par. 7,
Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage — refer to community
elders, tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-political
structures certified by NCIP or authorities duly acclaimed and
respected in the tribal communities and registered in accordance
with the guidelines of OCRG on Solemnizing Officers who perform
and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions
and practices of the community. (Administrative Order 3, Series of
2004, p. 4).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
DOJ OPINION ON THE NEED OF TRIBAL HEADS OR CHIEF-

TAINS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE TO BE AUTHORIZED AND
REGISTER THEIR AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
WITH OCRG
Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila
OPINION. 179, S. 1993
December 28, 1993
Mr. Tomas P. Africa

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Sir:
This refers to your request for opinion on the following
queries:
“1. Do tribal heads or chieftains need to be authorized and
registered under Article 7(2) of the Family Code before
they can officiate marriages between members of their
respective tribes?
“2. If yes, will the registration of the tribal heads or chieftains
result to extending the coverage of the law beyond its
scope, and therefore illegal?
“3. If no, what will be the status of the marriages which may
be solemnized by them?”
You state that on the basis of Article 7(2), your office has been
receiving applications from tribal heads or chieftains who wish
to register as solemnizing officers within their respective tribes,
but which applications you deny on the ground that the provision
“refers only to solemnizing officers who are members of a church or
religious sect, and that a tribe is neither a church or religious sect
but a mere social group which under the law is called an ‘ethnic
cultural community.’”
You further state that whereas Article 78 of the Civil Code

expressly exempted those persons solemnizing marriages between
non-Christians from complying with Article 92 (referring to
registration of solemnizing officers with the Civil Registrar General),
its counterpart provision in the Family Code, which is Article 33,
does not contain a similar exemption and, therefore, it would appear
that under the Family Code, “marriages among the ethnic cultural
communities could be validly officiated only by those solemnizing
officers enumerated under Article 7 of the Family Code, and not by
anybody else such as the tribal heads of chieftains”.
We agree with the view that under the Family Code, marriages
among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities
may be solemnized only by those solemnizing officers enumerated in
Article 7 of the same Code.
Article 33 of the Family Code provides:
“ART. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members
of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly
without the necessity of a marriage license, provided that they
are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites, or
practices.”
Pursuant to Article 33, marriages among Muslims or members
of the ethnic cultural communities may be solemnized without need
of securing a marriage license. As you have correctly pointed out,
“Article 33 is explicit that these marriages are exempted only from
the license requirement”. Article 33 does not dispense with the
requirement of registration of the solemnizing officer under Section
7(2) which provides:
“ART. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church
or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect
and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within
the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or
religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting
parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious
sect;
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied.)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
This view becomes clearer when we compare the provision of

Article 33 with the old provision of Article 78 of the Civil Code which
states:
“ART. 78. Marriages between Mohammedans or pagans
who live in the non-Christian provinces may be performed in
accordance with their customs, rites and practices. No marriage
license or formal requisites shall be necessary. Nor shall the
persons solemnizing these marriages be obliged to comply with
Article 92.” (Referring to registration of solemnizing officers,
now Article 7, par. 2, Family Code). (Underscoring supplied.)
Note that the underscored portion of Article 78 which reads:
“Nor shall the persons solemnizing these marriages be
obliged to comply with Article 92.” Is conspicuously absent
from Article 33, clearly implying that the officers solemnizing
marriages under Article 33 are no longer exempted from the
requirement of registration under Article 92 (now Article 7, par.
2, Family Code). This conclusion is also bolstered by the new
provision of Section 7(2) of the Family Code which mentions
“priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of the church or religious sect”
among those solemnizing officers who are required to register
with the Civil Registrar General “Imam” is a Muslim priest,
and interpreting Article 7(2) in relation to Article 33, the logical
conclusion to follow would be that marriages among Muslims
must be celebrated by an “imam” who has been duly registered
with the Civil Registrar General, and this holds true with
marriages among members of the ethnic cultural communities,
if these marriages are to be celebrated by their religious head.
In short, to repeat, registration of solemnizing officers under
Article 33 is not dispensed with, which means that they should
be registered as solemnizing officers under Article 7(2).
As to whether tribal heads or chieftains should be allowed to
register as solemnizing officers would depend on whether, aside
from being the social or political leader of their respective tribes,
they also stand as their priest or religious head. This is a question of
fact which your office should be in the best position to determine.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) RAMON J. LIWAG

Acting Secretary
A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE PERFORMED BY CHIEFTAIN OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (IP) WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE
Problem:
Minda and Nadi want to get married. Since both are members
of a cultural minority, they appear before their chieftain to have
their marriage solemnized. Can the chieftain validly solemnize their
marriage?
Held:
Yes, the chieftain can validly solemnize their marriage in
accordance with the provision of Article 33 of the Family which
states: “Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic
cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity
of marriage license, provided that they are performed in accordance
with their customs, rites or practices,” and provided further that the
authority of the chieftain to solemnize marriage had been registered
with the Office of the Civil Registrar General. (Art. 33 and Art. 7 (2),
Family Code of the Philippines)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE

BEFORE A VILLAGE LEADER
Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo, et al.

G.R. No. L-21076
March 31, 1965
Facts:
On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered
a decision finding Wong Woo Yiu to be legally married to Perfecto
Blas and admitting her into the country as a non-quota immigrant.
However, on June 28, 1962, the new Board of Commissioners
rendered a new decision reversing that of the former board and
ordering Wong Woo Yiu to be excluded from the country.
Wong Woo Yiu contended that she came to the Philippines in
1961 for the first time to join her husband Perfecto Blas to whom
she was married in Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929; that
she had several children all of whom are now in the Philippines;
and that their marriage was celebrated by one Chua Tio, a village
leader.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Issue:
Is the marriage of Wong Woo Yiu with Perfecto Blas in China
before a village leader valid under Philippine law?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage of Wong Woo Yiu
with Perfecto Blas in China before a village leader is not valid under
Philippine law. Her claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas
was without basis in evidence as it was bereft of substantial proof
of husband-wife relationship. Her claim cannot also be entertained
under the law on family relations. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides
that laws relating to family rights or to the status of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.
It is well-known that in 1929 in order that a marriage may be
valid it must be solemnized either by a judge of any court inferior
to the Supreme Court, a Justice of the Peace, or a priest or minister
of any denomination duly registered in the Philippine Library and
Museum (now Office of the Civil Registrar General). Even assuming
that the marriage of Wong Woo Yiu to Perfecto Blas before a village
leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those authorized in
our country.
Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before
any of the officers mentioned above, and a village leader is not one
of them, it is clear that Wong Woo Yiu’s marriage to Perfecto Blas
in China, even if true, cannot be recognized in our country in the
absence of proof of the China law on such marriage.
OTHER PERTINENT FEATURES FOR SOLEMNIZING

OFFICERS
DUTY OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER AS REQUIRED UNDER

THE MARRIAGE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES
It shall be the duty of the solemnizing officer that after the
marriage celebration, he shall furnish:
(a) The original certificate to either of the contracting
parties;
(b) The duplicate and triplicate to the local civil registrar of
the place where marriage took place; and
(c) The quadruplicate copy of the certificate, the original of

the marriage license, and the affidavit of the contracting
parties regarding solemnization of the marriage in the
place other than those mentioned in Article 8 of the
Family Code, shall be kept by the solemnizing officer.
AN INSTANCE WHERE MARRIAGE IS VALID DESPITE

ABSENCE OF AUTHORITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER TO
SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
Act 3613, Sec. 27 which is the old Marriage Law states
that marriage was considered completely valid if, at the time of
solemnization, both the spouses or one of them believed in good
faith that the solemnizing officer was actually empowered to do so
and that the marriage was perfectly legal. Under the Civil Code,
however, the good faith or bad faith of the parties was immaterial.
If the person performing the marriage had no authority to do so, the
marriage was void, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the
parties. Under the Family Code, even if the solemnizing officer is
not authorized, the marriage would be valid if either or both parties
believe in good faith in his authority to solemnize the marriage. (The
Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Edgardo L. Paras, Vol. 1,
2002 Edition, p. 373)
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM ON TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS
1 March 1989
To : All Regional/Provincial Census Officers and Solem-

nizing Officers
Subject : TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SOLEMNIZ-
ING OFFICERS
For the purpose of this Circular, only those solemnizing officers

enumerated in Article 7 (2) of the Family Code are covered. They are
the priests, rabbis, imams, or ministers of any church or religious
sect, including the bishops, heads, and founder. The territorial
jurisdiction of solemnizing officers or place where the solemnizing
officer refers to a defined but limited area or place where the
solemnizing officers can validly officiate a marriage. The area or
place may be whole Philippines, or only a province or a diocese.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Article 8 of the Family Code provides among other things that

the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church, chapel or
temple, and not elsewhere. Exceptions from the general rule are the
following: (1) marriage contracted at the point of death, or in a remote
place, and (2) where both of the parties request the solemnizing
officer at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement
to that effect.
Reading the provision of the above-cited provision of Article 8
of Family Code, the territorial jurisdiction of the solemnizing officer
must be necessarily limited in the place where the church, chapel or
temple is situated. For example, XYZ religion has five chapels, all of
which are located within Metro Manila. The ministers (or pastors)
of his religion can have territorial jurisdiction only within Metro
Manila and not whole Philippines, for an obvious reason, that said
ministers (or pastors) do not have chapels in Mindanao, Visayas and
in other places outside Metro Manila where they could solemnize
marriage in accordance with law.
The second exception given in Article 8 of the Family Code does
not mean an exception from the rule of territorial jurisdiction. It is
an exception from the rule that a marriage shall be solemnized in a
church, chapel or temple, but the house or place designated by the
contracting parties must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the
concerned solemnizing officer.
As a rule, therefore the territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing
officer is the province where the church, chapel or temple to which he
is assigned is located. For a Catholic priest, his territorial jurisdiction
is the diocese or archdiocese to which he belongs. The territorial
jurisdiction to cover whole Philippines shall be granted only to
bishops, founders, presidents, and heads of religions or religious
sects in consideration of the possible expansion and establishment of
additional churches, chapels or temples of such religion or religious
sects.
(SGD.) TOMAS P. AFRICA

OCRG’s MEMORANDUM TO LCRs ON NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

DUE TO ABSENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND LACK
OF AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
29 August 1997
MEMORANDUM
To : All City/Municipal Registrars
Subject : COURT DECISION CONCERNING NULLITY
OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF A VALID
MARRIAGE LICENSE AND LACK OF AUTHOR-
ITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
Attached is a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court

of Capas, Tarlac in Civil Case No. 351-(95) concerning a petition
for the judicial of nullity of marriage filed by Ms. Cristina Vergara
against her husband, Reynaldo Pascua. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the
Petition for Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by
petitioner Cristina Vergara against respondent Reynaldo Pascua
thru counsel, Atty. Cesar Gomez is hereby DENIED. Case is hereby
DISMISSED.
In passing, it may be timely for the Honorable Secretary,
Department of Interior and Local Government to issue a Circular
reminding municipal mayors that the duty to solemnize marriage
cannot be delegated and for the National Census and Statistics
Office to issue Circular for strict compliance on the ten (10) days
period before issuance of marriage license by the local civil registrar
to the increasing number of cases being filed for annulment on the
ground that the officiating official has no authority to solemnize
the marriage and the non-existence of a marriage at the time of the
solemnization.
In the view of this court decision, the city/municipal civil
registrars are hereby enjoined to observe strictly the proper issuance
of marriage license as provided in the Family Code of the Philippines
and in OCRG Circular No. 3, S. 1988.

IN THE PHILIPPINES
MARRIAGE SHALL BE SOLEMNIZED PUBLICLY

The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of
the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the
office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may
be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at
the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29
of this Code, or where both of the parties request the solemnizing
officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at
a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that
effect. (Article 8, Family Code of the Philippines as cited in Edgardo
L. Paras, The Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Rex Book
Store, Vol. 1, 2002, p. 380).
The reason for public solemnization — The requirement that
the marriage be done publicly is based on the premise that the State
takes an active interest in the marriage.
INSTANCES WHERE PUBLIC SOLEMNIZATION IS NOT

NEEDED
Public solemnization is needed except:
(a) Marriages in chambers of the Justice or Judge.
(b) In marriages in articulo mortis.
(c) In marriages in remote place.
(d) When both of the parties request in writing for solemni-
zation in some other place. The place must be designated
in a sworn statement. (See Paras, The Civil Code of the
Philippines, Annotated, Vol. 1, [Fifteenth Edition], 2002,
p. 380).
A SOLEMNIZING OFFICER NEEDS NOT INVESTIGATE

WHETHER MARRIAGE LICENSE ISSUED BY LCR IS LEGAL
OR NOT
The law does not impose on the solemnizing officers the duty
to investigate whether the license issued by the local civil registrar
was legally or illegally, wrongfully or fraudulently obtained. The
marriage would just the same, be valid without prejudice to the
criminal liability of the guilty parties (People vs. Belen, 45 O.G.
Supp. No. 5 p. 88). Anyway it is sufficient to know that the license
was issued by a competent official, and it may be presumed from the

issuance of said license that said official has complied with his duty
of ascertaining the qualifications of the parties. (People vs. Janssen,
54 Phil. 176).
THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR IS NOT REQUIRED TO INQUIRE

INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING
THE OATH
The local civil registrar who issues the marriage license is not
required to inquire into the authority of the officer administering the
oath and neither is the person solemnizing the marriage required to
investigate as to whether or not a marriage license, which appears
to have been issued by a competent official, was legally obtained.
(Eigenunan vs. Guerra, 5 C.A. Rep. 836).
Rule 2.3 City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR)

The head of the department/office in the Local Government
Unit mandated by law to carry out civil registration functions.
NOTE:
City/Municipal Civil Registrar is the head of the department/
office in the Local Government Unit mandated by law to carry out
civil registration functions.
The City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) is the head of the
local registry office of the city/municipality, as the case may be, who
is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in accordance
with provisions of existing laws.
Under the existing law (Section 479 Republic Act No. 7160
or the Local Government Code of 1991), the appointment of a civil
registrar shall be mandatory for city and municipal governments.
The law further says that the civil registrar shall be responsible for
the registration program in the local government unit concerned,
pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, the Civil Code, and other
pertinent laws, rules and regulations issued to implement them.
(RA No. 9048 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations. p. 3)
The person who is in charge of recording vital events and
other documents affecting the civil status of persons in cities and
municipalities. (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993.).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
OCRG CIRCULAR RE DOJ OPINION ON MINISTERIAL DUTY

OF LCR NOT TO DENY REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS
OTHER THAN INSUFFICIENCY THEREOF

National Economic and Development Authority
NATIONAL CENSUS AND STATISTICS OFFICE
Manila

CIRCULAR NO. 1
SERIES OF 1986
To : All Regional /Provincial/ Municipal Census Officers

and Local Civil Registrars
Subject : OPINION NO. 25, SERIES OF 1986
Attached is a copy of the 2nd Endorsement dated 17 February

1986, which contains an Opinion from the Honorable of Justice
(Opinion No. 25, Series of 1986) in connection with the registration
of a marriage contract.
The salient features of Opinion No. 25, Series of 1986, are the
following:
1. The duty of the Local Civil Registrar to register marriage
contracts is purely ministerial. The Local Civil Registrar
is not empowered to question the intrinsic validity of the
act or instrument sought to be registered. It is therefore
incumbent upon the Local Civil Registrar to accept and
register documents without inquiring into the accuracy
or veracity of the various entries found therein. The Civil
Registry Law does not authorize a Local Civil Registrar
to deny registration of documents presented to him for
registration on grounds other than the insufficiency
thereof for purposes of registration (Opinion No. 68,
Series of 1951, No. 106, Series of 1980).
2. Article 76 of the Civil Code expressly provides that the
affidavit attesting to the fact that the contracting parties
have been living together for the required period should
be executed by the contracting parties themselves. The
use of the word “shall“ in the said Article indicates that

the requirement is mandatory, not directory merely.
(SGD.) MARCELO M. ORENSE

Executive Director
AN OCRG CIRCULAR RE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) DECISION

AGAINST LCR FOR REFUSING TO REGISTER LEGITIMA-
TION OF CHILD TO UNDERAGE MOTHER AND THAT LCR’S
MINISTERIAL DUTY TO REGISTER CR DOCUMENTS ONLY
OBTAINS ONCE THE LCR IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPLI-
CATION ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE
COMPLETE AND CONSISTENT

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Ref. No. 997000-0381
Circular No. 99-1

11 August 1999

Subject : LEGITIMATION OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
OF UNDER AGE MOTHER OR FATHER OR
BOTH
The issue as to whether or not an illegitimate child of under age

parents can be legitimated by subsequent marriage of the latter is
finally settled by the Court of Appeals in the case of Spouses Alberto
Bioco, Jr. and Junice Bongay-Bioco vs. MCR of Montevista and the
Civil Registrar General, CA-G.R. Sp. No. 51583, 07 July 1999.
Here are the facts of the case:
On December 23, 1991, Junice Bongay gave birth to a child
with Alberto Bioco as the natural father. Since the couple was not
married, the child was registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar
IN THE PHILIPPINES
of Montevista as Jessa Bongay, following her mother’s maiden

name. On February 14, 1994, Junice and Alberto were married at
the Sta. Teresita Parish Church in Nabunturan. Junice and Alberto
attempted to register the legitimation of their daughter and to
change her registered surname, from Bongay to Bioco. However, the
Municipal Civil Registrar of Montevista refused to register it on the
ground that the mother Junice was below 18 years old at the time of
the child’s conception.
Consequently, Junice and Alberto filed a Mandamus case
against the Municipal Civil Registrar of Montevista and the Civil
Registrar General to compel the latter to cause the registration of
the legitimation of their minor child Jessa Bongay (Special Civil
Case No. 38, RTC, Nabunturan, Comval).
Respondents (MCR of Buenavista and the Civil Registrar
General) filed a verified answer wherein it argued that petitioners’
daughter cannot be legitimated citing Article 177 in relation to
Articles 2 and 5 of the Family Code, since at the time of the conception
of the said child, her mother was under a legal impediment to marry
in view of the fact that the latter was underage. Furthermore, they
argued that although the registration of civil registry documents is
ministerial, such duty obtains, once the civil registrar is satisfied
that the application along with the supporting documents are
complete and consistent. (Emphasis ours).
On September 30, 1998, the trial court issued an order in favor
of the petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:
PREMISED ON ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS,
order is hereby issued directing the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Montevista, Comval Province to register the child Jessa Bongay-
Bioco as legitimate child of Alberto Bioco Jr. and Junice Bongay-
Bioco.
The MCR of Montevista and the Civil Registrar General
brought the case to the Court of Appeals, assigning the following
issues:
1. Whether or not mandamus would lie to compel the
respondents to register the legitimation of petitioners’
daughter, and
2. Whether or not petitioners’ daughter is a legitimated
child under the provisions of the Family Code.
The 4th Division of the Court of Appeals composed of

Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino, Salome A. Montoyo and
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. rendered the following decision:
The appeal must be sustained.
In rendering the order appealed from, the trial court
sustained the ground relied upon by petitioners. His Honor
reasoned thus:
“Art. 177 of the Family Code of the Philippines states:
Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents
who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be
legitimated.
In law, there are two (2) restrictions: Incapacity and
disqualification. Incapacity like age, disqualification like when
one of the spouses is already married to another person, the
phrase in Article 177 which states: ‘were not disqualified by any
impediment to marry each other’ may refer to the restriction
which is incapacity as to age and not to the restriction which
is disqualification like being married to another person. Hence,
upon reaching the age of majority and upon their subsequent
marriage the child born outside wedlock when one of the
parents was still of non-age may be legitimated.
To interpret otherwise would result to an absurdity
because the child born out of wedlock would be illegitimate while
his brothers and sisters born after marriage are considered
legitimate.”
In our view, the trial court’s confident stride falters.
Incapacity is defined in Luciano vs. Provincial Governor,
28 SCRA 537, as the lack of physical or intellectual power or
of natural or legal qualification. In this sense, the trial court is
correct when it says that non-age is incapacity, at least legally.
Disqualification however is a state of being disqualified,
i.e., that which disqualified or incapacitates, as non-age is a
disqualification to enter into marriage. The distinction is thus a
mere academic or theoretical discussion for lack of the required
necessary age is a cause or fact, an impediment which prevents
the information of a valid marriage. Under-age prevents the
person subject to it from marrying at all. The essential requisite
of legal capacity is lacking, and, as a consequence, rendered the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
marriage void ab initio (Arts. 2, 4 and 35, Family Code). Thus

understood, the legal capacity of the party, as an essential
requisite to enter into the marriage contract, simply meant
that he/she must have the necessary age and there must be
no impediment. A person below the required age of 18 cannot
marry at all. This is an absolute legal impediment. Applying
Article 177 of the Family Code, petitioners-appellees’ daughter
Jessa cannot be legitimated because petitioner Junice, at the
time of the conception of daughter Jessa, was only fourteen (14)
years old and therefore there is an impediment as the parents
could not have contracted marriage.
It is stated forcefully that to interpret Article 177 otherwise
would result to an absurdity. This is not acceptable. Absurdity
in the law, if any, cannot be corrected by judicial decisions but
by legislation. The judiciary cannot change a congressional law
by an extensive interpretation of it.
Under the given state of facts, petitioners have no clear
legal right to the performance of the act to be required of the
respondents-appellants and that the latter have no imperative
duty to perform.
The writ of mandamus therefore does not lie.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is REVERSED
and the petition for mandamus DISMISSED. No costs.
Henceforth, in view of this latest decision of the Court of
Appeals, any affidavit of legitimation executed by the parents
of an illegitimate child who was conceived and born when
one or both of the former were below 18 years old shall not be
recorded in the Register of Legal Instruments and shall not
be used as a legal basis in making marginal annotation in the
record of birth of the latter. The same rule shall apply even if
ordered by a Regional Trial Court.

Copy furnished:
All Regional Administrators & Oils
All Provincial Statistics Officers & OICs
All District Statistics Officers

All Statistical Coordination Officers
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE AGAINST LCR WHERE THE COURT

RULED THAT MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE TO COMPEL THE
PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LAW

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Ref. No. 997000-0398

Mr. Severino G. Capili
OIC-Provincial Statistics Officer
Tuguegarao, Cagayan
Dear Mr. Capili:

We refer to your letter of 17 September 1999 (Ref. No. 991527-
831) concerning the case of Roderick and Relyn, both surnamed
“Sacramento”.
It appears that Sidirio T. Urmanita and Maria Rogenia T.
Sacramento were married on 19 April 1997. However, prior to the
marriage, the couple had two children whom they named Roderick
and Relyn, respectively. Roderick was born on 21 November 1994,
while Relyn on 14 December 1996. The mother, Maria Rogenia, was
only 17 years old when she gave birth to Roderick. However, she was
more than 18 years old when she gave birth to Relyn. Inasmuch as
their parents were not married at the time they were born, Roderick
and Relyn were recorded in the civil register as illegitimate, carrying
the surname of their mother which is ”Sacramento”.
In an effort to have their children to use the surname of
their father ”Urmanita”, the parents filed the” PETITION FOR
JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION OF
MINOR NATURAL CHILD” with the Regional Trail Court, Branch
6, in Aparri, Cagayan (Spl. Proc. No. II-1998). The judge rendered
the decision on 29 April 1999:
IN THE PHILIPPINES
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby

approved the recognition of minor RODERICK SACRAMENTO and
RELYN SACRAMENTO by their parents SIDIRIO T. URMANITA
and MA. ROGINIA T. SACRAMENTO. The minor children Roderick
Sacramento and Relyn Sacramento may henceforth use the surname
of their father, Sidirio T. Urmanita. The Local Civil Registrar of
Camaluniugan, Cagayan is hereby ordered to make the corrected
entries in the Registers of Births of RODERICK SACRAMENTO
and RELYN SACRAMENTO and change the same to RODERICK
S. URMANITA and RELYN S. URMANITA.
The civil registrar now asks the following queries:
1. The fact that this is already a Court Order, is there no
possibility that this Court Order be changed by the same
Judge from Court Resolution of Recognition to “Court
order to Adoption” to conform with Article 198 of the New
Family Code?
2. As MCR, am I compelled to follow this /court Order of
Recognition instead of Adoption by changing the entry
of Roderick surnamed Sacramento (who was born at
the time when his mother was only 17 years old) to
“URMANITA”?
3. As regards, the 2nd child named RELYN SACRAMENTO,
also born outside marriage of the same couple, but the
mother is already 18 years old at the time Relyn’s birth,
am I also compelled to follow the same Court Order by
changing Relyn’s surname to “Urmanita” disregarding
the legitimation procedure Rule 66 of Adm. Order s. of
1993 and Article 178 of the NFC?
Before we answer the queries, may we discuss the issue
concerning the surname of an illegitimate child born during the
effectivity of the Family Code Article 176 of the Family Code which
provides among others that illegitimate children shall use the
surname of their mother.
Sometimes in 1988, this Officer referred this query to the
Chairman (the late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes) of the Civil Code
Revision Committee which drafted the Family Code: When the law
says that the illegitimate children shall use the surname of their
mother, does it mean that the illegitimate children shall use the
surname of their mother even if they have been acknowledged by
their father in their records of births? On 23 September 1998, the

Chairman responded:
An illegitimate child shall use the surname of his mother,
regardless of whether or not his father admits paternity, but for
purposes of support and succession, an affidavit of paternity is
necessary. In other words, the surname of the illegitimate child should
still be that of his mother, but the name of the father who executes
an affidavit of admission of paternity should also be indicated on the
birth certificate for purposes of support and succession. The birth
certificate is an evidence of paternity but the affidavit of admission
of paternity of the child does not affect the naming of the illegitimate
child.
In one case (Marissa A. Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals and
Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998), the
Supreme Court said that mandamus will not lie to compel the local
civil registrar to register the certificate of live birth of an illegitimate
child using the father’s surname, even with the consent of the
latter. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act
prohibited by law. (Emphasis supplied)
For the information and guidance of all concerned parties, here
is the decision of the Supreme Court in the mentioned mandamus
case:
Marissa A. Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals

and Civil Registrar General
G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998
PARDO, J:
The case is an appeal via certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
that of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig Branch 69, dismissing the
petition of the putative father, later substituted by the unwed mother,
to compel the local civil registrar of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, to
register the certificate of live birth of petitioners’ illegitimate child
using the surname of the presumed father.
On December 2, 1980, petitioner Marissa Alfaro Mossesgeld,
single, 31 years of age, gave birth to a baby boy at the Medical City
General Hospital, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. It was the third
time that she delivered a child. The presumed father, one Eleazar
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Sinban Calasan, 42 years old, a lawyer, married and resident of 8632

San Jose St. Guadalupe Nuveo, Makati, Metro Manila, signed the
birth certificate of the child as the informant, indicating therein the
child’s first name as Jonathan middle name as Mossesgeld, and last
name as Calasan. Both the presumed father. Eleazar S. Calasan and
the mother Marissa A. Mossesgeld, accomplished the dorsal side of
the certificate of live birth stating that the information contained
therein were true and correct. In addition, Lawyer Calasan executed
an affidavit admitting paternity of the child.
On December 6, 1989, due to the refusal of the person in charge
at the hospital to placing the presumed father’s surname as the
child’s surname in the certificate of live birth, petitioner himself
submitted the certificate to the office of the local civil registrar of
Mandaluyong, for registration.
On December 28, 1989, the municipal treasurer of Mandaluyong,
as officer in charge of the office of the local civil registrar, rejected
the registration on the basis of Circular No. 4 dated October 11,
1988 of the Civil Registrar General, providing that under Article
176 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate children born
on or after August 3, 1988, shall use the surname of their mother.
On October 9, 1990, lawyer Eleazar S. Calasan personally
went to the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong to inquire about
the status of the registration of his illegitimate child’s certificate
of birth, but was furnished with a copy of the letter dated January
17, 1990 of the Civil Registrar General denying registration of the
certificate of live birth of petitioner’s illegitimate child using the
father’s surname, for it is contrary to law.
On November 7, 1990, lawyer Eleazar S. Calasan filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Branch 69, a petition for mandamus
to compel the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila,
to register the certificate of live birth of his alleged illegitimate son
using his surname.
On October 29, 1991, the lower court denied the petition, ruling
that illegitimate children must use the surname of their mothers,
regardless of whether or not they had been acknowledged by their
fathers in the record of birth.
On November 21, 1991, petitioner Calasan filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial. In the meantime, on December 9, 1991,
he filed a motion for leave to amend petition and to admit amended
petition, substituting the child’s mother Marissa A. Mossesgeld as

the petitioner.
On February 11, 1992, the lower court granted the motion for
leave to amend petition. However, on June 3, 1992, the lower court
denied the motion for reconsideration.
In due time, petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of
Appeals.
On July 23, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered decision
affirming the judgment appealed from.
Hence, this petition.
The issue raised is whether mandamus lies to compel the Local
Civil Registrar to register a certificate of live birth of an illegitimate
child using the alleged father’s surname where the latter admitted
paternity.
We deny the petition.
Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that
“illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the
parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support
in conformity under this Code.” This is the rule regardless of whether
or not the father admits paternity. Consequently, the Local Civil
Registrar correctly refused to register the certificate of live birth
of petitioner’s illegitimate child using the surname of the alleged
father, even with the latter’s consent. Of course, the putative father,
though a much married man, may legally adopt his own illegitimate
child. In case of adoption, the child shall be considered a legitimate
child of the adopter.
The Family Code has effectively repealed the provisions of
Article 366 of the Civil Code of the Philippines giving a natural child
acknowledged by both parents the right to use the surname of the
father. The family Code has limited the classification of children
to legitimate and illegitimate, thereby eliminating the category
of acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal
fiction.
Consequently, we rule that mandamus will not lie to compel
the local civil registrar to register the certificate of live birth of an
illegitimate child using the father’s surname, even with the consent
of the latter. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an
act prohibited by law.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on

certiorari. We AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals and
that of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Branch 69, dismissing the
petition for mandamus in Special Civil action No. 60146.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Romero, Kapunan, and Purisma, JJ. concur.
The other issue is whether or not Roderick Sacramento shall

be considered legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of
his parents on 19 April 1997. It should be recalled that Roderick’s
mother was only 17 years old when she gave birth to him. Pursuant
to the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Spouses
Alberto Bioco, Jr. and Junice Bongay-Bioco vs. MCR of Montevista
and the Civil Registrar General, C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 51583, 07 July
1999, which was the subject of Circular No. 99-1 issued by this Office
on 11 August 1999, the answers is no.
Going back to the queries of Municipal Civil Registrar Benjamin
V. Tion, here are our answers:
1. The judge renders decision on the basis of what is prayed
for in the petition. In the instant case, the petition is for
judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural
child and not for adoption. The judge cannot even convert
the decision to one concerning adoption. If the interested
parties want to file petition for adoption, then the judge
shall render the appropriate decision.
2. In view of the foregoing decision of the Supreme Court, it
appears that the decision rendered by Judge Virgilio M.
Alameda is not only erroneous, but is contrary to law. As
what the Supreme Court said, mandamus does not lie to
compel the performance of an act prohibited by law.
3. Accordingly, you are not bound to obey the order of the
court in the instant case.
4. In the case of Relyn Sacramento, she is considered
legitimated by subsequent marriage of her parents on
19 April 1997. She is entitled to use the surname of her
father not on the basis of the court order but by virtue of
her being a legitimated child. Her legitimation shall be
recorded in the civil register in accordance with pertinent

provisions of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993.
Very truly yours,

Copy furnished:
All City/Municipal Civil Registrars
All Provincial Statistics Officer & OICs
All Regional Administrators & OICs
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM CONCERNING A CASE OF LCR WHO

REFUSED TO REGISTER DOCUMENT DESPITE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT’S ORDER

EDSA corner Times St,
West Triangle, Quezon City
Ref. No. 01CRD00-224
30 July 2001
MEMORANDUM
Subject : LEGITIMATION UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE
FAMILY CODE
The issue is whether or not an illegitimate child, whose mother

or father or both parents are below eighteen (18) years old at the
time when the former was conceived and born, can be legitimated
by the subsequent marriage if its parents. In case of Sps. Reynaldo
and Evelyn Guillano versus LCR of New Bataan and Civil Registrar
General, CA-G.R. No. Sp-51581, 17 July 2001, the Court of Appeals
said “no”. Here are the facts of the case:
IN THE PHILIPPINES
On 05 January 1997, Reynaldo Guillano and Evelyn Balangitao

got married in Nabunturan, Davao. Prior to the celebration of their
marriage, they had a child on 05 October 1993 and was registered
as John Rey Balangitao, using the surname of the mother since the
parents were not yet married to each other as the mother was only
sixteen (16) years old then.
Thereafter, on account of their marriage, the parents attempted
to register the legitimation of their son, John Rey, and to change its
surname from Balangitao to Guillano.
The MCR of New Bataan, Comval Province refused to register
the legitimation and to change the surname of the child to Guillano
which is the surname of the father, on the ground that the mother
was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the conception of
the child. Instead, the MCR advised the parents to file an adoption
case.
Hence, on 17 July 1997, the parents filed a Special Civil Action
for Mandamus seeking for the issuance of an Order mandating the
MCR to register John Rey as their legitimated child. They alleged in
their complaint that their subsequent marriage operates the act of
legitimation as provided by the Family Code of the Philippines.
On 23 September 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 03,
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
PREMISED ON ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS,
order is hereby issued directing the Local Civil Registrar of New
Bataan, Comval Province, to register the child, JOHN REY
Balangitao Guillano, as legitimate child of Reynaldo Guillano and
Evelyn Balangitao Guillano and Evelyn Balangitao Guillano.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals said:
Article 177 of the Family Code reads:
Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock
of parents who, at the time of conception of the former, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be
legitimated.
It is very clear there from that illegitimate children of parents,
who at the time of conception of the former were not disqualified
by any impediment to marry each other, are legitimated by the
subsequent marriage of said parents. Thus, the child of parents, one
or both of whom are below 18 years of age at the time of conception

and birth of the child, is not legitimated by the subsequent marriage
of the parents. The requirement of 18 years of age in marriage is not
merely a declaration of capacity but one of the disqualification if not
met (Art. 35 Family Code) and clearly then an “impediment” within
the meaning of Article 177 of the Code (Vitug, Compendium of Civil
Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Revised Edition, pp. 231-232).
Those born of parents who could not be validly married due to
some impediment at the time of the conception of the child cannot
be legitimated. And even if subsequent to the birth of the child the
parents become qualified to marry, the child cannot be legitimated
because of the provisions of the aforequoted article. (Tolentino, Civil
Code of the Philippines Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1,
1990 Edition, p. 549).
Hence, considering than John Rey was conceived and born
when his mother Evelyn was only 16 years of age, he cannot be
legitimated by the subsequent valid marriage of his parents,
petitioners-appellees, as her mother’s age then was clearly an
impediment within the meaning of Article 177 of the Family Code.
WHEREFORE, findings merit in the instant appeal, we resolve
to GRANT the same. The assailed order is accordingly REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and the instant Special Civil Action for Mandamus
is DISMISSED.
Thus, in view of this latest decision of the Court of Appeals, the
rule is very clear. Illegitimate children who were conceived and born
at the time when the mother or father or both parents are below 18
years of age cannot be legitimated by subsequent marriage of their
parents.

OIC-Civil Registrar General
Copy furnished:
All Regional Directors
All Provincial Statistics Officer
IN THE PHILIPPINES
OIC LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR CANNOT VALIDLY EXERCISE

THE ADDITIONAL POWER VESTED BY RA NO. 9048
Under the Memorandum Circular No. 2001-92 issued by DILG
Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman, Jr. on 26 July 2001, which
was addressed to all Provincial Governors, City Mayors, Municipal
Mayors, DILG Regional Directors and others concerned, it is
provided that an OIC-Local Civil Registrar cannot validly exercise
the additional power vested by R.A. 9048.
Among others, DILG Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman, Jr.
said: The need for permanent Civil Registrars has been reiterated
with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9048, which took effect on
22 April 2001. That law expanded on the basic quasi-judicial duties
and functions of the Civil Registrar as provided under paragraph
C, Section 479 of Republic Act No. 7160. It amended Articles 376
and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, by granting the city
and municipal civil registrars, among other specified officials, the
authority to correct clerical or typographical error and to change
first name or nickname in the civil register without need of a judicial
order. But more importantly, the new law, albeit indirectly, qualifies
or limits the use of said authority by defining under paragraph 1,
Section 2 of the amendatory law, the term “city or municipal civil
registrar”. In that provision, such official is defined as “the head of
the local civil registry office of the city or municipality, as the case
may be, who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor
in accordance with the provisions of existing laws (underscoring
supplied). For this reason an OIC-Local Civil Registrar cannot
validly exercise this additional power vested by law, thus depriving
the affected constituents of the benefits given by the new enactment.
(RA No. 9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations Manual
of Instructions, pp. 3-4).
AN INSTANCE WHERE OIC LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR (LCR)

MAY ACCEPT AND ACT ON PETITION UNDER RA NO. 9048.
Having an OIC or Acting C/MCR cannot be avoided in some
cases, such as when the incumbent C/MCR is on leave (sick,
vacation or maternity) or traveling on official business outside the
city or municipality, or suspended from performing his duties as
a consequence of a disciplinary action. In these exceptional cases,
when the period of absence of the incumbent C/MCR is less than ten
(10) working days, the OIC or Acting C/MCR duly designated by him
shall only accept petitions for correction of clerical error or for change
of first name but the decision shall be rendered by the incumbent
C/MCR on his return. However, when the period of absence is ten
(10) working days or more, the OIC or Acting C/MCR shall accept
petitions and subsequently render decision. (Underscoring ours).
The concept introduced in the immediately preceding
paragraph should be differentiated from the pronouncement of
DILG Undersecretary Soliman that an OIC-Local Civil Registrar
cannot validly exercise the additional power vested by R.A. 9048.
In the latter case, the presumption is that there is no incumbent C/
MCR of the city or municipality, while in the former, the incumbent
C/MCR is merely absent temporarily. (Manual of Instructions, R.A.
No. 9048 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations, p. 4).
WHEN TO FURNISH THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO THE

LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR?
Within fifteen (15) days after the celebration of the marriage,
the solemnizing officer shall furnish the local civil registrar the
duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage contract. The civil
registrar has only a ministerial duty to accept and record the
marriage contract. He has no right to investigate the legality or
regularity of the contract or the proceedings thereof.
The marriage contract once accepted shall form part of the civil
registry book. (Sec. 4, Act No. 3753).
FAILURE TO FURNISH THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO

THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
When the marriage contract does not appear in the civil
registry for marriages in the municipality where the marriage took
place, because the solemnizing officer failed to furnish the local
civil registrar a copy thereof, or the local civil registrar failed to
enter the contract in the book, but the marriage was proven by the
testimony of the solemnizing officer, the parties are living together
as husband and wife, and in one document their children signed and
stated that they are the children of the spouses, the court held: The
marriage existed, in view of the proofs presented. And the failure
of the solemnizing officer to send a copy of the marriage contract to
the local civil registrar is not an essential defect, the forwarding of
a copy of the marriage contract not being an essential requisite for
IN THE PHILIPPINES
a valid marriage. (Pugeda vs. Trias, et al., L-16925, March 31, 1962;
Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179).
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE

MARRIAGE FOR FAILURE TO RECORD THE MARRIAGE IN
THE MARRIAGE REGISTER
Jones vs. Hortiguela

G.R. No. 43701
March 6, 1937
Facts:
Marciana Escaño was married to Arthur W. Jones in a ceremony
in a catholic church in December, 1914. A child Angelita Jones was
born to the marriage. After a few years of their marriage, Arthur
was able to obtain a passport to go abroad and thereafter nothing
was heard of him.
Marciana filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive
death of Arthur after more than seven years of the latter’s absence
so that she could marry Felix. After the declaration of presumptive
death of Arthur was obtained, Marciana and Felix married each
other before the justice of the peace (now municipal judge). After a
few years of their marriage, Marciana died leaving a considerable
estate, and Felix was appointed as administrator of the estate of the
deceased. The court then declared Angelina and Felix as the only
heirs of the deceased.
Angelina filed a motion in the intestate court that she be
declared the only heir of Marciana contending that the marriage
between her mother and Felix was null and void on the ground that
said marriage does not appear recorded in the marriage register.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Marciana Escaño and Felix Hortiguela
null and void for failure to record the said marriage in the marriage
register?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Marciana
Escaño and Felix Hortiguela is not null and void because it does not
appear recorded in the marriage register. Section VIII of General
Order No. 68, as amended, provides that person solemnizing the
marriage must transmit the original of the marriage certificate to

the municipal secretary (now local civil registrar), and failure to
transmit such certificate shall be fined not less than 25 and not more
than 50 dollars; but it does not provide that failure to transmit such
certificate to the municipal secretary annuls the marriage.
The Supreme Court quoted its decision in a previous case and
said: “The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff’s
natural father and mother, while the latter is in articulo mortis,
failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal
secretary does not invalidate the marriage, since it does not appear
that in the celebration thereof all the requisites for its validity were
not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not
being one of the said requisites.
FAILURE TO REGISTER MARRIAGE CONTRACT

The mere fact that no record of marriage exists in the registry
of marriage does not invalidate said marriage, as long as in the
celebration thereof, all requisites for its validity are present (See:
People vs. Borromeo, 133 SCRA 106).
THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR IS NOT REQUIRED TO INQUIRE

INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING
THE OATH
The local civil registrar who issues the marriage license is not
required to inquire into the authority of the officer administering the
oath and neither is the person solemnizing the marriage required to
investigate as to whether or not a marriage license, which appears
to have been issued by a competent official, was legally obtained.
(Eigenunan vs. Guerra, 5 C.A. Rep. 836).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM REGARDING A CASE WHERE LCR

WAS DISMISSED FROM SERVICE DUE TO ISSUANCE OF
FAKE DEATH CERTIFICATE

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Ref. No. 997000-069
04 February 1999
MEMORANDUM
To : All City/ Municipal Civil Registrars
Subject : DISMISSAL OF CIVIL REGISTRAR FROM THE
SERVICE FOR ISSUANCE OF FAKE CERTIFI-
CATE OF DEATH
We are providing you a copy of the decision of the Office of the

Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dated 10 June 1998 in connection
with case number OMB-ADM-1-97-0075 (Felipe Melchor versus
Gerty R. Gironella, Eliseo L. Firmalo and Jose L. Gironella, for
dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of public officers). Mr. Eliseo L.
Firmalo who is one of the respondents is the municipal civil registrar
of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. In the decision, the Ombudsman
said:
“… this Office is of the considered opinion and so holds that
the respondent’s act of issuing the questioned death certificate,
altering the registry book and introducing the falsified document
as evidence is a form of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming
of a public officer. Dishonestly is a serious offense. It reflects
on the person’s character and exposes the moral decay which
virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is an
absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceit or
defraud, bad faith. Conduct unbecoming is a transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, more particularly
unlawful behavior by a public officer. It implies a wrongful
intention and not a mere error of judgment.
This case derails the advocacy of this Office to improve the
integrity of local civil registry offices, particularly the integrity of
the certifications you are issuing. Let us join hands in this advocacy.
May this case serve as a warning to some civil registrars, who

take for granted the performance of their duties, and who willfully
deviate from established rules and regulations in delivering civil
registration services to the community.
For the Civil Registrar General:
CARLITO B. LALICON, MNSA

Civil Registry Coordinator
Encl:a/s
Copy furnished:
All Regional Administrators & OICs
All Provincial Statistics Officers & OICs
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON FAILURE OF THE SOLEMNIZING

OFFICER (JUDGE) TO RETAIN A COPY OF THE MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE AND TO REGISTER THE MARRIAGE WITH
LCR’S OFFICE
Beso vs. Judge Daguman

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211
January 28, 2000
Facts:
Zenaida Beso contracted marriage with Bernadito Yman before
Judge Daguman. After the wedding, Bernadito Yman abandoned
Zenaida without any reason at all. Because Zenaida smelled
something fishy, she inquired from the civil registrar regarding
her marriage. To her surprise, she was informed that her marriage
was not registered. She went to Judge Daguman to ask for a copy
of the marriage certificate but she was told that he did not retain
any copy. She then filed an administrative complaint against Judge
Daguman charging the latter of negligence in not retaining a copy
of the marriage certificate and in not registering the same with the
office of civil registrar.
Issue:
Is Judge Daguman guilty of negligence in not retaining a copy
of the marriage certificate and in not registering the same with the
office of the civil registrar?
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Ruling:
Yes, Judge Daguman is negligent for failure to retain a copy of
the marriage certificate and to register the same with the office of
the civil registrar.
According to Supreme Court, such duty is entrusted to him as
solemnizing officer pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code which
reads: “It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to
furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage
certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the
marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage
was solemnized. xxx.”
The Supreme Court further said that “it is clearly evident from
the foregoing that not only has the respondent judge committed
nonfeasance in office, he also undermined the very foundation of
marriage which is the basic social institution in our society whose
nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law. Granting
the respondent Judge indeed failed to locate the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the marriage certificate, he should have exerted
more effort to locate or reconstitute the same. As a holder of such a
sensitive position, he is expected to be conscientious in the handling
of official documents.”
Rule 2.4 NSO Regional Director (RD)

Head of the NSO Regional Office (RO) who assists the
CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the region of
jurisdiction.
NOTE:
The NSO Regional Director assists the Civil Registrar
General in administering the provisions of Act No. 3753 (Civil
Registry Law) in the region. Coordinates and monitors the
implementation of the civil registration system in the region.
(NSO Procedures Manual, pp. 1-25)
Signs and issues the Certificate of Registration of Authority to
Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) and implements security measures to
preserve the integrity of the CRASM. (Rule 5, Administrative Order
No. 2, Series of 2005)
NSO OCRG Administrative Order No. 1, Sec. 8 states “Duty of

the Regional Census Officer (now Regional Director). The Regional
Census Officer, acting for and in behalf of the Civil Registrar General
within his area of jurisdiction, shall have control and supervision
over the acts of his provincial census officers in the performance of
their functions with respect to these regulations.
OCRG’S CIRCULAR RE DELEGATION OF SUPERVISORY

FUNCTION TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS AND PROVINCIAL
OFFICERS OF NSO BY OCRG

National Economic and Development Authority
NATIONAL CENSUS AND STATISTICS OFFICE
Manila

CIRCULAR NO. 1
Series of 1985
To : All Regional and Provincial Census Officers and

Local Civil Registrars Concerned
Subject : DELEGATION OF SUPERVISORY FUNCTION
TO REGIONAL AND PROVINCIAL CENSUS OF-
FICERS TO MATTERS PERTAINING TO CIVIL
REGISTRATION
Under the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337),

Chapter 3, Article One, Section 14 (4) thereof, it is provided and to
quote:
“Section 14 (4) unless the contrary is provided, the regional
offices or appropriate field units of the various ministers and
national agencies in the region shall be the major points
of contact and liaison between local governments and the
national government shall as a general policy and as much as
practicable, effect the substantial delegation of authority and
powers to the regional offices.”
ACCORDINGLY, and effective immediately, all Regional
and Provincial Census Officers are hereby authorized to act as
liaison between the Executive Director of the National Census and
Statistics Office, who by operation of law, is the Civil Registrar
IN THE PHILIPPINES
General and the Local Civil Registrars of cities and municipalities.

As such they are given the authority and duty to provide general
supervision over the Local Civil Registrars in their respective areas
of jurisdiction. In matters pertaining to civil registration, it shall be
their duty and function to: (1) monitor the status of civil registration
system; (2) provide instructions to Local Civil Registrars with
respect to the implementation of the laws and rules of registration;
(3) look into civil registry records for purposes of ascertaining their
proper maintenance and safekeeping; (4) coordinate with heads
of other national and local agencies programs designed to effect a
more efficient civil registration system and (5) perform such other
activities as may be necessary to ensure that civil registration
system is carried out in accordance with the laws and regulations of
this country.
The Local Civil Registrars are enjoined to extend their
assistance and support to the Regional and Provincial Census
Officers necessary in the effective discharge of their duties and
functions as defined in this Circular.
Manila, January 29, 1985
MARCELO M. ORENSE
Executive Director And
Copy furnished:
The City/Municipal Mayor
Rule 2.5 NSO Provincial Statistics Officer (PSO)

Head of the NSO Provincial Office (PO) who assists the
CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the province of
jurisdiction.
NOTE:
The Provincial Statistics Office is headed by a Provincial
Statistics Officer (PSO) assisted by the statistical and non-statistical
personnel. Implements and administers the provisions of Act No.
3753 and other pertinent laws on civil registration in the province.
(NSO Procedures’ Manual, p. 1-26)
He/she accepts duly accomplished CRASM application forms

(OCRG-SO Form No.1) and checks and evaluates the completeness
and correctness of entries and endorses the application forms and
all other required documents to the office of the Regional Director
and thereafter releases CRASM to the concerned SOs. (Rule 6,
Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2005)
Section 7 of Administrative No. 1 of 1988 states that the
provincial census officer shall examine the application form and
the other required documents for completeness and correctness of
entries. In case of doubt, the provincial census officer may conduct
an investigation only with respect to the following:
(1) Whether the applicant for registration is performing other
religious rites and services and not merely solemnizing
marriages;
(2) Whether or not the applicant has a church, temple
or chapel where the religious rites and services are
periodically conducted in the province; and
(3) Whether or not the religion or religious sect of the
applicant has a congregation of at least two hundred bona
fide active members.
The provincial census officer shall forward the application form
and all other required documents, and in some cases, the result of
his investigation, to the office of the Civil Registrar General, with his
endorsement or recommendation as to whether or not the applicant
shall be registered as a solemnizing officer. In case of negative
endorsement or recommendation, he shall state the reason why the
applicant for registration shall not be registered as a solemnizing
officer.
Rule 2.6 Office of the Muslim Affairs (OMA)

An office created under the Office of the President with
a mandate to preserve and develop the culture, traditions,
institutions and well-being of Muslim Filipinos, in conformity with
the country’s laws and in consonance with national unity and
development. (Executive Order No. 122-A)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
NOTE:
ISLAMIC RULE ON APPLICATION OF LAWS
The Muslim Code (Article 13) provides certain rules on its
application to marriage and divorce, before we proceed to explain
this provision, three (3) points should be underscored in order to
clearly understand its provisions.
First, in Islamic jurisprudence, law is personal in its application
to the Muslims. This means that the authority of law in Islamic
theory is primarily based on men’s conscience, not on political force
or the constitution of a particular political society. Thus, if a Muslim
goes from one state to another, he is bound by the same laws and
even if he does not live within the jurisdiction of an Islamic state,
the Islamic law still applies to his conscience.
Second, the application of Islamic Law to non-Muslims is
entirely territorial. The principle of toleration is based upon the
tradition of Prophet Muhammad when he said: “leave alone the non-
Muslim and whatever they believe in”. For instance, the drinking
of intoxicating liquor is a matter of opinion. The Islamic law will
merely abstain from interfering with a non-Muslim drinking liquor
and it will not enforce against him the sentence of hadd (Islamic
punishment for criminal offence, page 153, Dictionary in Islam by
Thomas Hughes).
Third, in matter of contract, the law of the place of contract
applies. Thus a transaction between a Muslim and non-Muslim
affects the application of Islamic law in the sense that if the contract
is executed in non-Muslim state, the same is not objectable even
though it would be ineffective in law if executed in an Islamic
country. As regards the application of the Muslim Code in matters
of marriage and divorce, it is well to categorize our approach to wit:
(1) the provisions of the Muslim Code on marriage and divorce
automatically apply where both husband and wife are Muslims.
There is no other alternative.
(2) it applies where only the male party is a Muslim and the
marriage is solemnized in accordance with the Muslim Code, upon
agreement of the parties.
(3) it does not apply where a male party is a Muslim and
the female party is non-Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with civil law. In this case, the civil law applies.
(4) in a combined Islamic-civil marriage rites, the first rite is

the validating rite while the second rite is merely ceremonial.
(5) if the male party marries an idolator or polytheist, the
Islamic marriage is void.
(6) if the female party is a Muslim and the male party is a
non-Muslim (Scriptural or not), the Islamic marriage is void.
In the fourth, fifth and sixth instances, the Civil marriage is
valid if the civil rite is properly followed, though the marriage is void
under Islamic law. (Justice Jainal D. Rasul, Comparative Laws: The
Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code, pp. 34-36).
ISLAMIC MARRIAGE TO NON-MUSLIMS

If the female party is non-scriptural (atheists, polytheists, non-
Jews, non-Christians and Non-Muslims), even if the male party is
a Muslim, the marriage is still void. The reason is understandable.
The prophet of Islamic, according to traditions, wanted to avoid
the disastrous influence exercised by idolatry over the people
of Arabian peninsula. But the reason for the prohibition of the
marriage of a Muslim female to a non-Muslim male (scriptural or
not) considering the religious tolerance of Islam is quite difficult
to fathom. The real philosophy behind this prohibition is two-
fold. First, it is political. Knowing the dominance of male in a
household or family management, Islamic political system may
fall into the hands of non-Muslims. Second, Islam is proverbially
perceived to be an all-embracing ideology including as it does all
divine relations of God, thru Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus
and Muhammad. Consequently, if the male is a Muslim, he would
be very knowledgeable and understanding or tolerant of any other
revealed religion, professed by the wife.”
EXPLANATION OF IMAGINED CONFLICT OF ARTICLE 13 AND

ARTICLE 3 OF MUSLIM CODE
It may be interesting to underscore or reemphasize here that
the provision of Article 13 of the Muslim Code deals primarily on
the application of Muslim Code while Article 3 thereof treats of its
construction. Consequently, Article 3, No. 3, which provides that
the Muslim Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and shall not
be construed to operate to the prejudice of the non-Muslims, is not
necessarily pertinent. Since marriage between Muslim male and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Christian female is allowed, prejudice becomes inevitable when its

provision is applied involving benefits as well as disadvantages,
otherwise, it would be unfair if the benefits of the law will redound
is exempt from its disadvantages. It would appear that Article 3, No,
3 is an interpolation done in Malacañang based on false fear that
PD 1083 of the Muslim Code may work prejudice against Christians
only. (Justice Rainal D. Rasul. The Comparative laws: The Family
Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code, pp. 35-36).
EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONS OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUSLIM

AND CHRISTIAN
(1) First Question. Supposing A and B, both Christians,
were married in accordance with the Civil Code. Thereafter, A was
converted to Islam and A married C, a Christian, in accordance with
the Muslim Code, may the Muslim Code apply to A and C? May A
be liable for bigamy under the Revised Penal Code? May A apply
for absolute divorce from the Court with regard to A and B’s first
marriage?
Answer: We will proceed to approach the problem, one after
another. Since the marriage of A and B is according to the Civil
Code, the latter code applies even after A is converted to Islam.
The problem arises when A already a Muslim convert marries C,
a Christian, according to Muslim rite, as agreed by A and C. There
is no doubt that the marriage of A and C according to Muslim rite
is valid under the Muslim Code. But certainly A may still be held
liable for bigamy under the Revised Penal Code, since the marriage
of A and B, solemnized according to Civil Code, prohibits the spouses
from contracting subsequent marriage or obtaining absolute divorce.
If the marriage of A and C is not valid according to the Civil Code,
through valid under the Muslim Code, I do not think the prosecution
for bigamy may lie, since there should be two valid marriages. It
may be adultery, concubinage or other crime of chastity.
(2) Second Question. Supposing it is B, the wife, who is
converted to Islam and B contracts marriage with C who is a Muslim,
according to Muslim Rite. The answer is simple. The marriage of A
and B becomes ipso jure null and void, according to Muslim Law,
after becomes a Muslim and if A refuses to be converted. This is
because the marriage of a Muslim woman to non-Muslim is void
under Muslim Law. But the marriage of A and B remains valid,
according to the Civil Code. If B marries C, a Muslim, the marriage
of B and C is valid, according to Muslim Code. But bigamy may still

lie against B and C, under the Revised Penal Code, depending on the
evidence available.
(3) Third Question. Supposing A, an Iranian Muslim,
had been married to B, a foreigner in Iran. Then A, comes to the
Philippines alone as a student, and meanwhile married C, a Christian
under the Civil Code. Is the marriage of A and C valid under the
Civil Code? Supposing C is a Muslim and the marriage of A and C is
solemnized according to Muslim Law, is the marriage of A to C valid
under the Muslim Code? The answer is simple. If C is a Christian,
before A can marry under Civil Code, it is necessary that A should
be required to show certificate of legal capacity from the Iranian
Embassy or Consulate. That means the marriage of A to C will be
valid under the Civil Code. If C is a Muslim and the marriage of A
to C is according to Muslim Rite, such marriage is valid, assuming
all the requisites of Muslim Law are present. Suppose A divorces
C. Is this valid? If C is a Christian, absolute divorce is certainly
not available under the Civil Code. But if C is a Muslim, absolute
divorce may be available under Muslim Law.
(4) Fourth Question. Supposing A who is a Filipino Muslim,
after marrying B in Iran or in Muslim Bosnia Hercegovina, comes
back to the Philippines with B, his foreign wife, and marries another
one, C, in the Philippines. The answer is that if C is a Muslim,
there is not much problem, provided the Muslim Law is complied
with, especially if B consents to the second marriage solemnized
in accordance with the Muslim Rite. If C is a Christian, there is a
serious problem. C should agree to the Muslim Rite for the Muslim
Code to apply, otherwise, it is a civil rite, A is not competent to
marry.
The marriage of A, a Filipino Muslim, to B an Iranian or Bosnian
Muslim wife, is valid since it follows the general rule under Article
71 of the New Civil Code; if valid where celebrated, it is also valid
here in the Philippines. It follows the rule of lex loci celebrationis,
or the law of the place of celebration, except those bigamous,
polygamous or incestuous union. With respect to Filipino Muslims,
the only remaining exception is “incestuous relation” considering
Article 27 of the Muslim Code. The criterion, it must be understood,
is the Philippine Law. Article 71 of the New Civil Code is a specific
law while the law on status and capacity of Filipinos even though
living abroad is a general law to be followed, under Article 15, 16
and 17 of the New Civil Code.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The aforequoted instances on conflict law problems are not

exclusive. There are many more problems on interesting unions to
resolve, if not eliminate, in the broader interest of family harmony
in the Philippines. (As cited by Justice Rainal D. Rasul. The
Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The
Family Code, pp. 39-41).
OMA’S CERTIFICATE OF ORIENTATION ON CONVERSION TO

ISLAM
Registration of a person’s conversion to Islam is prima facie
proof that he professes the Islamic faith and thus becomes a Muslim.
Thus, Rule 12 par. 2 of Administrative Order No.1 Series of 2005
requires that a convert shall submit a certification that he/she has
undergone an orientation on basic principles and practices of Islam
from any accredited Muslim Organization by the Office on Muslim
Affairs or from any organized and competent Ustadz or Ulama. The
Circuit Registrar shall require submission of such certification.
Likewise, Rule 14, par. 2 of Administrative Order No.1 Series
of 2005 also states that any Muslim who has performed Haj (Muslim
pilgrimage to Mecca, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and has acquired
new name by virtue thereof, may request for the corresponding
annotation of his or her Certificate of Live Birth (COLB). A Muslim
Filipino who has acquired traditional title pursuant to Ada may
likewise request for annotation in the Certificate of Live Birth
(COLB).
The request for annotation in the COLB for the use of the Haj
name shall be submitted to the C/MCR of his/her place of birth with
the following supporting documents: Certification from OMA that
he/she has performed Haj; certification from pilgrimage authorities
that the new name acquired was conferred during the Haj; and
certified true copy of his/her passport. The request for annotation in
the COLB for the recognition of traditional titles acquired pursuant
to Ada shall be attested by at least two witnesses of the conferment.
Along with the request, a Certification from OMA that the title was
conferred in accordance with Ada shall be submitted to the C/MCR of
the place of birth of the person bestowed with the traditional title.
Rule 2.7 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

An office created under the Office of the President, which is
primarily responsible for the formulation and implementation of
policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote

the rights of Ethnic/Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
Peoples.
NOTE:
Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004 on Rules and

Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning
Civil Status of Indigenous Peoples, Rule 1 (1.3) states that the
National Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Field Personnel
pursuant to RA 8371 are deputized as Birth Registration Agents
in their area of influence and are duty bound to facilitate the
registration of acts and events concerning the civil status of ICCs/
IPs at the Local Civil Registry Office having territorial jurisdiction
on the ICCs/IPs communities.
Rule VI, Section 8, states that National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall coordinate with the Civil Registrar
General (OCRG) to establish an appropriate procedure for the
registration of marriages performed under customary laws to
include, among others, the following:
a) The OCRG Certificate of Marriage forms for the use of
authorized tribal leaders/elders solemnizing marriages
under Customary Laws the OCRG shall be translated in
the language understood by both parties;
b) The NCIP, in consultation and coordination with ICC/IPs,
shall cause the registration and regular update of a list
of those authorized to solemnize marriages according to
Customary Laws; and
c) The NCIP field offices in coordination with Local Civil
Registrar offices shall ensure that all marriages performed
under Customary Laws before the enactment of IPRA shall
be registered accordingly and from thereon, marriages
performed under Customary Laws shall be registered
within fifteen (15) days following the solemnization.
Likewise, Section 9 states that the fundamental right of
a person to a name and people’s right to their history shall be
recognized and respected. Accordingly, the ICCs/IPs naming the
systems and customs shall also be recognized and respected and
shall have the right to their indigenous names registered with the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Civil Registry as their formal appellation to be used in all official

documents establishing their identity.
In close coordination with the Office of the Civil Registrar
General (OCRG) the NCIP shall take appropriate measurers to
facilitate the registration of the ICCs/IPs indigenous names. For
purposes of effective and efficient civil registration of births and
deaths and census taking, the NCIP field offices shall be deputized
to register said births and deaths. The paternal or maternal
grandfather’s name may be used as surname. All registrations and
census shall be submitted to the nearest Office of the Local Civil
Registrar.
Rule 2.8 Marriage

A special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment
of conjugal and family life (Article 1, EO 209 otherwise known as
the Family Code of the Philippines)
NOTE:
In a sense, the term marriage refers to the procedure by which
a man and a woman become husband and wife. It relates merely to
the celebration of the relation of husband and wife, whether it be
religious ceremony, civil ceremony or without ceremony. Thus, in a
sense marriage may be defined as the act by which a man and woman
unite for life, with the intent to discharge towards society and one
another those duties which result from the relations of husband and
wife. (Schouler, Law of Domestic Relations as cited in Marcelino T.
Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989
Edition, p. 2)
In another sense, marriage may be defined as the civil status
of one man and one woman, legally united for life with rights and
duties which, for the establishment of families and the multiplication
of the species, are, or from time to time may thereafter be assigned
by law to matrimony. (Bishop. On Marriage, Divorce and Separation
as cited in Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines
Explained, Vol. 1, p. 3).
CANONICAL MARRIAGES
Under the Spanish Law, only canonical marriages were
recognized. The requisite form and solemnities for the celebration
of canonical marriages were governed by the rules of the Catholic
Church and the Holy Council of Trent. This kind of marriage
produced all the civil effects of marriage in respect to the persons
and property of the spouses and their descendants. (See: Art. 75 &
76, Civil Code of Spain of 1889 as cited in Marcelino T. Lizaso, The
Civil Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, p. 3).
CLASSIFICATION OF MARRIAGE
(b) Firm marriage is one celebrated according to canonical
regulation, but not yet followed by carnal union of the
parties;
(c) Legal marriage is one celebrated by civil authorities, not
yet followed by copulation;
(d) Consummated marriage is either of the two in which
sexual intercourse has already taken place;
(e) Real marriage is one contracted by parties qualified to
marry; with all the conditions necessary for its validity;
(f) Putative marriage is one celebrated between parties with
an existing impediment, whether one or both of them are
in good or bad faith;
(g) Presumed marriage is one which contracted by the mere
expression of the consent of the parties before witnesses,
followed by carnal union. (This is what is called common-
law marriage in Anglo-American Law) (See: Sanchez
Roman 391); and
(h) Common-law marriage is an agreement between a man
and a woman with capacity to enter into such relationship
to take each other as husband and wife followed by
cohabitation. (The Family Code of the Philippines
Explained, 1989 Edition, Marcelino T. Lizaso, Central
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., p. 3).
FORMS OF MARRIAGE
(1) Monogamy — it is the marriage or union of one man and
one woman.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(2) Polygamy — it is the marriage or union of one man and

more than two women.
(3) Polygymy — it is the marriage or union of one man and
several women.
(4) Polyandry — it is the marriage or union of one woman
and several men.
(5) Sororate — it is the marriage or union of one man with
two or more sisters.
(6) Levirate — it is the marriage or union of a widow and the
brother of deceased husband.
(6) Endogamous — the marriage or union of members of the
same social group. (The Family Code of the Philippines
Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, By Marcelino T. Lizaso,
Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. p. 3).
MEANING OF ISLAMIC MARRIAGE

Marriage in Islam is considered not only a civil contract but
also as an inviolable social institution, ordained for the protection
of society, so that human beings may guard themselves against
foulness and unchastity. In Islam, the union of a man and a woman
without the benefit of a valid marriage is unchaste and immoral. It
is hardly seen in Islamic society. The practice of live-in relationship
so common in non-muslim society is condemned in no uncertain
term for it not only reduces the integrity of womanhood to the level
of a beast but also losses the worth and dignity of human persons
or of their children thereby procreated (Perido vs. Perido, 63 SCRA
97). Plurality of wives whenever appropriate validates the union
and restores to its full glory the rights and dignity of the second or
subsequent marriage and children who are otherwise deprived of full
inheritance, support and societal blessings in non-Islamic society.
Muslim jurists regard the institution of marriage as partaking both
the nature of Ibadat or devotional acts and Muammalat or rightful
dealings among men (Dr. Sayed Khalid Rashid, Muslim Law, pp. 52-
53). In fine, Islamic concept of marriage is both religious and secular.
(Justice Jainal D. Rasul, Comparative laws: The Family Code of the
Philippines and the Muslim Code, Rex Book Store, pp. 45-46).
SALIENT PRINCIPLES IN MARRIAGE:

(a) Permanent union — there is physical and spiritual
mating;
(b) Of one man and one woman — this is monogamy, which is
the ideal marriage; it is also of different sex;
(c) Entered into in accordance with law — it is established by
the state independent of its religious aspect; and
(d) For the establishment of conjugal and family life — there
is the union of one man and one woman for the procreation
of children, the natural moral law prohibits artificial birth
control, because it violates a cardinal purpose of marriage-
procreation. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the
Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, p. 5).
MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND ORDINARY CONTRACT DIFFE-

RENTIATED
(a) Ordinary contract may be entered into by any number
of persons, whether of the same or different sex; while
marriage contract can be entered into only by one man
and one woman;
(b) In ordinary contracts, the agreement of the parties
governs their relation, while in marriage contract the law
fixes the duties and rights of the parties;
(c) The ordinary contract may terminate by agreement of the
parties, by expressed provision of law or by the fulfillment
of the purpose for which the contract was entered into.
Whereas marriage contract cannot be terminated by
agreement of the parties and may only be dissolved by
the death of one of the spouses or annulled under specific
legal causes provided by law;
(d) Breach of an ordinary contract gives rise to an action for
damages, while breach of the obligation of the spouses
does not authorize such action, but the laws provide penal
and civil sanctions like in cases of adultery or concubinage
and in proceedings for legal separation; and
(e) In ordinary contract the age required is the age of
majority; while in marriage contract the age is fixed at
IN THE PHILIPPINES
age 18 at least. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of

the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, pp. 5-6).
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARRIAGE AS AN INSTITUTION

As an institution, marriage has the following characteristics:
(1) It is civil in character, because it is established by the
State independently of its religious aspect;
(2) It is an institution of public order or policy, governed by
rules established by law which cannot be made inoperative
by stipulations of the parties;
(3) It is an institution of natural character, because one of its
objects is the satisfaction of the intimate sentiments
and needs of human beings for the perpetuation of
man. (11 Salvat 12-13, as cited in Salvador A. Aves,
Primer On Civil Registration in the Philippines, 2003
Edition, pp. 53-54)
CAN THERE BE A VALID MARRIAGE EVEN WITHOUT A

MARRIAGE CEREMONY?
Without a marriage ceremony, no valid marriage can exist. The
law does not prescribe or require a particular ceremony, whether in
a civil or religious marriage, but the parties are required to appear
before the solemnizing officer and declare, in the presence of at least
two witnesses of legal age, that they take each other as husband and
wife. (Tolentino, The Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries
and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, p. 235)
THE RATIONALE OF THE LAW REQUIRING A MARRIAGE

CEREMONY
The requirement of a marriage ceremony prevents the
recognition in the Philippines of what are known as “common law
marriages.” A common law marriage is a present agreement between
a man and a woman with capacity to enter into such relationship, to
take each other as husband and wife, followed by cohabitation.
Even when parties have obtained a marriage license but they
do not go before any person authorized to solemnize marriage to
have the marriage performed, there is no marriage. (Tolentino,
supra, p. 236)
MARRIAGE COUNSELING
Both of the intended spouses are required to undergo marriage
counseling if one or both of them are between 18 and 25 years of
age. The counseling shall be done by a priest or minister or by an
accredited marriage counselor, who shall thereafter certify that such
counseling has been undertaken.
Without the certificate that counseling has been given to the
parties, the issuance of the marriage license will be delayed for
three months. There may be no marriage counseling because the
future spouses do not take it, or there may be no duly accredited
counselor for parties who want a civil marriage. This fact will not
affect the validity of the marriage, even if the license is issued before
the expiration of the prescribed three months, without prejudice to
criminal or administrative responsibility of the local registrar who
issued the license prematurely. (Tolentino, supra, p. 253)
REASON FOR REQUIRING MARRIAGE COUNSELING

The requirement of marriage counseling is another means to
prevent hasty or ill-advised marriages. It is intended to prepare the
youth for entering into the marriage state, with instructions on the
responsibilities of the future couple to each other, to their children
and society. (Tolentino, supra, p. 253)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
OCRG’S CIRCULAR REQUIRING CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE

COUNSELING AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
MARRIAGE LICENSE

Manila

Circular No. 5
9 November 1988
To : All Regional /Provincial Census Officers and Local

Civil Registrars
Subject : CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE COUNSELLING
As provided in Article 16 of the Family Code, the applicants for

marriage license who are 18 years old but below 25 years are required
to attach a certificate of marriage counseling to their applications.
The certificate may be issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized
to solemnize marriage or by a marriage counselor duly accredited by
the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The
LCR should inquire from the local DSWD office as to who is the
person or office authorized by it as marriage counselor.
The certificate of marriage counseling is a new requirement
for the issuance of marriage license under the Family Code and is
different from the certificate of family planning which is a require-
ment under P.D. 965. The purposes of the marriage counseling are
to enable the parties to find out if they are compatible before they
get married. Psychological incapacity on the part of either party
as defined in article 36 of the Family Code may also be discovered
through marriage counseling.
Failure to attach the certificate of marriage counseling to the
application for marriage license shall suspend the issuance of the
marriage license for a period of three months or ninety days from the
completion of the publication of the application, hence, this effect is
the same as in the case of lack of parental advice is unfavorable. If
only one of the parties to the intended marriage is 18 years old below
25 years, the other party must be present at the counseling.
The local civil registrar who shall issue or release the marriage
license in violation of Article 16 of the Family Code shall be subject
to administrative sanctions.
MARCELO M. ORENSE
Administrator & Civil Registrar General
REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE
Marriage shall be registered in the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of the place where it was solemnized within 15 days from
the date of its celebration. However, a 30-day reglamentary period is
set by law for marriages of exceptional character, including marriages
in articulo mortis. A marriage solemnized while in transit within the
Philippines territory is registrable at the place of destination or
usual residence of either party. (Manual on Civil Registration,
p. 9).
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM RE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE OBTAINED

ABROAD BY AN ALIEN FROM HIS OR HER FILIPINO SPOUSE

Manila

Circular No. 6
9 November 1988
To : All Regional /Provincial Census Officers and Local

Civil Registrars
Subject : EFFECT OF DIVORCE OBTAINED ABROAD
BY AN ALIEN FROM HIS OR HER FILIPINO
SPOUSE
The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides:

“where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
validly celebrated and divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.”
IN THE PHILIPPINES
This provision of the law is applicable only when the following

requisites concur:
1. The marriage is valid.
2. The parties to the marriage are Filipino citizen and a
foreigner.
3. The foreign spouse obtains the divorce and such divorce is
valid.
4. The divorce capacitates the alien to remarry under his or
her national law.
The above-cited law does not apply to the following cases,
and therefore, no marriage license shall be issued to the concerned
Filipino citizen:
1. When the divorce was obtained by a Filipino abroad from
his or her Filipino spouse, which divorce is void because
divorce is not allowed in this country, and a Filipino is
governed by the Philippine law wherever he goes; and
2. When a divorce was obtained by a former Filipino who
had been naturalized in another country after his
naturalization.
MARCELO M. ORENSE
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT

OF MARRIAGE SINCE THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER FAILED
TO SEND COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT TO THE CIVIL
REGISTRAR’S OFFICE

SUPREME COURT
Manila
G.R. No. 112597, April 2, 1996

VIRGINIA A. LEONOR, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROLINDO D. BELDIA, JR., as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City,
Branch 57, and MAURICIO D. LEONOR, JR., respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Is a judgment voiding a marriage and rendered by the regional
trial court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court valid and proper?
May its validity be challenged by the wife in a petition for certiorari
against the husband who abandoned her and who is now living
abroad with a foreign woman?
These are the two main issues that were posed before this Court
in this petition for review seeking a partial reversal of the Decision
of the Court of Appeals promulgated September 30, 1993 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 30606 and its Resolution promulgated November 11, 1993,
which denied petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration of the
Decision.
The Facts
Petitioner Virginia A. Leonor was married to private respondent

Mauricio D. Leonor, Jr., in San Carlos City on March 13, 1960. Out
of the union, three children, Mauricio III, Ned and Don, were born.
The spouses were separated for a substantial part of their married
life for, while Mauricio resided in Switzerland studying and working,
Virginia stayed in the Philippines working as a nurse in Laguna.
Mauricio became unfaithful and lived with a certain Lynda Pond
abroad. This induced petitioner to institute a civil action in Geneva,
Switzerland for separation and alimony. Private respondent counter-
sued for divorce.
On February 14, 1991, the lower Cantonal Civil Court of
Switzerland pronounced the divorce of the spouses Leonor but
reserved the liquidation of the matrimonial partnership. The said
Swiss Court denied alimony to petitioner. In a letter to the lower
Cantonal Civil Court dated March 1, 1991, Mauricio, for the first
time, raised the issue of the alleged non-existence of the marriage
between him and Virginia. Meanwhile, Virginia learned that the
solemnizing officer in the Philippines, Justice of the Peace Mabini
Katalbas, failed to send a copy of their marriage contract to the Civil
Registrar of San Carlos City for registration. Hence, on July 11,
1991, Virginia applied for the late registration of her marriage. The
Civil Registrar, finding said application in order, granted the same.
On appeal to the higher Cantonal Civil Court, Mauricio asked
for the cancellation of his marriage in the Philippines. On January
17, 1992, the higher Cantonal Civil Court granted petitioner alimony,
prompting Mauricio to elevate the matter on appeal to the Federal
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Switzerland, in its decision dated July 9, 1992, the Federal

Court affirmed the decision of the higher Cantonal Civil Court.
On May 22, 1992, Mauricio, represented by his brother Teodoro
Leonor, filed a petition for the cancellation of the late registration of
marriage in the civil registry of San Carlos City with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 59, San Carlos City (Special Proceeding No.
RTC- 144). Given as grounds for the cancellation were the tardiness
of the registration and the nullity of his marriage with Virginia
“due to the non-observance of the legal requirements for a valid
marriage.” Mauricio’s petition was filed pursuant to Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.
After several hearings and on December 14, 1992, the trial
court rendered judgment declaring said marriage null and void for
being sham and fictitious. The dispositive portion of said decision
reads:
“AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this Court

finds and orders that the registration of the marriage contract
between Mauricio Leonor, Jr. and Virginia Amor dated March
13, 1960 must be canceled in (sic) the Books of the Local Civil
Registry of San Carlos City for being a null and void marriage
not in accordance with a (sic) New Civil Code under Articles 52,
53 and 55 now presently amended by the Family Code of the
Philippines, Executive Order No. 209 as amended by Executive
Order No. 227, without pronouncement as to cost.”
Virginia received notice of the decision on January 4, 1993, and

on January 15, 1993, she filed her notice of appeal.
On February 24, 1993, the trial court, on motion of Mauricio’s
counsel, issued an order dismissing Virginia’s appeal on the ground
that she had failed to file a record on appeal within thirty days and
had thus failed to perfect her appeal. It was the erroneous holding
of the trial court that in special proceedings, a record on appeal was
an indispensable requisite under Rule 19, Section 6 of the Interim
Rules and Guidelines in relation to Rule 109 of the Rules of Court.
Such failure, according to respondent Judge, caused the decision to
become executory.
On April 1, 1993, Virginia filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP
No. 30606) and sought the nullification of both the decision dated
December 14, 1992 and the order dated February 24, 1993 of the
trial court for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and/or

with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition insofar as it sought
the reversal of the decision of the trial court, saying that the remedy
for said purpose was an appeal, not a special civil action.
The appellate court, however, granted the petition insofar as
it sought the nullification of the Order dated February 24, 1993
dismissing the appeal. Said the appellate court:
“Even so, this petition is an appropriate remedy against
the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, which dismissal we
sense to be erroneous and issued in excess of jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered setting
aside the questioned order of respondent judge dated February
24, 1993, with instructions to the latter to give due course to
petitioner’s appeal in the subject special proceeding. Costs
against private respondents.”
Dissatisfied with the above Decision, petitioner filed a motion

for partial reconsideration asking the Court of Appeals to annul the
decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals denied the motion,
stating that the central issue in the special civil action was only the
validity of the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s right to appeal
and that said issue was resolved in petitioner’s favor. Further, it said
that the correctness or validity of the trial court’s decision should
properly be resolved in the appeal.
Hence, the present recourse.
Issues Raised by the Parties
The petition assailed the respondent Court’s Decision and Order

mentioned in the second paragraph of this Decision for alleged —
1. “Procedural Errors x x x in not finding x x x (a) that the
lower court gravely abused its discretion” in recognizing
the action as one for declaration of “nullity of marriage”
instead of a “special proceeding for cancellation of (an)
entry” in the civil registry and (b) in not finding that the
“lower court had no jurisdiction (over) the issue of nullity”;
and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
2. “Substantive errors x x x in not finding x x x (a) that the

lower court gravely erred in declaring the marriage null
and void x x x and (b) x x x in disregarding the presumptions
in favor of the rights of children and to the administration
of the conjugal property x x x and the validity of marriage
x x x.”
In her Memorandum, petitioner elucidated and spiritedly
argued the above grounds.
In fine, the foregoing issues could be restated as follows:
1. Did the respondent Court err in holding that petitioner
should have appealed from the trial court’s decision
instead of filing a petition for certiorari?
2. Did the respondent Court err in refusing to decide upon
the merits of the case, that is, to declare whether or not
the judgment of the trial court is null and void? Should
the Supreme Court now resolve the merits of the case, i.e.,
decide the issue of nullity of the assailed decision of the
trial court?
The Court’s Ruling

Since these issues are intimately intertwined, we shall discuss
them together.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the Court of Appeals
acted within its authority in simply ordering the trial court to give
due course to petitioner’s appeal without going into the merits of the
case.
In Municipality of Biñan, Laguna vs. Court of Appeals, we
held:
Respondent Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction in a
certiorari proceeding involving an incident in a case to rule
on the merits of the main case itself which was not on appeal
before it. . .
In other words, the Court of Appeals has already done its duty
by declaring that the lower court gravely abused its discretion or
acted without jurisdiction in refusing to give due course to petitioner’s
appeal. Hence, it ordered said court to allow the appeal. Once appeal
is perfected, the merits of the case, i.e. the validity/nullity of the trial
court’s decision, would then be resolved by said Court.
Understandably, the Court of Appeals has limited itself to

ruling upon the procedural question lodged before it. It cannot be
seriously faulted — as petitioner vehemently did — for opting to
navigate within the narrow banks of the placid waters of certiorari.
For in doing so, it was strictly following established legal doctrines
and precedents.
Upon the other hand, the Supreme Court is not just a
toothless promoter of procedural niceties which are understood
and appreciated only by lawyers and jurists. It cannot shrink from
its quintessential role as the fountain of speedy, adequate and
substantial justice. If the Court, as the head and guardian of the
judicial branch, must continuously merit the force of public trust
and confidence — which ultimately is the real source of its sovereign
power, possessing neither the purse nor the sword — and if it must
decisively discharge its sacred duty as the last sanctuary of the
oppressed and the weak, it must, in appropriate cases like the one
before us, pro-actively provide weary litigants with immediate legal
and equitable relief, free from the delays and legalistic contortions
that oftentimes result from applying purely formal and procedural
approaches to judicial dispensations.
Pursuant to the foregoing principle and considering the
peculiar circumstances of the present case which are patent on the
basis of the admitted facts, as well as the undisputed copies of the
pleadings presented by the parties, and especially the verified copy
of the trial court’s decision which loudly speaks for itself, the Court
therefore resolved to make an exception to the normal procedures
and to delve deeper into the substantive issue of the validity/nullity
of the trial court’s proceedings and judgment. Happily, both parties
had expressed a desire to have this case resolved soonest. On the
other hand, remanding the case back to the trial court for the
perfection of the appeal and requiring the parties to re-litigate in the
Court of Appeals with the use of probably the same documents and
arguments ventilated in the kilometric pleadings filed here would
just unnecessarily clog the courts’ dockets; besides, in all likelihood
the parties would eventually come before this Court anyway.
Also, it must be observed that Virginia actually filed a proper
Notice of Appeal which the trial court disallowed. Hence, she had
no choice but to bring her petition for certiorari in the respondent
Court. To constrain her to go back to said Court, this time by ordinary
appeal, would be tantamount to punishing her and delaying her
IN THE PHILIPPINES
cause for faults not attributable to her, but rather to the manifest
error of the respondent trial judge.
So, too, as will be shown shortly, the trial court’s decision is
really a nullity for utter want of jurisdiction. Hence, it could be
challenged at any time.
It is not disputed that the original petition in the trial court was
for “cancellation of entry in the civil registry” of the “late registration
of the marriage” between Leonor and Mauricio, “in consonance with
Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.” Ground alleged for the
nullity and cancellation of the marriage was “non-observance of the
legal requirements for a valid marriage.”
Later, on August 22, 1992, an amended petition was filed
adding essentially the following allegations; (a) that there was no
marriage contract, (b) that the marriage was a “sham x x x to cover-
up the (alleged) shame of Virginia Amor who was then pregnant,”
(c) that Virginia allegedly assured Mauricio that they “need not live
together x x x and Mauricio need not give any support,” (d) that the
couple always had “trouble (and) quarrel,” and (e) that Mauricio had
been “transferring residence to avoid Virginia until he went abroad
for good.” The answer of the Civil Registrar and the opposition of
Virginia, among others, disputed the propriety of the collateral
attack against the marriage, under said Rule.
The decision of the trial court is, painfully, a sophomoric and
pathetic portrayal of Virginia as allegedly an “unbecoming x x x
unmarried woman (who) wormed her to a (sic) heart of the matriarch
of the Leonor Family x x x to summon the son Mauricio to come” to
her rescue and as a scheming nurse who lured a “struggling young
teacher x x x to this unwelcomed (sic) love affair.” These matters,
needless to say, border on the incredible, as they were brought up
some thirty (30) years after the marriage was celebrated in 1960
and only after Virginia discovered her husband’s infidelity. The
said decision’s crude attempt at literary sophistication is matched
only by its jarring syntax and grammatical incongruencies. Insofar
as this Court can figure out from the convoluted language of the
decision, the trial court (a) declared the marriage null and void and
(b) ordered the local civil registrar of San Carlos City to cancel its
entry in the local civil registry, the sum total of which, coincidentally
(and most conveniently), would enable Mauricio to show to the
Swiss courts that he was never married and thus, to convince said
courts to reverse their order granting alimony to his abandoned
wife. Such blatant abuse and misuse of court proceedings cannot be

countenanced by this Court.
The ultimate legal question therefore is this: In disposing
of a special proceeding under Rule 108, did the trial court have
jurisdiction to declare the marriage null and void and to order the
cancellation of its entry in the local civil registry?
To contribute to the cause of clarity, Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court is reproduced hereunder.
Rule 108
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY
SEC. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested

in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status
of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may
file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any
entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the
province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. —
Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the
civil register may be cancelled or corrected; (a) births; (b)
marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments
of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring
marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations;
(h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j)
naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l)
civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n)
voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
SEC. 3. Parties. — When cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. — Upon the filing of the
petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for
the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to
be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall
also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
SEC. 5. Opposition. — The civil registrar and any

person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication
of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. — The court in which
the proceeding is brought may make orders expediting the
proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for
the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such
proceedings.
SEC. 7. Order. — After hearing, the court may either
dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the cancellation
or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the
judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned
who shall annotate the same in his record.
On its face, the Rule would appear to authorize the cancellation
of any entry regarding “marriages” in the civil registry for any
reason by the mere filing of a verified petition for the purpose.
However, it is not as simple as it looks. Doctrinally, the only errors
that can be cancelled or corrected under this Rule are typographical
or clerical errors, not material or substantial ones like the validity
or nullity of a marriage. “A clerical error is one which is visible to
the eyes or obvious to the understanding; error made by a clerk or
a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing (Black vs. Republic,
L-10869, Nov. 28, 1958); or some harmless and innocuous change
such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a mis-
statement of the occupation of the parent (Ansalada vs. Republic,
No. L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958).”
Where the effect of a correction in a civil registry will change
the civil status of petitioner and her children from legitimate to
illegitimate, the same cannot be granted except only in an adversarial
proceeding. In Vda. de Castro vs. Republic, this Court held:
x x x It has been the consistent ruling of this Court since

the Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321, ‘that substantial
alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship
of a person in the Civil Registry Records, cannot be ordered by
the court unless first threshed out in an “appropriate action
wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are
notified or represented” (see Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of
Court), and that the summary proceedings under Article 412
of the Civil Code only justify an order to correct innocuous or

clerical errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are
visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. (Baybayan
vs. Republic of the Philippines, 16 SCRA 403)”
Clearly and unequivocally, the summary procedure under Rule

108, and for that matter under Art. 412 of the Civil Code, cannot
be used by Mauricio to change his and Virginia’s civil status from
married to single and of their three children from legitimate to
illegitimate. Neither does the trial court, under said Rule, have any
jurisdiction to declare their marriage null and void and as a result
thereof, to order the local civil registrar to cancel the marriage entry
in the civil registry. Further, the respondent trial judge gravely
and seriously abused his discretion in unceremoniously expanding
his very limited jurisdiction under such rule to hear evidence on
such a controversial matter as nullity of a marriage under the Civil
Code and/or Family Code, a process that is proper only in ordinary
adversarial proceedings under the Rules.
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all.
It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation.
All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from
it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any
writ of execution based on it is void; “x x x it may be said to be a
lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight,
or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.”
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Judgment is
hereby rendered DECLARING NULL and VOID the decision of the
respondent judge dated February 14, 1992 in Special Proceedings
No. RTC-144 and MODIFYING accordingly the Decision dated
September 30, 1993 of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. SP-30606. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in the records
of respondent Judge in the Office of the Court Administrator. Costs
against private respondent Mauricio D. Leonor, Jr.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco,
JJ., concur.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
DELAYED REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE

Applicable provisions of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993
Rule 12. Delayed Registration — A report of vital event made
beyond the reglementary period is considered delayed.
Rule 13. Posting of the Pending Application —
(1) A notice to the public on the pending application for
delayed registration shall be posted in the bulletin board
of the city / municipality for a period of not less than ten
(10) days.
(2) If after ten (10) days no one opposes the registration, the
civil registrar shall evaluate the veracity of the statements
made in the required documents submitted.
(3) If after proper evaluation of all documents presented and
investigation of the allegation contained therein, the civil
registrar is convinced that the event really occurred within
the jurisdiction of the civil registry office, and finding out
the said event was not registered, he shall register the
delayed report thereof.
(4) The civil registrar, in all cases of all delayed registration
of …XXX… marriage shall conduct an investigation
whenever opposition is filed against its registration
taking the testimonies of the parties concerned and
witnesses in the form of question and answers. After
investigation, the civil registrar shall forward his findings
and recommendations to the Office of the Civil Registrar
General for appropriate action.
(5) The Civil Registrar General may, after review and proper
evaluation, deny or authorize the registration.
Rule 14. Recording of Delayed Registration — In every cases
of delayed registration of … XXX… marriage… XXX.., the entry
in the civil registry book and the registry number transcribed in
the certificate… XXX… shall be in red ink. The remarks delayed
registration shall be written on the upper right hand margin of the
certificate and the Remarks portion of the registry book.
Rule 15. Duty to file a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office.
— In every case of delayed registration, the civil registrar shall file a
complaint with the city/provincial prosecutor’s office for appropriate
action under Section 17 Act No. 3753. The action filed in court by the
prosecutor against the party for failure to register shall not suspend
or stop the registration, neither should it be a ground for refusal by
the civil registrar to register the delayed report of birth, death or
marriage or any registrable document.
Rule 46. Delayed Registration of Marriage —
(1) In delayed registration of marriage, the solemnizing
officers or the person reporting or presenting the marriage
certificate for registration shall be required to execute and
file an affidavit in support thereof, stating the exact place
and the date of marriage, the facts and circumstances
surrounding the marriage and the reason or cause of the
delay.
(2) The submission of the application for marriage license
bearing the date when the marriage license was issued
except for marriage license shall be required.
(3) When the original or duplicate copy of the Certificate of
Marriage could not be presented either because it was
burned, lost or destroyed, a certification issued in lieu
thereof, by the church or solemnizing officer indicating
date of said marriage based on their record or logbook
shall be sufficient proof of marriage and the civil registrar
may accept the same registration.
(4) In case of doubt, the civil registrar may verify the
authenticity of the marriage certification by checking
form the church record/logbook and the solemnizing officer
who performed the marriage and the church official who
issued the certification.
MARRIAGES TO BE REGISTERED UNDER THE RULES OF

DELAYED REGISTRATION
All marriages which need marriage license for their validity
and were performed in accordance with law shall be recorded in
the civil register not later than fifteen (15) days after the date of
marriage. Those marriages which are exempt form the marriage
license requirement, such as marriage in a remote place, marriage
in articulo mortis, marriage between members of ethnic cultural
communities, and a marriage between a man and a woman who
have lived together as husband and a wife for a period of at least (5)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
years, shall be recorded not later than thirty (30) days after the date
of marriage.
Any marriage which was not recorded in the civil register
within the prescribed period of registration can still be registered
provided that it is reported by the interested party to the concerned
city/municipal civil registrar, and that all supporting papers required
under the rules on delayed registration of marriages are complied
with.
Delayed registration of marriage which was performed on or
after 27 February 1931 shall be governed by pertinent provisions
of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993. For marriages which were
performed prior to 27 February 1931, their delayed registration
shall be governed by Circular No. 94-4 (as amended by Circular No.
94-7).
AVAILABILITY OR NON-AVAILABILITY OF CERTIFICATE OF

MARRIAGE (MARRIAGE CONTRACT)
For the purpose of recording a marriage in the civil register, be it
timely or delayed, it is necessary that there should be a documentary
evidence of the performance or existence of the marriage , and such
evidence should be in the standard from the certificate of marriage
or marriage contract.
In delayed registration of marriage, the following conditions
may occur:
1. The applicant has a copy of the marriage contract with
fresh signature of the parties, solemnizing office and
witnesses, a registry number, and an indication that it
was previously accepted for registration by the concerned
civil registrar. However, the local civil registry office has
either copy of the said marriage contract nor entry in the
Registry of Marriages. Such absence of record in the local
civil registry office will create a presumption that the
particular marriage was not required.
What the civil registrar shall do:
v Determine the authenticity of the marriage contract.
Compare the signature of the solemnizing officer
with the signature appearing on the other marriage
contract of the same year in his file. If not similar, the
marriage contract in the possession of the applicant

could be fake.
v Compare the signature of the civil registrar or of
the civil registry personnel who appeared in the
marriage contract as one who received it with the
signature appearing on the documents in his file. If
not similar, the marriage contract in the possession
of the applicant could be fake and could have not been
earlier received at the local civil registry office.
v Examine the registry number appearing on the
marriage contract and compare it with the series
of registry numbers use for the particular year.
For example, the registry number on the marriage
contract is 27 (A-78) which means that the marriage
contract was the 27th document registered in
January 1978. The civil registrar shall examine his
file of marriage contracts and Register of Marriages
in order to find out whether such number was indeed
used in January 1978. If it turned out that such
registry number was used but assigned to another
marriage contract, the presumption would be that
the marriage contract in the possession of the
applicant was not received at the local civil registry
office, and it could be fake. On the other hand, if there
is a marriage contract with a registry number 26 (A-
78) and another marriage contract with a registry
number 28 (A-78) but there is no marriage contract
with number 27 (A-78), it would be possible that the
marriage contract in the possession of the applicant
is genuine, that it was previously registered, and that
the local civil registry office could have misplaced its
file copy of said marriage contract. In the letter case,
instead of registering the marriage, the civil registrar
shall prepare a true copy of marriage contract in the
possession of the applicant for his file.
v In any case, it is suggested that the concerned
civil registrar should be verified first with the
Office of the Civil Registrar General whether or
not a copy of the marriage contract exists in the
latter’s archives.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
2. The applicant has a copy of marriage contract which is

merely machine-copied (xerox or photostat) and is not
certified by authority as true copy of the original.
What the Civil Registrar shall do:
v Require the applicant to produce the original copy. If
not available, require the solemnizing officer or the
secretary of the church or office of the solemnizing
officer to certify as to the authenticity of the marriage
contract.
v Follow the procedure outlined in No. 1
3. Neither the applicant nor the solemnizing officer has a
copy of the marriage contract, but information can be
extracted form the Register of Marriages of latter’s church
or office. In this case, the civil registrar shall require the
applicants to obtain certification of marriage from the
church or office of the solemnizing officer as his basis
in reconstructing the marriage contract or certificate of
marriage of the parties.
4. Neither the applicant nor the solemnizing officer has a
copy of the marriage contract and there is no other record
from where information about the marriage could be
obtained. In this case, the applicant shall be required
to execute an affidavit of marriage declaring therein
all information that are needed in accomplishing the
certificate of marriage. The affidavit of marriage shall
be attested to by at least two persons who witnessed
the performance of the marriage or who in one way or
another have personal knowledge that the parties were
really married. The affidavit shall be supported with a
documentary evidences such as certificate of live birth of
the children of the couple showing therein the names of
children’s parents, and the date and place of marriage of
said parents; previous years income tax returns showing
the name of the husband and wife; certificate of baptism
of the couple’s children; title of properties; and other
documents where facts of their marriage are shown.
Based on the affidavit and its supporting papers, the civil
registrar shall reconstruct he certificate of marriage.
PROCEDURES IN RECONSTRUCTING THE CERTIFICATE OF

MARRIAGE
For the purpose of civil registration, the reconstruction of the
certificate of marriage is necessary only in case nos. 3 and 4 (supra).
The following procedures shall be observed by the concerned civil
registrar:
v The civil registrar shall fill up four (4) copies of the
certificate of marriage by copying the information
available from the certificate of marriage issued by the
church or office of the solemnizing officer in No. 3 (supra)
or from the affidavit of marriage and its supporting paper
in No. 4 (supra), as the case may be.
v No information concerning the marriage shall be entered
by the civil registrar in the certificate of marriage unless
are taken from the sworn statements of the applicant.
v In case of information required in publishing the
certificate of marriage which are not available, like the
marriage license number including the date when it was
issued or the place where it was issued, the civil registrar
should indicate by way marginal annotation that these
information are not available or could not be remembered
by the parties at the time of registration.
v All names of the parties, solemnizing officer witnesses to
marriage should properly appropriately entered in the
certificate of marriage but none among them should sign
his or her name, and neither will the civil registrar prefix
(Sgd.) on the individual names. It would be sufficient
for the civil registrar to enter in the box for Remarks/
Annotation (located at the upper right hand margin) that
the certificate is a reconstructed one. In case No. 3 (supra),
the civil registrar shall enter the following remarks:
Reconstructed on the basis of the attached certification of
marriage issued by (state the name of the issuing officer)
on (state the date when the certification was issued).
In case No. 4, the remarks should be: reconstructed on
the basis of the attached affidavit of marriage executed
by (state the name of the concerned party or parties)
on (state the date of execution). In any case, the civil
registrar shall attest the remarks by signing over his
IN THE PHILIPPINES
printed name and then indicating therein the date when

the certificate was reconstructed. The certification of
marriage or the affidavit of marriage, as the case may
be, and the reconstructed certificate of marriage shall be
stapled together permanently and shall constitute as the
record of marriage of the concerned husband and wife.
v The civil registrar shall proceed with the registration of
marriage following strictly the rules governing delayed
registration such as posting of the application for ten
(10) days, making the entry in red ink, reporting the
application to the State Prosecutor’s Office, and others.
v The four (4) copies of the reconstructed certificate of
marriage, after registration thereof, shall be distributed
to proper parties in accordance with Rule 43 of
Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993.
DOUBLE OR MULTIPLICITY OF REGISTRATION SHOULD BE

AVOIDED
Some records of marriage prior to 1931 are still available at the
Records Management and Archive’s Office, located at T.M. Kalaw
Street, Ermita, Manila. At the archives of the Office of the Civil
Registrar General, the available documents are from the later part
of 1945 to present.
Depending on the year when the marriage was performed,
and in order to prevent double or multiplicity of registration of
the same marriage, the civil registrar shall require the applicant
for delayed registration of marriage to obtain certification from the
Records Management and Archive’s Office, or from the Office of the
Civil Registrar General, as the case may be, before accepting the
application. The concerned civil registrar shall also check carefully
his records through his indices of marriage to ascertain that there
was really no previous registration of the marriage being applied for
delayed registration.
In a case where a marriage was registered again, in spite of the
effort to prevent double or multiplicity of registration, the presence
of the first registration will invalidate the succeeding registration
of the same marriage. Consequently, the civil registrar can legally
issue certification of marriage based only on the first registration.
Rule 2.9 Essential Requisites of Marriage

Essential requisites refer to the substance of the marriage
that affect its intrinsic validity.
The essential requisites of marriage are:
a. legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a
male and a female; and
b. their consent freely given in the presence of the
Solemnizing Officer. (Article 2, EO 209 otherwise known
as the Family Code of the Philippines)
NOTE:
Essential Requisite No. 1
Legal Capacity of Contracting Parties — (a) means that the
parties must have the necessary age, and Article 5 of the Family
Code provides for a uniform age for the male and for the female
to be eighteen years or upwards, (b) means that there must be
no impediment caused by a prior existing marriage or by certain
relationships by affinity (law) or consanguinity (blood).
The law fixes the minimum age for the male and female, to be
at least 18 years old at the time of the marriage. If the age of one
contracting parties is below 18 years at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, the marriage lack legal capacity, an essential requisite
of marriage.
Under the previous law, the Civil Code, the age of the male
must be at least 16 and the female at least 14 (Art. 54, Civil Code).
It is wise for the Family Code to make the minimum age at 18 years
for both male and female. This provision of the Family Code about
the minimum age now controls.
Indeed, marriage at an early age, like 14 or 16 is not conducive to
a vigorous and healthful union of the parties, let alone, the probable
effect on the physical and economic condition of the parties.
One Filipino psychiatrist calls this marriage as the symbiotic
marriage, where the parties are young and most often inaccessible
to realistic considerations. This is one marriage which ends up in
break-up.
By raising the age to 18 years old at least the parties have
already developed maturity and freedom of judgment. Furthermore,
IN THE PHILIPPINES
it has been the consensus of judges, social workers and religious

leaders that the major cause of marriage break-ups is the immaturity
of the parties. Raising the age to 18 is in consonance with the findings
that the median age for marriage in the Philippines is 19.
Again, the law merely fixes the minimum and not the
maximum. In fact, in some countries the marriage between senior
citizens is common. And they are of advanced age that copulation
and other obligation to each other have become already impossible.
Yet, this union of two senior citizens has become a part of their
customs and culture. A lot of this marriage is entered into for purely
companionship during old age, or for sentimental reasons.
The law, likewise, does not require any particular age difference
between the parties. What is important is that the parties must be
at least 18 years old or over. (The Family Code of the Philippines
Explained. Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, Marcelino T. Lizaso. Central
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 16-17)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE NULLITY OF THE

SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE DUE TO EXISTING PRIOR
MARRIAGE
De Cardenas vs. Cardenas

G.R. No. L-8218
December 15, 1955
Facts:
Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas brought an action to annul the
marriage entered into by Leoncio Cardenas and Florencia Riñen
on the ground that when said marriage was celebrated on June 19,
1948, Eulogia to whom Leoncio had been married on July 10, 1927
was still alive.
Leoncio and Florencia argued that Minister George W. Wright
who solemnized the marriage between Eulogia and Leoncio had no
authority to solemnize marriage; and that there was no marriage
license issued to enable them to marry each other.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Eulogia and Leoncio valid thus incapa-
citating the latter to marry Florencia?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Eulogia
and Leoncio was valid rendering the latter’s marriage to Florencia
null and void.
The High Court further said that a marriage license as
provided for in Article 53, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code (now Article
3, paragraph 1 of the Family Code) and in Section 7 of Act No. 3613,
was not required by General Order No. 68, the law in force on July
10, 1927 when the marriage was entered into by Eulogia and Leoncio.
The marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was
performed by Minister Wright gives rise to the presumption that
all the legal formalities required by law had been complied with
and fulfilled. If the minister was not authorized to perform such
marriage ceremony, it was incumbent upon Leoncio and Florencia
to show such lack of authority on the part of the minister. Leoncio
and Florencia failed to show that proof.
PROBLEMS ON ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF VALID

MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Problem No. 1:
Alfred and Belen, both Filipino citizens got married in the
Philippines. Thereafter, they migrated to the US to seek for greener
pasture. After a few years of living in the US, their marriage turned
from bad to worse due to irreconcilable differences. Alfred and Belen
were able to obtain a valid divorce in the US. Belen returned to
the Philippines to marry her childhood sweetheart. Can she validly
remarry in the Philippines?
No, Belen cannot validly remarry in the Philippines. Laws
relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
even though living abroad. (Article 15, Civil Code of the Philippines)
Divorce certainly affects the status and condition of persons. Since
absolute divorce is not recognized in this country except among
Muslims, the absolute divorce obtained by Alfred and Belen in the
US is not valid in the Philippines.
Furthermore, the rule in our country is that absolute divorce
is contrary to public policy. The 3rd paragraph of Article 17 of the
Civil Code states: “Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public order, public
IN THE PHILIPPINES
policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws

or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country.” It is settled in our country that
absolute divorce is contrary to public policy. This declaration of
public policy cannot be rendered nugatory by the divorce obtained
by Alfred and Belen in the US. Therefore, Belen cannot remarry in
the Philippines.
Problem No. 2:
Carmen, a Filipino and Dennis, an American got married in
the Philippines. A few months after their wedding, Dennis brought
Carmen to the US to live there permanently. Due to frequent quarrels
on many insignificant matters, Dennis filed a petition for divorce
and was granted the same. Carmen in the meantime returned to the
Philippines. She met Elmer, a bank executive and after a whirlwind
romance, they decided to get married. Can Carmen validly marry
Elmer?
Yes, Carmen can validly marry Elmer. Under the 2nd paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code, where a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce
is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity
to remarry under Philippine Law. (As amended by E.O. No. 227,
dated July 17, 1987) In the problem, it was Dennis, an American
citizen who obtained the divorce capacitating him to remarry. Under
Philippine Law, Carmen is likewise capacitated to remarry. Hence,
she can validly marry Elmer.
Problem No. 3:
Bill, an American citizen married Yvette, a Filipino while the
former was on vacation in Manila. When they went to the USA,
Yvette filed a divorce against Bill due to irreconcilable conflicts. The
decree of divorce capacitated Bill to remarry under US laws. Can
Yvette remarry in the Philippines?
No, Yvette cannot remarry in the Philippines. This is because
it was Yvette the Filipino who initiated the divorce. Article 26,
paragraph 2 of the Family Code is explicit that if there is a mixed
marriage and the foreigner initiates the divorce capacitating him
or her to remarry under his or her national law, the Filipino spouse
can remarry under Philippine law. Since it was Yvette who initiated
the divorce, she is not capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.

This is so because the requirement of Article 26 paragraph 2 of the
Family Code is mandatory.
PARTIES MUST BE MALE AND FEMALE AS AN ESSENTIAL

REQUISITE OF VALID MARRIAGE
The provision of the Code requires that the contracting parties
must be a male and a female. This requisite is obviously indispensable,
as dictated by natural and biological law and because of the very
purpose of marriage. Procreation cannot be realized by two persons
of the same sex. Hence, there could not be valid marriage between
a lesbian and a woman or between a gay and a man. However, if
through machination a marriage is celebrated between persons of
the same sex, the marriage is void and cannot produce any legal
effect, either as to the persons or properties of the parties. And it is
believed that the party who acted with fraud or deceit is liable for
damages to the party in good faith.
PROBLEM OF SEX AS ESSENTIAL REQUISITE OF VALID

MARRIAGE
Roxanne and Christine, both female, the latter being a lesbian
were married by a solemnizing officer because the latter believed
Christine to be a male. This happened because Christine concealed
her true identity by appearing to be a male. Is the marriage between
Roxanne and Christine valid under our law?
No, the marriage between Roxanne and Christine is not valid
under our law. The Family Code provides that the contracting
parties must be 18 years of age and must be a male and a female.
(Article 2, par. 1, Family Code) They do not comply with the gender
requirement set by the law. This requirement is based on one of
the purposes of marriage — that is, the procreation of offspring.
Since Roxanne and Christine are both female, they do not have the
capacity to procreate offspring.
Essential Requisite No. 2
THE CONSENT IF FREELY GIVEN

Consent refers to the consent of the contracting parties,
not parental consent. Consent is required because marriage is a
IN THE PHILIPPINES
contract, a voluntary act. If there is consent, but is vitiated by error,

fraud, intimidation, force, etc., the marriage is not void; it is merely
voidable; i.e., valid until annulled. If there is absolutely no consent,
or when the parties did not intend to be bound, as in the case of
a joke or in the case of stage play or movie, the marriage is void.
(Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 373)
PROBLEM ON CONSENT AS AN ESSENTIAL REQUISITE OF

VALID MARRIAGE
Benjamin and Leila, both 19 years of age got married with the
consent of their parents, but without their consent. Is their marriage
valid?
No, the marriage of Benjamin and Leila is void because it lacks
one the essential requisites of marriage — that is, the consent of the
contracting parties freely given. (Article 2 (2), Family Code) The fact
that their parents gave consent to their marriage would not make
the marriage valid. It is the consent of the contracting parties that
is required by law.
Legal capacity as the first essential requisite of valid marriage
means that the contracting parties must be at least eighteen (18)
years old or over, otherwise they are prohibited by law from getting
married. Consent freely given as the second essential requisite
means that the consent is not secured through fraud, duress,
intimidation or other causes that vitiate consent under Article 45
and 46 of the Family Code. Such consent must also be real and the
parties must give such consent in the presence of the solemnizing
officer. Hence, no marriage by proxy is allowed under Article 6 of
the Family Code.
MARRIAGE BY PROXY
Marriage where one of the parties to a marriage is merely
represented by a delegate or a friend.
RULES ON MARRIAGES BY PROXY

(a) If performed here in the Philippines, the marriage is void
because physical presence of both parties is required under Art. 6 of
the Family Code;
(b) If performed abroad, whether between Filipinos or
foreigners or mixed, it would seem that the controlling Article is
Art. 26 of the Family Code. Hence, ordinarily, if the marriage by

proxy is valid as such where celebrated, it should be considered as
valid in the Philippines, without prejudice to any restrictions
that may be imposed by our Immigration Laws for purposes of
immigration. (Paras, As cited in Civil Code of the Philippines,
15th Edition, p. 378)
Rule 2.10 Formal Requisites of Marriage

Formal requisites refer to the form of the marriage that affect
its extrinsic validity.
The formal requisites of marriage are:
a. the authority of the Solemnizing Officer;
b. a valid marriage license except in cases of marriage
exempt from marriage license requirement;
c. a marriage ceremony which takes place with the ap-
pearance of the contracting parties before the Solem-
nizing 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 (Article 3, EO
209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philip-
pines)
NOTE:
Formal Requisite No. 1
Authority of the Person Solemnizing the Marriage.

Under the old Marriage Law (Act No. 3613, Sec. 27), the
marriage was considered completely valid if, at the time of
solemnization, both the spouses or one of them believed in good
faith that the solemnizer was actually empowered to do so and that
the marriage was perfectly legal. Under the Civil Code, however,
the good or bad faith of the parties was immaterial. If the person
performing the marriage had no authority to do so, the marriage
was void, regardless of the good or bad faith of the parties. Under
the Family Code, even if the solemnizing officer is not authorized,
the marriage would be valid if either or both parties believe in good
faith in his authority to solemnize the marriage. (Paras, Civil Code
of the Philippines, Annotated, 15th Edition, p. 373)
IN THE PHILIPPINES

A Valid Marriage license, except in a Marriage of Exceptional
Character.
What is required is the marriage license, not the marriage

certificate. The later is not an essential or formal requisite; thus, an
oral solemnization is valid. In fact, a marriage may be proved by oral
evidence. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, 15th Ed. p. 373)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF MARRIAGE DECLARED VOID

DUE TO ABSENCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE
Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Angelina Castro

G.R. No. 103047
September 2, 1994
Facts:
Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas were married in a civil
ceremony performed by a Judge Pablo Malvar, City Court Judge of
Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of
Angelina’s parents. Edwin personally attended to the processing of
the documents required for the celebration of marriage, including
the procurement of marriage license. The marriage contract itself
states that marriage license No. 3196182 was issued in the name of
the contracting parties, Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas.
Angelina and Castro did not immediately live together as
husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to Angelina’s
parents. When Angelina discovered that she was pregnant, they
decided to live together. Their cohabitation however lasted only for
four months. Thereafter, they parted ways. In the following year,
Angelina gave birth and the baby was adopted by her brother.
The baby is now in the US. Desiring to follow her daughter,
Angelina wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for
the States. She thus consulted a lawyer for the possible annulment
of her marriage with Edwin. Through her lawyer’s efforts, it was
discovered that there was no marriage license issued prior to their
marriage as evidenced by the certificate of “due search and inability
to find” issued by the local civil registrar.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas
valid notwithstanding the absence of marriage license?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said that at the time the subject marriage
was solemnized the law governing marital relations was the Civil
Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without
a marriage license first issued by the local civil registrar. Being one
of the requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a marriage license
would render the marriage void ab initio.
Evidence showed that there was no marriage license issued
prior to the marriage as indicated by a certificate of “due search
and inability to find” issued by the local civil registrar. The Rules of
Court authorize the custodian of documents to certify that after a
diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his office or
that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in the
register. (Section 29, Rule 132, Rules of Court)
As custodian of public documents, civil registrars are public
officials charged with the duty of maintaining a register book where
they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses. The
certification of “due search and inability to find” issued by the local
civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged
under the law to keep a record of all the data relative to issuance of
marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion,
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.
Hence, the marriage between Angelina Castro and Edwin
Cardenas is null and void ab initio on the reason that no marriage
license was issued prior to their marriage.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE WHERE MARRIAGE WAS PRESUMED

SINCE RECORD OF MARRIAGE CANNOT BE FOUND AT
LCRO
Bartolome vs. Bartolome

L-23661, Dec. 20, 1967
Facts:
A man and a woman lived together as husband and wife for
many years, but in the office of Manila Civil Registry, there was no
record that a marriage between them had ever been celebrated.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Issue:
Are we to presume that they married?
Held:
Yes, because of their cohabitation for many years. Moreover, the
lack of marriage record in Manila does not rebut the presumption of
marriage, for the marriage could have been celebrated elsewhere.

A Marriage Ceremony. This must be in the presence of not less
than two witnesses of legal age.
A ceremony is required, although no particular form is
needed. And it must be before a duly authorized person. It need
not be written; signs would be sufficient (People vs. Cotas, C.A., 40
O.G. 3154) but in no case would a common-law marriage between
Filipinos be considered as valid, for performance must be before the
proper officer. (See Cruz vs. Catandes, C.A. 39 O.G. 324; Enriquez,
et al. vs. Enriquez, et al., Phil. 565) (Paras, Civil Code of the Phil.
15th Ed. p. 376).
THE LIABILITY OF THE WITNESSES TO THE MARRIAGE

CEREMONY
If a witness vouched for the capacity of either of the contracting
parties, knowing that one of them was already married, he is liable
as an accomplice. But if a witness merely attested to the marriage
ceremony and did not vouch or assert anything as to the personal
qualifications of the parties, he is not liable. (U.S. vs. Gaoiran, et al.,
17 Phil. 404)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE LIABILITY OF THE WITNESS

TO MARRIAGE CEREMONY
United States vs. Gaoiran, et al.

G.R. No. 5982
November 28, 1910
Facts:
Juan Balicat and Gerarda Sahagun stood as principal sponsors
for the marriage between Maria Manuel and Doroteo Gaoiran, who
was then previously married to Salvador Batana with whom he

was separated in fact. It appears that Juan and Gerarda knew that
Doroteo was previously married, and both knew that Salvador was
living just in the same village where they also lived. Salvador filed a
case of bigamy against Doroteo and Juan and Gerarda were likewise
included in the charge as accomplice. The trial court convicted
Doroteo as principal, while Juan and Gerarda were also convicted
as accomplice. Hence, all of them appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Are Juan and Gerarda guilty as accomplice in the crime of
bigamy for standing as principal sponsors for the marriage between
Maria Manuel and Doroteo Gaoiran?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Juan and Gerarda cannot be
convicted as accomplice in the crime of bigamy by merely standing
as principal sponsors of the marriage between Maria Manuel and
Doroteo. While it is admitted that Juan and Gerarda were present
when Doroteo contracted the second marriage, and that they knew
that he was previously married to Salvador, and while it has been
established that they knew that Salvador was alive when the second
marriage was contracted, the certificate of the justice of the peace
(now municipal judge) fails to show just what part was taken by
Juan and Gerarda in the marriage. The justice of the peace said
that they were witnesses presenciales (actually present), but he
did not state that Juan and Gerarda testified that there existed no
legal impediment to the marriage, and the proof failed to establish
this fact. So, the most that can be said as to the participation of
Juan and Gerarda in the marriage is that they were eyewitnesses or
persons who were just present when the marriage took place. These
facts are not sufficient to establish the guilt of Juan and Gerarda as
accomplices in the commission of the crime of bigamy. Hence, the
Supreme Court acquitted them as accomplices of the crime charged
against them.
IS THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER LIABLE IF HE SOLEMNIZES

THE MARRIAGE EVEN IF AN IMPEDIMENT EXISTS?
The finding of the local civil registrar that an impediment
exists is noted on the application for marriage license and not on
the license itself. Since the application may not be attached to
the license when it is issued (not required by law), it is possible
IN THE PHILIPPINES
that the person solemnizing the marriage may not be aware of

the impediment and solemnize the marriage to which there is an
impediment. There will be no criminal liability of the solemnizing
officer, but the marriage would be void. (Tolentino, The Civil Code
of the Philippines Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 1990
Edition, p. 255).
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THERE IS ABSENCE, DEFECT OR

IRREGULARITY OF ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL OR FORMAL
REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE?
The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites of
marriage shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated
in Article 35 (2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the
marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the
validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the
irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
(Article 4, Family Code)
Rule 2.11 Marriage License

Is an official document issued by the C/MCR that gives
authority to be married to each other in accordance with law.
(Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)
NOTE:
Marriage license is the authority of the person to solemnize the
marriage. A marriage which precedes the issuance of the marriage
license is void for it lacks the authority to solemnize marriage as
an essential requisite. The subsequent issuance of such license
cannot render valid such marriage (People vs. Lara, (CA) OG 4079).
However, the law does not impose upon the person solemnizing the
marriage the duty of investigating whether the license was issued by
the Local Civil Registrar of the domicile of either party. It is sufficient
to know that the license was issued by a competent official who can
be presumed to have regularly complied with his duty. It is not also
his problem of ascertaining whether the party who desires to get
married resides habitually in the municipality (People vs. Janison,
54 Phil. 176). The marriage under a license is not invalidated by the
fact that the license was wrongly obtained. (Melchor vs. Melchor,
102 Neb 790; 169 NW 720 as cited in the Book — The Comparative
laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code of
Justice Jainal D. Rasul, pp. 63-64)
Marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of
the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually
resides, except in marriage where no license is required in accordance
with Chapter 2 of the Family Code. (Art. 9, Family Code as cited in
Paras, pp. 380-381)
Marriage License is an authority given by the state to its
citizens, to enable them to get married. It is a license issued by the
local civil registrar to the applicants, future husband and wife, who
shall take each other in marriage. It serves as a safeguard that the
requisites for the validity of marriage are complied with. Without
the marriage license, a marriage shall not be valid even if it was
performed by an authorized officer. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, Family
Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 14)
The License shall be valid in any part of the Philippines for
a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue, and
shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration of said
period if the contracting parties have not made use of it. The expiry
date shall be stamped in bold characters of the face of every license
issued. (Article 20, Family Code)
The issuance of the marriage license is within the regulatory
power of the state, to safeguard the compliance with the requirements
of marriage.
The contracting parties in a marriage, before such marriage,
shall go to the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where
either of them habitually resides, to apply for a marriage license.
The marriage license application is accomplished in that office by
the parties, stating therein their personal circumstances, including
those of their parents or guardians. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, pp. 23-
24).
EFFECT OF LAPSE OF PERIOD

The marriage license is automatically cancelled after the 120
day period following its date. A marriage solemnized after that
period is a marriage without a marriage license. The automatic
cancellation of the license is not a mere irregularity or defect; the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
license is non existent. The marriage is void ab initio. (People vs.

Edeza, (C.A.) 59 O.G. 562).
OCRG’S CIRCULAR RE PLACE AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF

MARRIAGE LICENSE
CIRCULAR NO. 3
Series of 1988
To : All Regional/Provincial Census Officers and Local

Civil Registrars
Subject : APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 20 OF THE FAMILY
CODE
Article 20 of the Family Code provides:
“Art. 20. The license shall be valid in any part of the

Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty days from the
date of issue, and shall be deemed automatically cancelled at
the expiration of the said period if the contracting parties have
not made use of it. The expiry date shall be stamped in bold
characters on the face of every license issued. (65a)”
The above-cited provision of the law speaks of one hundred

twenty days as the period of validity of the marriage license, and the
expiry date of such period to be stamped on its face in bold letters.
There is a question, however, as to when shall the Local Civil
Registrar start counting the one hundred twenty days to enable him
to know the expiry date. The aforementioned law ostensibly requires
that the one hundred twenty days shall be counted starting from the
date of issue, but what is the date of issue? Is it the same as the date
when the license is actually released to the parties of the intended
marriage? To answer all these questions, the Local Civil Registrars
should distinguish the following dates or periods in connection with
the marriage license: a) date of filing the application for marriage
license; b) period of posting the application which is ten consecutive
days; c) date of issue of the marriage license; and d) date when the
marriage license is actually released to the applicants.
Thus, for example, Mr. M and Miss W filed their application
for marriage license on 1 August 1988 with the LCR of Manila. The
posting period of the application, which is ten days, shall be from 2
August 1988 to 11 August 1988. In this case, the date of the issue when
the one hundred twenty-day validity period should start on the day
immediately following the completion of the posting period, which 12
August 1988, whether or not the parties claim the license. The expiry
date of the marriage license is therefore 9 December 1988, the 120th
day from 12 August 1988. This expiry date will remain regardless
of when the concerned parties come to claim the marriage license.
For example, if Mr. M and Miss W applied for license on 11 August
1988. In this case, the date of issue when the one hundred twenty-
day validity period should start is the day immediately following the
completion of the posting period which is 12 August 1988, whether
or not the parties claim the license. The expiry date of the marriage
license is therefore 9 December 1988, the 120th day from 12 August
1988. This expiry date will remain regardless of when the concerned
parties come to claim the marriage license. For example, if Mr. M
and Miss W actually claim the marriage license on 31 August 1988,
which should be the date of release (as distinguished from the date
of issue which is 12 August 1988), it means that they have only one
hundred days left whereby they can use the marriage license. If the
parties claim the marriage license on 15 December 1988, the LCR
may still release the license but the parties cannot make use of it
anymore because it has already expired. It the parties still want to
get married after the expiration of the license, they must apply for a
new license.
As to the stamping of the expiry date of the license on its face in
bold characters, every Local Civil Registrar shall provide for himself
with a rubber stamp bearing the following impression: “THIS
LICENSE EXPIRES ON ______________.” The Regional/Provincial
Census Officers are hereby instructed to monitor the implementation
of this Circular within their respective area of jurisdiction.
MARCELO M. ORENSE
Administrator &
IN THE PHILIPPINES
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM TO LCRs ON NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

DUE TO ABSENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND A
COURT’S REMINDER THAT DUTY OF MAYORS TO SOLEMNIZE
MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DELEGATED
29 August 1997
MEMORANDUM
Subject : COURT DECISION CONCERNING NULLITY
OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF A VALID
MARRIAGE LICENSE AND LACK OF AUTHOR-
ITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
Attached is a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of

Capas, Tarlac in the Civil Case No. 351-(95) concerning a petition
for the judicial of nullity of marriage filed by Ms. Cristina Vergara
against her husband, Reynaldo Pascua. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING,
the Petition for judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed
by petitioner Cristina Vergara against respondent Reynaldo
Pascua thru counsel, Atty. Cesar Gomez is hereby DENIED.
Case is hereby DISMISSED.
In passing, it may be timely for the Honorable Secretary,
Department of Interior and Local Government to issue a Circular
reminding municipal mayors that the duty to solemnize marriage
cannot be delegated and for the National Census and Statistics
Office to issue Circular for strict compliance on the ten (10) days
period before issuance of marriage license by the local civil registrar
to the increasing number of cases being filed for annulment on the
ground that the officiating official has no authority to solemnize
the marriage and the non-existence of a marriage at the time of the
solemnization.
In view of this court decision, the city/municipal civil registrars
are hereby enjoined to observe strictly the proper issuance of
marriage license as provided in the Family Code of the Philippines
and in OCRG Circular No. 3, S. 1988
TOMAS P. AFRICA
A PROBLEM ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE LICENSE

AFTER THE LAPSE OF ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS
Problem:
Carlos and Vanessa applied for marriage license which was
issued on December 1, 2004. The license was used on April 30, 2005.
Is their marriage valid?
Held:
No, the marriage of Carlos and Vanessa is not valid. The
marriage license was automatically cancelled after the lapse of 120
days. Since the marriage license was already cancelled for non-use
within the period prescribed by law, it is as if no marriage license
existed at the time to their marriage. (Article 20, Family).
LIABILITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER WHO SOLEMNIZES

MARRIAGE WITH EXPIRED LICENSE
Note that under Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code, any
solemnizing officer who solemnizes a marriage as well as the parties
thereto after the license had expired may be held criminally liable.
(Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, [Fifteenth Edition], p. 388).
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE RE PETITION FOR NULLITY OF

MARRIAGE FOR HAVING NO MARRIAGE LICENSE ISSUED
TO PARTIES PRIOR TO CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS AND ANGELINA M. CASTRO, respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS;
MARRIAGE; REQUISITES; ABSENCE; EFFECT. — At the time the
subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing
marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no
marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license first issued
by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a
valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void
ab initio.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PROOF OF LACK OF

RECORD; EFFECT; CASE AT BAR. — Section 29, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, authorized the custodian of documents to certify that
despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his
office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found
in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are
public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a
register book where they are required to enter all applications for
marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date
the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data.
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.
3. ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF THE PETITIONER; WHEN
CORROBORATING TESTIMONY NOT NECESSARY; CASE AT
BAR. — 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. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil
ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage
is one of those commonly known as a “secret marriage” — a legally
non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage
celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends
of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that
the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown
to the parents of the former. Surely, the fact that only private
respondent Castro testified during the trial cannot be held against
her. Her husband, Edwin F. Cardenas, was duly served with notice
of the proceedings and a copy of the petition. Despite receipt thereof,
he chose to ignore the same. For failure to answer, he was properly
declared in default. Private respondent cannot be faulted for her
husband’s lack of interest to participate in the proceedings. There
was absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was collusion
between private respondent and her husband Cardenas.
DECISION
PUNO, J p:
The case at bench originated from a petition filed by private
respondent Angelina M. Castro in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage
to Edwin F. Cardenas. As ground therefore, Castro claims that no
marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization
of their marriage.
Despite notice, defendant Edwin F. Cardenas failed to file his
answer. Consequently, he was declared in default. Trial proceeded
in his absence.
The controlling facts are undisputed:
On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas
were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M.
Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated
without the knowledge of Castro’s parents. Defendant Cardenas
personally attended to the processing of the documents required
for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of
the marriage license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states
that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the
contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila.
The couple did not immediately live together as husband and
wife since the marriage was unknown to Castro’s parents. Thus, it
was only in March 1971, when Castro discovered she was pregnant,
that the couple decided to live together. However, their cohabitation
lasted only for four (4) months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways.
On October 19, 1971, Castro gave birth. The baby was adopted by
Castro’s brother, with the consent of Cardenas.
The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her
daughter, Castro wanted to put in order her marital status before
leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer, Atty. Frumencio
E. Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her marriage.
Through her lawyer’s efforts, they discovered that there was no
marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their
marriage.
As proof, Angelina Castro offered in evidence a certification
from the Civil Register of Pasig, Metro Manila. It reads:
IN THE PHILIPPINES
“February 20, 1987
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the names EDWIN F. CARDENAS and
ANGELINA M. CASTRO who were allegedly married in the Pasay
City Court on June 21, 1970 under an alleged (s)upportive marriage
license no. 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20,
1970 cannot be located as said license no. 3196182 does not appear
from our records.
Issued upon request of Mr. Ed Atanacio.
CENONA D. QUINTOS
Senior Civil Registry
Officer”
Castro testified that she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig
on or before June 24, 1970 in order to apply for a license. Neither did
she sign any application therefore. She affixed her signature only
on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in Pasay City. The trial
court denied the petition.
It held that the above certification was inadequate to establish
the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration
of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the “inability of
the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive
to show that there was no marriage license issued.”
Unsatisfied with the decision, Castro appealed to respondent
appellate court. She insisted that the certification from the local civil
registrar sufficiently established the absence of a marriage license.
As stated earlier, respondent appellate court reversed the
Decision of the trial court. It declared the marriage between the
contracting parties null and void and directed the Civil Registrar of
Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines urges that respondent
appellate court erred when it ruled that the certification issued
by the civil registrar that marriage license no. 3196182 was not
in their record adequately proved that no such license was ever
issued. Petitioner also faults the respondent court for relying on the
self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of private respondent

Castro that she had no part in the procurement of the subject
marriage license. Petitioner thus insists that the certification and
the uncorroborated testimony of private respondent are insufficient
to overthrow the legal presumption regarding the validity of a
marriage.
Petitioner also points that in declaring the marriage between
the parties as null and void, respondent appellate court disregarded
the presumption that the solemnizing officer, Judge Pablo M. Malvar,
regularly performed his duties when he attested in the marriage
contract that marriage license no. 3196182 was duly presented to
him before the solemnization of the subject marriage.
The issues, being interrelated, shall be discussed jointly.
The core issue presented by the case at bench is whether or
not the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private
respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was
issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the
marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas.
We affirm the impugned Decision.
At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24,
1970, the law governing marital relations was the New Civil Code.
The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a
marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one
of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license
would render the marriage void ab initio.
Petitioner posits that the certification of the local civil registrar
of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the effect
that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued to the parties is not
adequate to prove its non-issuance.
We hold otherwise. The presentation of such certification in
court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
viz:
“Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement
signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by
his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry of
a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office,
accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible
as evidence that the records of his contain no such record or
entry.”
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to

certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not
exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was
not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents,
civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia,
of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter
all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the
applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other
relevant data.
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. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil
ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage
is one of those commonly known as a “secret marriage” — a legally
non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage
celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of
either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the
marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to
the parents of the former.
Surely, the fact that only private respondent Castro testified
during the trial cannot be held against her. Her husband, Edwin F.
Cardenas, was duly served with notice of the proceedings and a copy
of the petition. Despite receipt thereof, he chose to ignore the same.
For failure to answer, he was properly declared in default. Private
respondent cannot be faulted for her husband’s lack of interest to
participate in the proceedings. There was absolutely no evidence on
record to show that there was collusion between private respondent
and her husband Cardenas.
It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the appellate
court that the marriage between the contracting parties is null and
void for lack of a marriage license does not discount the fact that
indeed, a spurious marriage license, purporting to be issued by the
civil registrar of Pasig, may have been presented by Cardenas to the
solemnizing officer.
In fine, we hold that, under the circumstances of the case,
the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private
respondent Castro sufficiently established the absence of the subject
marriage license.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED there being no
showing of any reversible error committed by respondent appellate
court.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE

ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE
A marriage which took place a day before the issuance of the
marriage license is void; the subsequent issuance of such license
cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage
nor ratify it. (People vs. De Lara, C.A. L-12585-R, Feb. 15, 1955,
Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained,
p. 14).
ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE DESPITE KNOWLEDGE

OF IMPEDIMENT
The Family Code provides that “In case of any impediment
known to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention, he
shall note down the particulars thereof and his findings thereon in
the application for a marriage license, but shall nonetheless issue
said license after the completion of the period of publication, unless
ordered otherwise by a competent court at this own instance or that
of any interested party.” (Article 18, Family Code)
Therefore, knowledge of the local civil registrar of the existence
of any impediment to the marriage shall not prevent the issuance
of marriage license after the 10-day publication unless ordered by
a competent court upon petition of the local civil registrar or any
interested party. It means that the duty of the civil registrar to issue
the marriage license is ministerial after the 10-day publication.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
During the publication of the application for a marriage

license, the local civil registrar may learn of any impediment of one
of the contracting parties or this impediment may be brought to this
attention by any interested person. In this case, the registrar shall
note down the particulars thereof and his findings in the application.
He shall, nonetheless, issue the license after completion of the period
of publication, unless ordered otherwise by a competent court, at his
own instance or that of any interested party.
Under the old provision of the Civil Code, the Civil Registrar,
under the circumstances, shall conduct an investigation, examining
the person under oath. If after investigation, the registrar is
convinced that there is an impediment, it is his duty to withhold the
issuance of the marriage license, unless the court will order him to
issue the same. This authority of the civil registrar is almost quasi-
judicial in nature.
In the new provision of the Family Code, in determining the
existence of an impediment, it is believed, that the civil registrar
may establish its existence in any manner that will convince him. If
he is convinced, he shall annotate his findings on the application for
marriage license, but nonetheless issue the marriage license. But he
may also resort to a court action, or any interested party may do the
same, for this matter, by filing a petition asking the competent court
to authorize him to withhold the issuance of the marriage license,
or not to grant the marriage license, in view of the impediment. No
filing fee or bond shall be required of this petition. (Marcelino T.
Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1,
pp. 39-40).
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM TO LCRs THAT NO APPLICATION

FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE SHALL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT
SUPPORTING PAPERS

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Ref. No. 997000-0504
MEMORANDUM
Subject : NO APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE
SHALL BE ACCEPTED WIHTOUT THE SUP-
PORTING PAPERS REQUIRED BY LAW FOR
THE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT
For your guidance in issuing marriage license, we are provid-

ing you a copy of the Resolution from the Officer of the Deputy Om-
budsman fro Luzon in connection with Case No. OMB-1-98-0936
(Doroteo B. Ferrer, Jr. vs. MCR Filipina Herico), 30 July 1999.
In this case, the rule that no application for marriage license
shall be accepted unless the applicants comply with the requirements
of the law was upheld by the Ombudsman.
For the Civil Registrar General
CARLITO B. LALICON
Civil Registry Coordinator
Copy furnished:
All Regional Directors
All Provincial Statistics Officers
All District Statistics Officers
IN THE PHILIPPINES
AN OMBUDSMAN CASE AGAINST LCR FOR REFUSING

TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSE TO APPLICANTS DUE TO
THEIR FAILURE TO SUBMIT REQUIRED FAMILY PLANNING
CERTIFICATE ON TIME

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON
176 MWSS Bldg., Arroceros Street, 1000 Manila
DOROTEO B. FERRER, JR.

Daet, Camarines Sur
Complainant
versus OMB-1-98-09336
For Violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act 3019; Section 5(c)
Of Republic Act 6713
FILIPINA HERICO
Local Civil Registrar
Labo, Camarines Norte
Respondent
X=================================================X
RESOLUTION
Before this Office is a complaint filed by Doroteo B. Ferrer, Jr.

against Filipina Herico, Local Civil Registrar for violating Section
3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 5 (c) of Republic Act 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees).
Complainant alleged that on November 10, 1997, complainant,
together with Eleonor Torilla, went to the Office of the Civil Registrar
of Labo, Camarines Norte (where respondents hold office) to apply
for a marriage license in view of their impending marriage scheduled
on the 5th day of January 1998. After paying the required fees
and submitting their respective live birth certificates, respondent
required them to sign a blank application form for marriage license.
On December 29, 1997, complainant’s sister-in-law, Araceli Barrios,
submitted to said Office the family planning certificate. Meanwhile,
complainant started preparing all the things needed for the wedding
including the printing and distribution of the wedding invitations.
On January 02, 1998, complainant went to respondent’s office in
order to get the marriage license. But then, he was informed that
his application for marriage license was not processed because of his
failure to submit on time the family planning certificate. Complainant
pleaded to respondent to reconsider her position. But the latter was
adamant. Respondent likewise returned all the documents submitted
by complainant which include Municipal Form Nos. 90 and 94 and
Civil Registry Form No. C, which are all in blank forms. In order to
save further humiliation and embarrassment, complainant decided
on that day to apply for a marriage license with the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Daet, Camarines Norte. It was acted upon by said Office
with dispatch. Thus, on January 12, 1998, the wedding proceeded
as scheduled, because of respondent’s inaction on complainant’s
application for marriage, the presentation is instituted.
In her counter-affidavit, respondent explained that before
a marriage license can be issued, a ten-day posting period, after
submitting all the requirements, should be observed. In the case
of complainant, since the family certificate was submitted only on
December 29, 1997, the posting period will commence on the following
day or on December 30, 1997.Obviously, the marriage license cannot
be issued before or even on the intended date of marriage, January
05, 1998. On the day when Araceli Barrios submitted complainant’s
family planning certificate, the latter requested, before leaving, if
they can antedate the star of the posting period of complainant’s
applicant for marriage license. Thereafter, Mr. Fortunato Buerano
(father of Araceli and uncle of complainant’s fiancée), who was once
an ex-officio local civil registrar, came Mr. Buerano pleaded that
since her niece’s date of marriage is set on the 5th day of January,
1998, the star of the posting period be made earlier than December
29, 1997 so that the marriage license can be released prior to January
05, 1998. But respondent stood firm on her decision even after
she was summoned by mayor Tenorio regarding the said matter.
In order to justify her stand, respondent submitted a copy of the
Guidelines in Issuing Marriage License of Carlito B. Lalicon, Civil
Registry Coordinator of the Office of the Civil Registrar General of
the National Statistics Office, as well as affidavits of Arlene Lacson
and Noemi V. Pareza, respondents’ co-employee in the Office of the
Municipal Civil Registrar.
In his reply, complainant alleged that previously, the ten-
day posting period starts on the day following the submission
IN THE PHILIPPINES
of application forms for marriage license. As what had been the

practice in the municipality, the family planning certificate can be
submitted before or even on the date of issuance of the marriage
license. Assuming that there had been changes in the procedure,
complaint insisted that he should have been informed thereof. Had
respondent instructed complainant that the marriage license cannot
be issued if the certificate of family planning is not submitted,
complainant would not have scheduled the wedding on January 05,
1998. In support of complainant’s reply, affidavits of Fortunato B.
Buerano and Araceli Barrios were submitted.
Before resolving herein case, it is noteworthy to mention P.D.
965 which expressly provides that no marriage license shall be
issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present
a certificate that they had received instruction and information on
family planning and responsible parenthood. And any Local Civil
Registrar who issues the marriage license without the requisite
certificate shall be subject to appropriate or criminal charges.
As mentioned in Lalicon’s “Registration of Marriage” (Annex
B of respondent’s counter-affidavit), the application for marriage
license will only be accepted by the Municipal Civil Registrar if the
supporting papers required by law are submitted by the parties. The
date when the application was subscribed and sworn to before the
municipal civil registrar is the date when the application will be
posted for ten days. In case at bar, it is undisputed that complainant
submitted, through Araceli Barrios, his certificate of family planning
on December 29, 1997. Following the aforementioned procedure,
complainant’s application should have been subscribed and sworn
to before herein respondent on December 29, 1997, after which it
will be posted for ten days. Clearly, respondents is merely complying
with the procedure prescribed in issuing marriage license.
What then remains is for this Office to determine if there is
failure on the part of the respondent in not informing complainant
the procedure in obtaining marriage license or the consequences
of the belated submission of the supporting documents, which in
this case, is the certificate of family planning, for which respondent
should be held criminally liable. We believe there is none. Attention
is invited to Receipt No. 2209899 issued to herein complainant (p. 8,
records. It should be noted that one of the fees therein is for family
planning. In paying for the same, it would had been improbable, if
not impossible, for complainant not be informed that it is necessary
to have a certificate for family planning before a marriage license
can be issued. Secondly, as can be seen in the certificate of family

planning itself dated November 27, 1997, it is expressly provided
that is a requisite to the issuance of marriage license pursuant to
P.D. 865. Thirdly, it is noted as of November 27, 1997 when it was
submitted or more than thirty (30) days from its issuance. Had there
been an immediate submission of the certificate on the part of the
complainant the marriage license would have been issued on time
and the January 05, 1998 would not have to be postponed.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that instant
complaint be DISMISSED.
SO RESOLVED.
Manila, Philippines, 30 July 1999.
JOY N.CASIHAN-DUMLAO
Graft Investigation Officer I
Recommending Approval:
ERNESTO M. NOCOS
Director
Recommendation Approved:
JESUS F. GUERRERO
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE CAPACITATING A WIDOW

TO REMARRY
Under the Civil Code, the fact that 300 days have not expired
after the death of her husband was considered an impediment to
a widow’s remarriage, unless a child was born in the meantime
(Art. 54 in relation to Art. 84, Civil Code). This was a mistake, and
the Family Code no longer considers this fact as an impediment
to a widow’s remarriage. As a matter of fact, the Family Code has
impliedly recognized the validity of the subsequent marriage within
300 days after the death of the husband, by providing rules on the
legitimacy of children born to her after the remarriage. (See Article
168, Family Code)
Article 84 of the Civil Code prohibits the issuance of a
marriage license to such a widow; this prohibition has been removed
by the Family Code, confirming the validity of the remarriage.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(See Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and

Jurisprudence, With the Family Code Vol. 1, p. 240)
SOLEMNIZING OFFICER NEED NOT INVESTIGATE WHETHER

THE LICENSE ISSUED BY LCR IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL
But the law does not impose on the solemnizing officer to
investigate whether the license issued by the civil registrar is legally
or illegally, wrongfully or fraudulently obtained. The marriage
would, just the same, be valid without prejudice to the criminal
liability of the guilty parties. (People vs. Belen 45 O.G. Supp. No. 5
p. 88) Anyway it is sufficient to know that the license was issued by a
competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of said
license that said official has complied with his duty of ascertaining
the qualifications of the parties. (People vs. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON PROCLAMATION OR PUBLICITY

OF MARRIAGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. H. JANSSEN, defendant-appellant.
W. E. Greenbaum and Luis G. Hofileña, for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. MARRIAGE; PROCLAMATIONS OR PUBLICITY. — When-
ever a marriage is solemnized by a church, sect, or religion whose
rules and practices require proclamation or publicity, it is not neces-
sary that said proclamation be made during ten days, unless said
rules or practices so require.
2. I.D.; LICENSE; WOMAN’S RESIDENCE; LEGAL PRE-
SUMPTION. — The Marriage Law, Act No. 3412, does not impose
upon priests or ministers of religion the duty to investigate whether
the license has been issued by the officer duly authorized by said
law, that is, by the municipal secretary of the municipality where
the woman resides. All they need to know is that the license has
been issued by a competent official, and it may be presumed from
the issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled his duty to
ascertain whether the woman desiring to contract marriage does
habitually reside in his municipality. (Act No. 190, Sec. 334, No.
14.)
DECISION
VILLA-REAL, J p:
H. Janssen appeals to this court from the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of Antique convicting him of a violation of section
2 of Act No. 3412, and sentencing him to pay a fine of P200, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one day
for every 12 1/2 pesetas, and to pay the court costs.
In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following
alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its decision, to
wit:
“The trial court erred:
“1. In holding that it is the duty of the accused to inquire into
and determine the residence of the bride before solemnizing
marriage.
“2. In finding that the habitual residence of the bride, Juana S. del
Rosario is the municipality of Banga, Province of Capiz, and
not the municipality of San Jose, Province of Antique.
“3. In holding that the accused cannot solemnize marriage without
publishing or proclaiming such marriage 10 days prior to the
celebration thereof.
“4. In holding that the accused has violated section 2 of Act No.
3412.
“5. In convincing the accused.”
The following facts were proved at the trial beyond a reasonable
doubt:
On December 26, 1928, Pedro N. Cerdeña and Juana S. del
Rosario appeared before Reverend Father H. Janssen, a Catholic
parish priest of the municipality of San Jose, Antique, to have their
names inscribed in the marriage registry, Exhibit 3, which was done.
On December 30, 1928, the banns were published in his parish in
San Jose, Antique.
As the classes opened on January 7, 1929, the contracting
parties asked the defendant-appellant to marry them before that
date. Upon petition of the defendant-appellant, the Bishop of Jaro
issued the following dispensation on December 29, 1928:
“In view of the exposition and petition contained in the
foregoing document, and with the understanding that no obstacle
IN THE PHILIPPINES
has been discovered in the investigation made or to be made of the

status and liberty of the contracting parties, Pedro Cerdeña, single,
of age, a resident of San Jose, Antique, and Juana S. del Rosario, a
native of Banga, Province of Capiz, residing in San Jose, Antique,
single, of age; dispensation is granted from one call of the banns, as
prayed for, subject to aims _______ pesos, to be applied to charitable
work and the expenses of divine worship, enjoining the Reverend
Parish Priest of San Jose, Province of Antique, to whom a copy of
this decree shall be transmitted, not to solemnize the marriage
under consideration, without being certain of the status and liberty
of both contracting parties, and that in the realization of said act, no
complaint of any kind shall be made on any legal ground; and that
otherwise, it is our will that the dispensation be granted.
“Causes: Urgent business of both parties, who being Govern-
ment employees, cannot await the last call without serious preju-
dice.”
On the 1st of January, 1929, another proclamation was made
to that effect.
On January 4, 1929, the municipal secretary of San Jose,
Antique, issued the following authority to solemnize marriage:
“To all those authorized to celebrate marriage:
“You are hereby authorized to solemnize the marriage of Pedro
N. Cerdeña and Juana S. del Rosario, in accordance with the rites
and ceremonies of your Church, sect, or religion, and with the laws
of the Philippine Islands.
“Given this day, January 4, 1929, in the municipality of San
Jose, Antique, P. I.
“Attached hereto is a copy of the petition filed by the contracting
parties.”
By virtue of the above-quoted dispensation, and in view of
said authority of the municipal secretary of San Jose, Antique, the
defendant-appellant on January 6, 1929, solemnized the marriage of
Pedro N. Cerdeña to Juana S. del Rosario.
The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether or
not the defendant-appellant violated section 2 of Act No. 3412, the
pertinent part of which reads as follows:
“The municipal secretary or clerk of the municipal court of
Manila, as the case may be, shall post during ten days in a conspicuous
place in the building where he has his office, a notice setting forth
the full names and domiciles of the applicants for marriage licenses,
their respective ages, and the names of their parents if living or of
their guardians if otherwise. At the expiration of this term, a license
shall issue: Provided, however, That in case any such applicant states
in writing and under oath that the rules and practices of the church,
sect, or religion under which such applicant desires to contract
marriage require banns or publications prior to the solemnization of
the marriage, it shall not be necessary for the municipal secretary
to make the publication required in this paragraph, and in this case
the license shall issue immediately after the filing of the application
and shall state the church, sect, or religion in which the marriage is
to be solemnized.”
While it is true that section 2 of Act No. 3412 quoted above,
requires the municipal secretary to post a notice for ten days
upon a conspicuous place of the building where he has his office,
setting forth the names, surnames, and residence of applicants for a
license to contract marriage, their age, the names of their parents,
if alive, or of their guardians, as the case may be, before issuing
the license applied for, the same section contains a proviso to the
effect that when the contracting parties desire to marry in a church
which requires previous proclamation before the celebration of the
marriage, there is no need of said publication. The only doubt is
whether said proclamation must be made during ten days, as in the
publication in case the marriage is not celebrated in a church. The
law simply says that if the marriage takes place in a church whose
rules and practices require proclamation, the license applied for
shall at once be issued, and it does not say that the proclamation
required by said church is to be made during ten days. As section 2
of Act No. 3412 is penal in character, it should be strictly construed.
And as said section does not require that the proclamation be made
during ten days, but that it is sufficient that the church in which the
marriage is to take place requires a proclamation, it is immaterial
how many days said proclamation is made in.
For the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold
that the defendant-appellant did not violate section 2 of Act No.
3412 in solemnizing the marriage of Pedro N. Cerdeña and Juana
S. del Rosario after two proclamations, before ten days were up,
the third proclamation having been dispensed with by a competent
ecclesiastical authority.
The trial court was also of opinion that the defendant-appellant
was bound to investigate whether the license was issued by an
IN THE PHILIPPINES
official duly authorized by law, that is, by the municipal secretary of

the municipality where the woman habitually resides.
The law does not impose this duty upon priests or ministers of
religion. It is sufficient to know that the license has been issued by a
competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of said
license that said official has complied with his duty of ascertaining
whether the woman who desires to get married resides habitually in
his municipality. (Act No. 190, sec. 334, No. 14.)
Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold, that when a marriage
is solemnized by a church, sect, or religion whose rules and practices
require proclamation or publicity, it is not necessary that said
proclamation be made during ten days, unless said rules or practices
so require.
By virtue whereof, the appealed judgment is reversed, and the
defendant is absolved from the information, with costs de oficio. So
ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.
MARRIAGES EXEMPTED FROM LICENSE REQUIREMENT

(a) Marriage in articulo mortis (at the point of death) (Art.
27) ;
(b) Where the residence of one of the parties is so located that
there is no means of transportation to enable the party
concerned to appear before the local civil registrar (Art.
28);
(c) Marriage among Muslims or among members of the ethnic
cultural communities Art. 33); and
(d) Marriage between a man and a woman who have lived
together as husband and wife for at least five years and
without any legal impediment to marry each other (Art.
34)
DOJ OPINION ALLOWING ALIENS TO AVAIL OF ARTICLE 34

OF FAMILY CODE (MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE
PROVIDED LIVING TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR
5 YEARS)
Manila
Opinion 150, S. 1993
October 28, 1993
Mr. Tomas P. Africa

Sta. Mesa, Manila
S i r:
This refers to your request for opinion relative to the
interpretation of Section 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines
(Executive Order No. 209 as amended), which provides:
“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of
a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and
wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment
to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the
foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized
by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also
state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the
contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the
marriage.”
Specifically, you inquire as to “whether or not (the foregoing
provision) of the Family Code can also be availed of by aliens.”
It appears that on July 28, 1993, Manila Regional Trial Court
Judge Arturo U. Barias, Jr., officiated “a marriage under Article 34
of the Family Code” between a certain Sy Thiong Shiou, a Chinese
national, and Juanita Tan, a Filipino citizen; that Mr. Sy, however,
failed to secure a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage
from his Embassy as required under Article 21 of the said Code as
well as to apply for a marriage license; and that in reply to a similar
query posed by the city Civil Registrar of Manila, you ruled that
IN THE PHILIPPINES
aliens, who are required under Article 21 of the Family Code to

submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage from their
respective diplomatic or consular officers before a marriage license
can be obtained, cannot avail of the provision of Article 34.
It is readily apparent from a reading of the above quoted
provision of law that there is no mention of the nationalities of the
persons to whom it is applicable. A well-known doctrine in statutory
construction states: ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere
debemos. Under this legal principle, there should be no distinction
in the application of a statute where none is indicated (Lo Cham vs.
Ocampo, 77 Phil. 636). Equally pertinent is the rule that when the
law is clear and unequivocal, it is not susceptible to interpretation;
the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says (Pascual v.
Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561, citing cases; Sec. of Justice Opns.
No. 142, s. 1985, citing cases; No. 8, s. 1993).
The reason behind Article 34 of the Family Code (which
substantially reproduces Article 76 of the Civil Code) is to encourage
a man and woman living together to legitimate their cohabitation
since under normal circumstances, such couple are discouraged
from marrying each other owing to the publicity attending the
application for, and issuance of, a marriage license. (See Paras,
Civil Code, Vol. 1, Fifth Ed., p. 306). We fail to see any cogent
reason for denying non-Philippine citizens the salutatory objective
of Article 34 in facilitating the ratification of marital cohabitation.
The law’s interest in putting in order the social relationship among
its citizens should likewise extend to foreigners who reside within
its jurisdictional limits. And if one or both of the parties are legally
incapacitated to contract marriage, we believe that Article 34
contains sufficient safeguards against such an occurrence, namely,
by requiring the parties to execute an affidavit stating that they are
without any legal impediment to marry each other, and requiring
the solemnizing officer to state under oath that he has ascertained
the qualifications of the participants and has found no legal obstacle
to their marital union.
Premises considered, we believe that Article 34 of the Family
Code can be availed of by both Filipino citizens and aliens.
Very truly yours,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Secretary
DANGER OF DEATH DISTINGUISHED FROM POINT OF

DEATH-AN ISSUE OF ARTICULO MORTIS BEING EXEMPTED
FROM MARRIAGE LICENSE
If a soldier is about to go war, he may be in danger of death, but
not at the point of death; hence, a marriage in articulo mortis would
not be applicable to him. (Paras, supra).
There can be a valid marriage in articulo mortis even if both
parties are at the point of death, provided, of course, that all the
essential requisites are present. It is clear that the parties concerned
must be conscious of what they are doing.
In marriage in articulo mortis, while it is advisable that a
witness to the marriage should sign the dying party’s signature
if the latter be physically unable to do so, still if upon order
of the solemnizing official, another person should so sign, the
marriage is still valid. The law as much as possible intends
to give legal effect to a marriage. As a matter of fact, no
particular form for a marriage celebration is prescribed. (Cruz
vs. Catandes, C.A., 39 O.G. No. 18, p. 324)
WHO CAN PERFORM MARRIAGES IN ARTICULO MORTIS?

It is erroneous to say that only priests, ship captains, airplane
chiefs or commanding officers are the ones who can perform a
marriage in articulo mortis. A justice, a judge can also do so within
their respective jurisdictions. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines,
Vol. 1, p. 414).
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE IN

ARTICULO MORTIS EVEN IF ONE PARTY DIES ONLY AFTER
ONE YEAR.
De Loria, et al. vs. Felix

G.R. No. L-9005
June 20, 1958
Facts:
Felipe Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz were married
without a marriage license due to the pronouncement of the latter’s
physician that her illness was incurable and that she is going to die
at any time. When she died one year afterwards, the validity of her
IN THE PHILIPPINES
marriage was attacked on the ground that the marriage was not a
marriage in articulo mortis because she was able to recover from her
illness, and that the parish priest who solemnized the marriage did
not execute an affidavit stating that the marriage was celebrated in
articulo mortis.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Felipe and Matea valid?
Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court said that the marriage between Felipe
and Matea is valid. The fact that Matea was able to recover from her
illness is not her fault. In order to classify the marriage as a marriage
in articulo mortis, the law does not require that the party who is
at the point of death must die immediately after the celebration of
marriage. All that is necessary is that the parties, including the
priest or solemnizing officer, must be convinced that there was an
imminent danger of death. This circumstance is obviously present
under the facts stated in the problem.
As far as the affidavit is concerned, although it is supposed
to be substituted for the marriage license, nevertheless, it must be
observed that the execution thereof is a duty that is addressed to
the priest or solemnizing officer and not to the contracting parties.
Failure to execute such affidavit should not, therefore, affect the
validity of the marriage. Besides, the law is explicit with regards to
the essential requisites of marriage, and certainly, the execution of
such affidavit is not one of them.
Any officer, priest, or minister who, having solemnized a
marriage “in articulo mortis” or any other marriage of an exceptional
character (now marriage exempt from license requirement), fails
to comply with the provisions of Chapter 11 of this Act, shall be
punished by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more
than two years, or a fine of not less than three hundred pesos nor
more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
(Section 42) (N) (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, Rule
70(5), p. 42)
AFFIDAVIT TO BE EXECUTED BY SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

THAT MARRIAGE WAS PERFORMED IN ARTICULO MORTIS
OR THAT RESIDENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES IS SO
LOCATED THAT THERE IS NO MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION
TO ENABLE THE PARTY CONCERNED TO APPEAR BEFORE
THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
The Family Code states that “In cases provided for in the two
preceding articles, the solemnizing officer shall state in an affidavit
executed before the local civil registrar or any other person legally
authorized to administer oaths that the marriage was performed
in articulo mortis or that the residence of either party, specifying
the barrio or barangay, is so situated that there is no means of
transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the
local civil registrar and that the officer took the necessary steps to
ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and
the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage.” (Article 29,
Family Code).
The affidavit is for the purpose of proving the basis for the
exemption from marriage license. Even if there is failure on the part
of the solemnizing officer to execute the affidavit, such irregularity
will not invalidate the marriage for the affidavit is not being required
of the parties. (De Loria vs. Felix, L-9005, June 20, 1958, as cited by
Paras in Civil Code, Vol. 1, p. 415).
Moreover, the Family Code provides that “The original of the
affidavit required in the last preceding article, together with a legible
copy of the marriage contract, shall be sent by the person solemnizing
the marriage to the local civil registrar of the municipality where
it was performed within thirty days after the performance of the
marriage.” (Article 30, Family Code).
This requirement is for the simple reason that the local civil
registrar keeps the records of marriages taking place in his locality.
Thus, he is given the original of the affidavit executed by the
person solemnizing the marriage attesting to the fact that he has
ascertained the ages, relationship of the parties and the absence of
legal impediment. The original of the affidavit takes the place of the
marriage license required by law. Failure of the solemnizing officer
to comply with such requirement does not invalidate the marriage.
But said solemnizing officer shall be liable for penal liability under
Section 42 of Act No. 3613, otherwise known as the Marriage Law.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
RELIGIOUS RATIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE MARRIAGE

LICENSE
Religious is pertaining to or concerned with religion.
Ratification is the act of ratifying, while ratify means to confirm
by expressing consent, approval or formal sanction. (Webster’s
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language).
Religious ratification of a valid marriage does not require
a marriage license. To be valid, however, religious ratification of
marital cohabitation must comply with the following requisites;
namely: 1) the man and the woman must have been living together
as husband and wife for at least 5 years before the marriage; 2) the
parties have no legal impediment to marry each other; 3) the parties
must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for
at least 5 years; and 4) the solemnizing officer must execute a sworn
statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties
and he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.
A fifth requisite — that is — absence of legal impediment
between the parties must be present at the time of the marriage, not
during the 5-year cohabitation – has already been eliminated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ninal, et al. vs. Norma Bayadog.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN

AND A WOMAN WHO HAVE NOT LIVED TOGETHER AS
HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AND WITH
LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO MARRY EACH OTHER
Ninal, et al. vs. Bayadog

G.R. No. 133778
March 14, 2000
Facts:
Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September
26, 1974. Out of the wedlock were born the petitioners. Teodulfa was
shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and
8 months thereafter on December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent
Norma Bayadog got married without any marriage license. In lieu
thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11,
1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage
license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After
their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration

of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said
marriage was void for lack of marriage license. The case was filed
on the ground that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage
would affect the petitioners’ successional rights. Norma filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of
action since they are not among the persons who could file an action
for annulment of marriage under Article 47 of the Family Code.
Issue:
Whether or not there is legal impediment to the marriage of
Pepito with Norma.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that there is a legal impediment
to the assailed marriage of Pepito with Norma. The High Court
said “that the five-year period should be computed on the basis of
cohabitation as husband and wife where the only missing factor is
the special contract of marriage to validate the union. The five-year
common-law cohabitation period should be a legal union had it not
been for the absence of the marriage. This five-year period should be
the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should
be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning
no third party is involved at any time within the five years and
continuity — that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous five-
year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether
the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire
five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and
encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing
them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with
their spouse. The presumption that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of
the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded
any excuse not to comply with every single requirement and later
use the same missing element as a pre-conceived escape ground to
nullify their marriage.”
The Supreme Court further reasoned out that “at the time
Pepito and Norma’s marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived
with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior
to their wedding day. From the time Pepito’s first marriage was
dissolved to the time of his marriage with the Norma, only about
twenty (20) months had elapsed. Even assuming that Pepito and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
his first wife had separated in fact and thereafter both Pepito and
Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for
five years, the fact remains that their five-year period of cohabitation
was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It should be in the
nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered
imperfect only by the absence of marriage contract. Pepito had a
subsisting marriage with Teodulfa at the time when he started
cohabiting with Norma. It is immaterial that when they lived with
each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from Teodulfa,
his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even where there
was actual severance of filial relationship between the spouses
cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party
as being one as husband and wife.”
Therefore, the second marriage not having been covered by the
exception to the requirement of marriage license, it is void ab initio
because of the absence of such element.
PROBLEMS ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT

MARRIAGE LICENSE WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE LIVED
TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS
(a) Quirico, a 30-year old man married Rowena, a 25-year
old woman without a marriage license. But before their
marriage, they had already been living together as
husband and wife for three years. Is their marriage valid
or void?
The marriage is void because they had lived together
as husband and wife only for three years. The law requires
that they should live together as husband and wife for at
least five years.
(b) Norma, a 35-year old man had been living for five
years with Zeta, a 17-year old girl as husband and wife.
They appeared before Patricio to have their marriage
solemnized with an affidavit attesting to the fact that
they had already lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years. Do you think that they can validly get
married without a marriage license?
No, Norma and Zeta cannot validly get married.
Although they had already lived together as husband
and wife for at least five years, Zeta is incapacitated to

contract a valid marriage because she is still a minor.
Therefore, there is a legal impediment to their marriage.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON MARITAL COHABITATION OF

AT LEAST FIVE (5) YEARS
Tomasa Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 135216
August 19, 1999
Facts:
Tomasa Vda. de Jacob was married to Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob
without a marriage license invoking Article 76 of the Civil Code
(now Article 34 of the Family Code). When her husband died, she
was appointed Special Administrator for the various estates of her
late husband.
During the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of her
late husband, Pedro Pilapil who claimed to be a legally adopted son
of the deceased sought to intervene claiming his share of the estate
as his sole surviving heir. Pedro Pilapil questioned the validity of the
marriage between Tomasa and his alleged adopted father Alfredo on
the ground that their marriage was celebrated without a marriage
license and the reconstructed marriage contract seemed to suggest
that it had been fraudulently obtained.
Issue:
Was the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo valid?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Tomasa
and Alfredo was valid. The Court stated that Pedro’s argument
that the marriage was void for lack of marriage license is misplaced
because it had been established that Tomasa and Alfredo had lived
together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years. An affidavit to
this effect was executed by Tomasa and Alfredo. Thus, the marriage
was exceptional in character and did not require a marriage license
under Article 76 of the Civil Code (now Article 34 of the Family
Code).
On the second ground relied upon by Pedro, the Supreme Court
said that the marriage certificate is not the only proof of the union
IN THE PHILIPPINES
between Tomasa and Alfredo. It has been held in a long line of cases
decided by the Court that marriage may be proven by competent and
relevant evidence. Testimony by one of the parties to the marriage;
or by one of the witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be
admissible to prove the fact of marriage. The person who officiated
at the solemnization of the marriage is also competent to testify as
an eyewitness to the fact of marriage.
Although the marriage contract is considered primary evidence
of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage
took place. Other evidence may be presented to prove the marriage.
Pedro misplaces emphasis on the absence of an entry in the Books of
Marriage of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and in the National
Census and Statistics Office (now National Statistics Office). He
finds it quite bizarre for Tomasa to have waited for three years
before registering their marriage.
On both counts, Pedro proceeds from a wrong premise. In the
first place, failure to send a copy of the marriage certificate for record
purposes does not invalidate the marriage. In the second place, it
was not Tomasa’s duty to send a copy of the marriage certificate to
the Civil Registrar.
“Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — always presume
marriage.” The basis of human society throughout the civilized
world is that of marriage. Marriage in our country is not only a civil
contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of
which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intention
of the law leans toward legalizing marriage. Persons dwelling
together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of
any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in
fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society,
and if parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being,
they would be living in constant violation of decency and of law. A
presumption established by the Rules of Court is that a man and a
woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage. Given the undisputed fact that T and
A have lived together as husband and wife, the presumption is that
they are validly married.
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE

AMONG MUSLIMS
Problem:
Tingcap and Sorayda are both Muslims. They got married,
with Judge Guerrero as the solemnizing officer. The marriage was
solemnized at the Judge’s chamber but in accordance with the
Christian rites. There was no marriage license. Is the marriage
between Tingcap and Sorayda valid?
No, the marriage between Tingcap and Sorayda is not
valid. The law provides that marriages between Muslims may be
solemnized without marriage license provided they are solemnized
in accordance with their customs, rites and practices. (Article 33,
Family Code) Since the marriage was solemnized in accordance with
Christian rites, the marriage is void for lack of a marriage license.
However, the Courts cannot take judicial notice of Muslim
rites and customs for marriage. They must be alleged and proved in
court. (People vs. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246)
MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE AMONG INDI-

GENOUS PEOPLE (IP)
This provision is but consistent with the constitutional provision
which provides that “the State shall recognize, respect, and protect
the rights of indigenous communities to preserve and develop their
cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in
the formulation of national plans and policies.” (Article XIV, Section
17, 1987 Constitution)
Rule 2.12 Certificate of Marriage

The prescribed form used for the declaration of facts and
circumstances regarding the marriage of two persons for purposes
of registration. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)
NOTE:
Marriage Certificate (Municipal Form 97, Revised January
1993) is not an essential requisite of marriage. (Madridejo vs. De
Leon, 55 Phil.). The best documentary evidence of a marriage is the
marriage contract or the marriage certificate. (See Villanueva vs.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 472 (1991) Thus an oral solemnization

of the marriage is valid. Failure to sign the marriage contract does
not invalidate the marriage. (De Loria, et al. vs. Felix, 5 O.G. 8114).
(As cited by Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 15th
Edition, p. 390)
Marriage certificate must not be confused with marriage
license, the latter being as essential requisite of marriage.
The marriage certificate is the marriage contract itself. Aside
from the personal circumstances of the contracting parties being
stated therein, this document which is a contract itself, has to be
signed by the contracting parties, their witnesses, at least two,
who should be of legal age, and the solemnizing officer who shall
also state his authority and official rank or position in the sect he
represents.
However, the marriage certificate is not an essential requirement
of valid marriage (Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1). Thus, it was
held that an oral marriage contract is sufficient. And even where the
parties failed to sign the marriage contract does not invalidate the
marriage. (De Loria, et al. vs. Felix, 5 O.G. 8114) (Family Code of the
Philippines Explained, Marcelino T. Lizaso, 1989 Edition, pp. 43-44)
The marriage is also valid, whether or not the marriage certificate is
sealed with the official seal of the solemnizing officer. (People vs. Yu,
et al. C.A. 52 O.G. 4703 as cited in the book of Marcelino T. Lizaso,
Family Code of the Philippines Explained, 1989 Edition, p. 44)
Any officer, priest, or minister failing to deliver to either of
the contracting parties one of the copies of the marriage contract
(now Certificate of Marriage) or to forward the other copy to the
authorities within the period fixed by law for said purpose, shall
be punished by imprisonment of not more than one month, or by a
fine of not more than three hundred pesos, or both, in the discretion
of the court. (Section 41)(N) (Administrative Order No.1 Series of
1993, Rule 70(4), p. 42)
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE

Like a baptismal certificate, the marriage certificate proves
only the administration of the sacraments to the subject thereof,
not the veracity of the statements made therein with respect to
relationship. (Macadangdang vs. C.A., 100 SCRA 73) (Marcelino
T. Lizaso, Family Code of the Philippines Explained, 1989 Edition,
p. 44)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO A

MARRIAGE TO SIGN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-9005, June 20, 1958]
ARSENIO DE LORIA and RICARDA DE LORIA, petitioner, vs.
FELIPE APELAN FELIX, respondent.
Guido Advincula and Nicanor Lapuz for petitioners.
Nicodemus L. Dasig for respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS; LACK OF AFFIDAVIT
AND NON-REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE. — In the celebration
of the marriage in articulo mortis, where all the requisites for its
validity were present, the marriage is not voided by the of the failure
priest to make and file the affidavit required in sections 20 and 21
of the Marriage Law and to register said marriage in the local civil
registry.
2. ID.; FAILURE TO SIGN MARRIAGE CONTRACT; EFFECT
OF. — Signing of the marriage contract is a formal requirement
of evidentiary value, the omission of which does not render the
marriage a nullity.
DECISION
BENGZON, J. p:
Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, involving the
central issue of the validity of the marriage in articulo mortis
between Matea de la Cruz and Felipe Apelan Felix.
It appears that long before, and during the War of the Pacific,
these two persons lived together as wife and husband at Cabrera
Street, Pasay City. They acquired properties but had no children. In
the early part of the liberation of Manila and surrounding territory,
Matea became seriously ill. Knowing her critical condition, two young
ladies of legal age dedicated to the service of God, named Carmen
Ordiales and Judith Vicarra visited and persuaded her to go to
confession. They fetched Father Gerardo Bautista, Catholic parish
priest of Pasay. The latter, upon learning that the penitent had been
living with Felipe Apelan Felix without benefit of marriage, asked
IN THE PHILIPPINES
both parties to ratify their union according to the rites of his Church.
Both agreed. Whereupon the priest heard the confession of the bed-
ridden old woman, gave her Holy Communion, administered the
Sacrament of Extreme Unction and then solemnized her marriage
with Felipe Apelan Felix in articulo mortis, Carmen Ordiales and
Judith Vizcarra acting as sponsors or witnesses. It was then January
29 or 30, 1945.
After a few months, Matea recovered from her sickness; but
death was not to be denied, and in January 1946, she was interred
in Pasay, the same Fr. Bautista performing the burial ceremonies.
On May 12, 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria filed
this complaint to compel defendant to render an accounting and to
deliver the properties left by the deceased. They are grandchildren
of Adriana de la Cruz, sister of Matea, and claim to be the only
surviving forced heirs of the latter. Felipe Apelan Felix resisted the
action, setting up his rights as widower. They obtained favorable
judgment in the court of first instance, but on appeal the Court of
Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint.
Their request for review here was given due course principally
to consider the legal question-which they amply discussed in their
petition and printed brief — whether the events which took place in
January 1945 constituted, in the eyes of the law, a valid and binding
marriage.
According to the Court of Appeals:
“There is no doubt at all in the mind of this Court, that Fr.
Gerardo Bautista, solemnized the marriage in articulo mortis
of Defendant Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz, on January
29 and 30, 1945, under the circumstances set forth in the
reverend’s testimony in court. Fr. Bautista, a respectable old
priest of Pasay City then, had no reason to side one or the other.
. . . Notwithstanding this positive evidence on the celebration or
performance of the marriage in question, Plaintiffs-Appellees
contend that the same was not in articulo mortis, because Matea
de la Cruz was not then on the point of death. Fr. Bautista
clearly testified, however, that her condition at the time was
bad; she was bed-ridden; and according to his observation, she
might die at any moment (Exhibit 1), so apprehensive was he
about her condition that he decided in administering to her the
sacrament of extreme unction, after hearing her confession.
. . . . The greatest objection of the Appellees and the trial court
against the validity of the marriage under consideration, is the

admitted fact that it was not registered.’
The applicable legal provisions are contained in the Marriage
Law of 1929 (Act No. 3613) as amended by Commonwealth Act No.
114 (Nov. 1936) specially sections 1, 3, 20 and 21.
There is no question about the officiating priest’s authority to
solemnize marriage. There is also no question that the parties had
legal capacity to contract marriage, and that both declared before
Fr. Bautista and Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra that “they
took each other as husband and wife.”
The appellants’ contention of invalidity rests on these
propositions:
(a) There was no “marriage contract” signed by the wedded
couple the witnesses and the priest, as required by section 3 of the
Marriage Law; and
(b) The priest filed no affidavit nor recorded the marriage
with local civil registry.
The factual basis of the first proposition — no signing — may
seriously be doubted. The Court of Appeals made no finding thereon.
Indeed if anything, its decision impliedly held such marriage contract
to have been executed, since it said “the marriage in articulo mortis
was a fact”, and the only question at issue was whether “the failure of
Fr. Bautista to send copies of the certificate of marriage in question
to the Local Civil Registrar and to register the said marriage in the
Record of Marriages of the Pasay Catholic Church . . . renders the
said marriage invalid.” And such was the only issue tendered in the
court of first instance. (See p. 14, 34, Record on Appeal.)
However, we may as well face this second issue: Does the failure
to sign the “marriage certificate or contract” constitute a cause for
nullity?
Marriage contract is the “instrument in triplicate” mentioned
in sec. 3 of the Marriage Law which provides:
“Sec. 3. Mutual Consent. — No particular form for the
ceremony of marriage is required but the parties with legal
capacity to contract marriage must declare in the presence of
the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of
legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. This
declaration shall be set forth in an instrument in triplicate,
IN THE PHILIPPINES
signed by signature or mark by the contracting parties and

said two witnesses and attested by the person solemnizing the
marriage . . . (Emphasis ours).
In the first place, the Marriage Law itself, in sections 28, 29

and 30 enumerates the causes for annulment of marriage. Failure
to sign the marriage contract is not one of them.
In the second place, bearing in mind that the “essential
requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting
parties and their consent” (section 1), the latter being manifested
by the declaration of “the parties” “in the presence of the person
solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age that they
take each other as husband and wife” — which in this case actually
occurred. We think the signing of the marriage contract or certificate
was required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the
act. No statutory provision or court ruling has been cited making it
an essential requisite — not the formal requirement of evidentiary
value, which we believe it is. The fact of marriage is one thing; the
proof by which it may be established is quite another.
“Certificate and Record. — Statutes relating to the

solemnization of marriage usually provide for the issuance
of a certificate of marriage . . . and for the registration
or recording of marriage . . . Generally speaking, the
registration or recording of a marriage is not essential
to its validity, the statute being addressed to the officials
issuing the license, certifying the marriage, and making
the proper return and registration or recording.” (Sec. 27
American Jurisprudence “Marriage” pp. 197-198.)
“Formal Requisites. — . . . The general rule, however,
is that statutes which direct that a license must be issued
and procured, that only certain persons shall perform the
ceremony, that a certain number of witnesses shall be present,
that a certificate of the marriage shall be signed, returned,
and recorded, and that persons violating the conditions shall
be guilty of a criminal offense, are addressed to persons in
authority to secure publicity and to require a record to be made
of the marriage contract. Such statutes do not void common-
law marriages unless they do so expressly, even where such
marriage are entered into without obtaining a license and are
not recorded. It is the purpose of these statutes to discourage
deception, prevent illicit intercourse under the guise of
matrimony, and relieve from doubt the status of parties who

live together as man and wife, by providing competent evidence
of the marriage. . . .” (Section 15 American Jurisprudence
“Marriage” pp. 188-189.) Emphasis Ours. (See also Corpus
Juris Secundum “Marriage” Sec. 33.)
And our law says, “No marriage shall be declared invalid
because of the absence of one or several formal requirements of this
Act . . .” (Section 27.)
In the third place, the law, imposing on the priest the duty to
furnish to the parties copies of such marriage certificate (section 16)
and punishing him for its omission (section 41) implies his obligation
to see that such “certificate” is executed accordingly. Hence, it would
not be fair to visit upon the wedded couple in the form of annulment,
Father Bautista’s omission, if any, which apparently had been
caused by the prevailing disorder during the liberation of Manila
and its environs.
Identical remarks apply to the priest’s failure to make
and file the affidavit required by sections 20 and 21. It was the
priest’s obligation; non-compliance with it, should bring no serious
consequences to the married pair, specially where as in this case, it
was caused by the emergency.
“The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff’s
natural father and mother, while the latter was in articulo mortis,
failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal
secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear
that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not
present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not
being one of the requisites.” (Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179.) See
also Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1.
The law permits in articulo mortis marriages, without marriage
license; but it requires the priest to make the affidavit and file it.
Such affidavit contains the data usually required for the issuance of
a marriage license. The first practically substitutes the latter. Now
then, if a marriage celebrated without the license is not voidable
(under Act 3613), this marriage should not also be voidable for lack
of such affidavit.
In line with the policy to encourage the legalization of the union
of men and women who have lived publicly in a state of concubinage,
section 22), we must hold this marriage to be valid.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The widower, needless to add, has better rights to the estate

of the deceased than the plaintiffs who are the grandchildren of her
sister Adriana. “In the absence of brothers or sisters and of nephews,
children of the former, . . . the surviving spouse . . . shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased.” (Art. 952, Civil Code.)
Wherefore, the Court of Appeals’ decision is affirmed, with
costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
OCRG’S CIRCULAR REQUIRING THAT CERTIFICATE OF

LEGAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE SHALL BE
ISSUED BY THE FOREIGNER’S DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR
OFFICIALS

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Circular No. 93-2

03 March 1993
To : All Regional Administrators/Provincial Statistics

Officers/District Statistics Coordination Officers/
Assistant Statistics Coordination Officers/City and
Municipal Civil Registrars
Subject : CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO CON-
TRACT MARRIAGE SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE
FOREIGNER’S DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OF-
FICIALS
This office has been receiving complaints from foreign embassies

about issuance of marriage license by some city/municipal civil
registrars to their nationals in violation of Article 21 of the Family
Code which provides:
“Art. 21. When either or both of the contracting parties

are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them
before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certificate
of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective
diplomatic or consular officials.
Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall in

lieu of the certificate of legal capacity herein required, submit an
affidavit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract
marriage.”
For the information and guidance of all concerned parties,
here are the relevant opinions and comments of authorities on the
matter:
1. The capacity of a foreigner to get married in the
Philippines is governed by his national law, a foreign law, so that
our government offices and courts cannot take judicial notice of said
law. Hence, if he applies for a marriage license to be able to get
married in the Philippines, he is required to present a certificate of
legal capacity to contract marriage from the embassy or consular
office of his country in the Philippines since they are the ones who
know the national law of said foreigner and whether he has capacity
to marry under said law. (Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy, Handbook on
the Family Code of the Philippines, 1991, p. 22)
2. A divorced foreigner can be issued a marriage license to
marry again in the Philippines provided he can present the certificate
above mentioned, which means that his divorce is recognized by his
own country. (Ibidem).
3. The certificate of legal capacity should be issued by dip-
lomatic officials (Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Envoy Ex-
traordinary, Resident Minister, and Charge d’ Affairs) and consular
officials (Consul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul and Consular Agent).
(Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, 1984, p. 289).
4. Generally, foreigners can marry in the Philippines, if
allowed by their national law. However, even if allowed by their
respective national laws, and even if granted a certificate of legal
capacity still foreigners will not be allowed to get married here if (a)
the marriage will be immoral, bigamous, or polygamous, or (b) the
marriage will be universally considered incestuous. A marriage is
universally considered incestuous if it is between ascendants and
descendants (whether legitimate or illegitimate) in any degree,
or it is in the collateral line (between brothers and sisters of the
full or half-blood, and whether the relationship be legitimate or
illegitimate.). (Ibidem).
5. A marriage license secured in violation of Art. 66 of the
Civil Code (now, Art. 21 of the Family Code) is a void license. The
IN THE PHILIPPINES
corollary therefore must be that the marriage does not become valid
at all. Since the evidence clearly showed that the issuance of the
marriage license was vitiated with fraud and grossly violative of Art.
66 of the Civil Code, the court has no other alternative but to declare
said marriage null and void “ab initio” (Carino vs. Macapagal, Civil
Case No. 2619, CFI of Pampanga, citing People vs. Merle C. Whipkey,
CA-G, R. No. 12590-Cr. Feb. 6, 1973).
6. In view of the expressed prohibition for American Consular
Officers under the Foreign Service Regulations of the U.S.A. to certify
as to the status or capacity to marry of persons domiciled in the U.S.A
wishing to be married abroad, the condition imposed under Sec. 13,
par. 3 of Act 3613 (now, Article 21 of the Family Code) becomes
impossible to perform. The situation thus created is analogous to
one where the country of the alien applicant has no consular officer
in the Philippines. Therefore in both cases, the condition imposed
by law becomes impossible to perform. Since the legal requirement
has become impossible for literal compliance, the general principles
of law may be resorted to in order to attain the purpose of the law
(Art. 6 of Civil Code). With respect to the provision requiring the
presentation of the baptismal or birth certificates of the contracting
parties, the law allows in lieu thereof, a sworn declaration of two
witnesses and totally dispense with the requirement under certain
conditions. By analogy, it is believed therefore, that affidavits of
the citizens of the U.S.A. who are parties to a proposed marriage,
executed before the Consul of the U.S.A. may be accepted in lieu of
the certificates of legal capacity to marry. (Unnumbered Opinion,
Secretary of justice, Oct. 5, 1946).
7. In the instant case, Taiwan has no diplomatic or consular
office in the Philippines in view of the absence of diplomatic
relations between the two countries. However, we are informed that
cooperation in the fields of economic, trade, cultural and scientific
matters between Taiwan and the Philippines is made possible
through Taiwan’s Pacific Economic and Cultural Center (PECC) in
the Philippines, and our own Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (ASECTAI)
in Taipei. We are also informed that PECC extends assistance to
Taiwanese nationals on matters involving their private affairs.
In view of the foregoing, it is believed that the certification as
to the civil status of Mr. Stephen Cheung Zoo issued by the Pacific
Economic and Cultural Center would be sufficient compliance with
the requirement provided for in Article 66 of the Civil Code). (Opinion
No. 112, S. 1989, Secretary of Justice).
8. A British citizen who wishes to contract marriage in the

Philippines shall present to the Consular Section of the British
Embassy a Certificate of No Impediment (CNI) issued by Local
Registrar of Marriages in the United Kingdom. (The Registrar
requires the applicant for CNI to appear personally before him, and
the notice of marriage will have to be posted on his notice board
for 22 days before issuing a CNI.) Based on the CNI issued by the
Registrar of Marriages in the United Kingdom, the Consular Section
of the British Embassy in Manila will issue the certificate of No
Impediment to a British citizen who wishes to contract marriage in
the Philippines.
In case the British citizen is unable to obtain CNI from the
Registrar of Marriage in the United Kingdom before arriving in the
Philippines, he shall comply with the formalities laid down in the
“Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906”. This Act requires the British
citizen to reside in the Philippines for “21 clear days” before the
Consular Section is permitted to accept the notice of his intended
marriage and this period of residence must be immediately prior to
acceptance of the notice.
“21 clear days” means that the Consular Section cannot count
the day the British citizen arrives in the Philippines or the day he
submits the notice of intention to marry; so the date he submits the
notice to the Consular Section should be at least, the 23rd day he
has been residing in the Philippines.
When the British citizen gives notice of his intended marriage,
he will be required to swear an affidavit before the Consular Officer
to the effect that he is not aware of any impediment to the marriage.
The notice of marriage will then be displayed in a public place in the
British Embassy for a further “21 clear days” (excluding the day he
swears the affidavit). The CNI may be issued the day after the 21
clear day period has elapsed.
To complete this CNI process, the British citizen must therefore
have been in the Philippines for a minimum of 45 days. (British
Embassy, Manila, 14 September 1988).
9. Stateless person, refugee or a citizen of a country which
does not have embassy or consulate in the Philippines shall execute
an affidavit before a person authorized to administer oath stating
the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage and
shall submit the same to the concerned civil registrar in lieu of the
certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
10. In case of doubt as to the authenticity of the certificate/

affidavit of legal capacity submitted by a foreigner, the city/municipal
civil registrar is reminded that this document is always written in
English and in the letterhead of the concerned embassy impressed
with its dry or wet seal.
TOMAS P. AFRICA
OCRG’S MEMORANDUM FOR LCRs TO REQUIRE AFFIDAVIT IN

LIEU OF CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
MARRIAGE FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS

EDSA corner Times St,
Ref. No. 01CRD00-280

24 September 2001
MEMORANDUM

Subject : AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CERTIFICATE OF LE-
GAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE FOR
AMERICAN CITIZENS
For your information and guidance, we are providing you the

following:
1. Sample copy of the affidavit in lieu of certificate of legal
capacity to contract marriage issued by the U.S. Embassy
for American citizens who may wish to contract marriage
under Philippine law; and
2. Information sheet on marriage of American citizens in
the Philippines.
(SGD.) CARLITO B. LALICON

Director III
Copy furnished:
Regional Directors
Provincial Statistics Officers
District/Statistical Officers
SAMPLE OF AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL

CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE ISSUED BY U.S.
EMBASSY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS
Embassy of the United States of America

Manila, Philippines
AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY

TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS
Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )
Embassy of the United States of America )
Before me ______________, a Vice Consul of the United States of
America in and for the consular district of Manila, Republic of the
Philippines, duly commissioned and qualified, personally appeared
the undersigned U.S. citizen who being duly sworn, deposes and
says as follows:
1. My name is _________________, of legal age, and I am
citizen of the Unites States of America;
2. I hold U.S. passport # ________, issued on ____________,
at ______________:
3. I am a legal resident of (state) _______________________;
4. My address while in the Philippine is__________________
_______________________;
5. _______ I have never been married;
OR
_______ I have been married _____ times previously. All
previous marriages have been legally terminated;
6. There is no legal impediment to my marriage to_________
____________________
(Fiancé/fiancée name)
(Signature)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on ______________

______________
___________________________
Vice Consul of the

United States of America
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NOTE: The Embassy assumes nor responsibility for the contents
or the accuracy of the information provided in this document. This
document is not a marriage license, nor does not constitute evidence
of a bona fide relationship for purposes of immigration to the US
MARRIAGE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES
DISCLAIMER: The information in this circular relating to the legal

requirements of the Philippines is provided for general information
only. Questions involving interpretation of specific Philippines laws
should be addressed to Philippine Legal Counsel.
Any foreigner who wishes to marry in the Philippines is required
by the Philippine Government to obtain from his/her Embassy a
“Certificate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage” before filing
an application for a marriage license. The Government also accepts
an Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate of Legal Capacity to Contract
marriage. A citizens of the United States may execute this affidavit
at the American Embassy in Manila or the Consular Agency in Cebu.
Personal appearance cannot be waived. The American Embassy is
located at 1201 Roxas Boulevard, Manila telephone (63) (2) 523-
1001-x 2246/2530.
Applicants may apply for the “Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate of
Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage” at the Embassy’s American
Citizens Services Branch everyday, from Monday to Friday (except
Philippine and American holidays) between 7:30AM to 8:30AM
only. Americans may also obtain this affidavit at the U.S. Consular
Agency in Cebu, 3rd Floor, PCI Bank Bldg., Gorordo Avenue, Lahug,
Cebu City-tel. no. (63)(32) 231-1261. The American must present
his/her U.S. passport. There is a fee of $55.00 for the affidavit.
Philippine authorities will not accept any substitute document

initiated in the United States. The Affidavit is issued as a notarial
act by the U.S. consular officer and as such, the consular officer is
authorized by Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 92, (b,
to refuse to perform the service if the document in connection with
which the notarial act is requested will be used for a purpose patently
unlawful, improper, or inimical to the best interest of the United
States. Entering into a marriage contract with an alien strictly for
the purpose of enabling to the United States for that individual is
considered an unlawful act. Section 4221 of Title 22 United States
code provides penalties for individuals who commit perjury in an
affidavit taken by a consular officer.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR U.S. MILITARY PERSON-

NEL
U.S. military personnel should contact their personnel office
regarding DOD joint service regulations.
THE MARRIAGE APPLICATION PROCESS

Once American citizen has obtained from the Embassy an
“Affidavit in Lieu of a Certificate of Legal Capacity to Marry”, he/
she can file an application for a marriage license at the office of the
Philippine Civil Registrar in the town or city where one of the parties
is a resident. The U.S. citizen applicant will need to present:
— the affidavit;
— divorce decree(s) or death certificate(s) required to verify
civil status and capacity to marry;
— U.S. passport;
— Documentation regarding paternal consent or advice, if
applicable.
Marriage applicants age 18 to 21 must have written parental
consent. Those age 22 to 24 must have received parental advice.
Philippine law prohibits marriage for individuals below 18 years
old. The marriage can be performed by a judge, a minister or other
person authorized by the Government of the Philippines.
Marriages to a U.S. citizen confer neither citizenship nor an
automatic eligibility for entry to the United States. If the U.S. citizen
does not reside in the Philippines, the Petition for Immigrant Visa
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(I-130) must be filed through the Immigration and Naturalization

Service office in the United States.
Any questions about filing an immigrant visa petition to bring
the spouse to the United States should be directed to the nearest
office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State
Department’s Visas Office (202) 663-1225 or, while in the Philippines
to the American Embassy in Manila.
ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE ABROAD

Instead of the procedures presented above, it is possible to
file a petition for an alien to enter the United States as the fiancé
(e) of an American citizen. This enables the parties to marry in the
United States. American fiancé (e) should contact the Immigration
and Naturalization Service Office nearest their residence for further
information.
MARCELO M. ORENSE
Executive Director
15 April 1987
MMO * CBL * RCA
THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF MARRIAGE

Under the rules of evidence, the best evidence of the marriage
is the marriage certificate. But this is not the only proof, because
the testimony of the witnesses may be admitted on this point. (U.S.
vs. Memoracion, 34 Phil. 633) The sponsors to the marriage and the
other persons, who attended the celebration, are vital witnesses that
can testify on the existence of the marriage (See: People vs. Alday,
59 O.G. 411).
The best proof of the marriage is, of course, the marriage
certificate. But this is not the only proof. The declaration of one of
the parties to the marriage, as well as the persons who were present
at its celebration, are competent proof of marriage. Public and open
cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged marriage, birth and
baptismal certificates of children borne by the alleged spouses, and
a statement of such marriage in subsequent documents are likewise
competent evidence to prove the fact of marriage. The marriage will

be presumed to be valid and regular and will not be set aside on the
inability of the priest who solemnized the marriage and one of the
parties to remember what was said during the ceremony, especially
if this was followed by long cohabitation. Every intendment of law
or fact leans the validity of marriage. (See Tolentino, Civil Code of
the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence, With the Family
Code, Vol. 1, pp. 258-259)
EFFECT OF FAILURE OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

(PRIEST) TO SEND CERTIFICATE TO LCR’S OFFICE
The mere fact that the priest who solemnized a marriage failed
to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the local civil registrar
does not invalidate the marriage, if it does not appear that the
essential requisites required by law for its validity were lacking;
and the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate is not one of
the said essential requisites. (Tolentino, supra, p. 258)
FAILURE TO SIGN OR ISSUE CERTIFICATE

The signing of a formal contract or certificate of marriage is not
essential to the validity of the marriage, so long as the consent of
the parties to take each other as husband and wife has been given in
the presence of the solemnizing officer and at least two witnesses of
legal age. The certificate is merely of evidentiary value, and failure
to sign the same does not render the marriage a nullity. The consent
can be proved by other competent evidence, such as the testimony of
the solemnizing officer, of the parties themselves, of the witnesses to
the marriage, and of others present at the wedding.
Even the failure of the solemnizing officer to have the marriage
certificate executed and issued, would merely a defect or irregularity
in a formal requirement (the ceremony) and will not invalidate the
marriage, which is legally completed by the exchange of consent of
the parties. (Tolentino, supra, pp. 241-242)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE WHERE A MAN AND A WOMAN

LIVING IN MARITAL RELATIONS UNDER THE SAME ROOF
BE LEGALLY PRESUMED A LEGITIMATE SPOUSES
U.S. vs. Memoracion, et al.

G.R. No. 11371
August 1, 1916
Facts:
Cecilia Memoracion and Dalmacio Uri were charged and
convicted of the crime of adultery, the former being married
to Eustaquio Abrigo and the latter appears to have knowledge
that the former is married. Both appealed the decision alleging
several errors committed by the court below. One of the assigned
errors Cecilia and Dalmacio imputed to the trial court was its
finding that there is a legal presumption of the existence of the
marriage between Cecilia and Eustaquio.
Issue:
Is there a legal presumption that a man and a woman
living in marital relations under the same roof are legitimate
spouses?
Ruling:
Yes, according to the Supreme Court there is a legal
presumption that a man and woman living together in marital
relations under the same roof are legitimate spouses. Evidence
showed that they deported themselves as husband and wife,
and therefore there is a legal presumption that they have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage. A man and a woman
who are living in marital relations under the same roof are
presumed to be legitimate spouses, united by virtue of a legal
marriage contract and this presumption can only be rebutted
by sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Based on the above considerations, the Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction of both Cecilia and Dalmacio for the
crime of adultery.
There is in fact a presumption in the Rules of Evidence
that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage (Rule
131, Sec. 5). But this presumption may be rebutted by evidence
showing that the marriage did not take place. (See: Fernandez
vs. Puatder, L-10071, Oct. 31, 1957)
However, in the case of Silva, et al. vs. Peralta (L-13144,
Nov. 25, 1960) it was shown that there was no proof of the
alleged marriage, between the man and the woman, except the
testimony of the woman and her counsel and the fact of their
cohabitation. It was shown also that at one time, the girl stated
that she was “common-law-wife” of the man, and at another
time in affidavit she also alleged that she was “single”. And the
testimony was even not clear as to who solemnized the alleged
marriage. The court held that no marriage took place. (Family
Code of the Philippines Explained, Marcelino T. Lizaso, Vol. 1,
1989 Edition, Central Law Book Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 44-
46)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASES WHERE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

FAILED TO SEND COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO
LCRO
Tugeda vs. Trias, et al.

L-16925, March 31, 1962
Facts:
The existence of a marriage was the issue involved in this
case. No record of the alleged marriage existed in the record
of marriages in the municipality where it was alleged to have
been celebrated. Moreover, the solemnizing officer allegedly
failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the civil
registry. Upon the other hand, the fact of marriage was sought
to be established by the following:
(a) The testimony of the justice of the peace who
solemnized the marriage.
(b) The living together of the parties as husband and
wife for 18 years.
(c) A project of partition (of property) signed by their
children and the children of one by a prior marriage
stating that they the children of the second and
the first marriages respectively of the deceased
spouses.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Held:
The marriage existed, in view of the proofs presented.
Incidentally, the failure of the solemnizing officer to send copy
of the marriage certificate is not a fatal defect, the certificate
not being a essential requisite for marriage. (as cited by Paras,
Civil Code in the Philippines Annotated, Fifteenth Edition
2002, Vol. 1, pp. 390-391)
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE WHERE PARISH PRIEST’S FAILURE

TO EXECUTE AFFIDAVIT THAT MARRIAGE WAS CELEBRATED
IN ARTICULO MORTIS
De Loria, et al. vs. Felix

G.R. No. L-9005
June 20, 1958
Facts:
Felipe Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz were married
without a marriage license due to the pronouncement of the
latter’s physician that her illness was incurable and that she
was going to die at any time. When she died one afterwards,
the validity of her marriage was challenged on the ground that
the marriage was not a marriage in articulo mortis because she
was able to recover from her illness, and that the parish priest
who solemnized the marriage did not execute an affidavit
stating that the marriage was celebrated in articulo mortis.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Felipe and Matea valid despite
the failure of the parish priest solemnizing it to execute an
affidavit?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said that the marriage between
Felipe and Matea is valid. As far as the affidavit is concerned,
although it is supposed to be substituted for the marriage
license, nevertheless, it must be observed that the execution
thereof is a duty that is addressed to the person solemnizing
the marriage. Failure to execute such affidavit should not
therefore affect the validity of the marriage. Besides, the law
is explicit with regards to the essential requisites of marriage,
and certainly, the execution of such affidavit is not one of

them.
NUMBER OF COPIES OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES TO BE

ACCOMPLISHED FOR DISTRIBUTION
It shall be the duty of the person concerned to accomplish and
send four (4) copies of the Certificate of Marriage to the civil registrar
for registration. After the registration, the civil registrar shall
distribute copies of the document bearing the civil registry number
within five (5) days from receipt thereof as follows: first copy to the
contracting parties; second copy to the office of the Civil Registrar
General; third copy shall be retained for filling and the fourth copy
to the solemnizing officer. (Rule 43, Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 1993).
The Solemnizing Officer has the duty to report the marriage to
the office of the Civil Registrar where the marriage was solemnized.
(Rule 42, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, p. 25)
Marriage Certificate requires information on both the groom
and the bride. All entries pertaining to the groom should be entered
in the column under ‘husband’ while entries for the bride, in the
column under ‘wife’. Each respective column should contain the
names of the contracting party, age, nationality, place of residence,
civil status (single, widowed or divorced), parents’ names and their
nationalities, and the names and addresses of the witnesses. (Manual
on Civil Registration, 1983, p. 19).
CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE AMONG MUSLIMS AND ITS

ATTACHMENTS
In the registration of marriage of Muslim Filipinos, the marriage
record consists of the Certificate of Marriage (COM) and attachment.
The COM shall be accomplished following the procedures provided
in the Manual of Instructions: Accomplishment and Coding of Civil
Registry Forms. The attachment shall be used if in the certification
portion, the box provided for P.D. 1083 was checked. (Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 2005, p. 24).
The person officiating the marriage shall indicate in the
Certificate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, revised January 1993)
that said marriage was solemnized in accordance with P.D. No. 1083,
and fill up the attachment to the Certificate of Marriage with the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
following information: amount of mahr (dowry); first or subsequent

marriage; tafwid, if granted and such other stipulations. The
Certificate of Marriage and the attachment shall be permanently
kept together and shall constitute the record of marriage.
The Certificate of Marriage shall be prepared in five (5) copies
and shall be distributed by the Circuit Registrar, or by the C/MCR,
as the case shall may be, as follows: first copy to the contracting
parties; second copy to the Civil Registrar General (CRG); third
copy to the Circuit Registrar/C/MCR; the fourth copy to the District
Registrar if marriage was registered at the Shari’a Court; and the
fifth copy to the solemnizing officer. (Rule 9, Administrative Order
No.1, Series of 2005, p. 8).
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (IPs)

The person authorized to solemnize marriage, or in his default
the C/MCR, shall indicate on the remarks portion of the Certificate
of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, Revised January 1993) that said
marriage was solemnized in accordance with ICCs/IPs customary
laws of either contracting party.
Upon receiving the Certificate of Marriage (Municipal Form
97, Revised January 1993), the C/MCR shall require the informant
to accomplish or to give the following data in accomplishment of
Municipal Form No. 97 Attachment IP Form No. 3: ethnic affiliation
of contracting parties, marriage order, amount of dowry and other
stipulations to the marriage.
The Municipal Form 97 and the attachment thereto shall
be permanently kept together and shall constitute the record of
marriage of ICCs/IPs. (Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004,
p. 18)
Attachments must be filled up in case the marriage was
solemnized in accordance with RA 8371. (The IPRA LAW)
(Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004)
Rule 2.13 Certificate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize

Marriage (CRASM)
A certificate issued to SO certifying the registration of
his authority to solemnize marriage after complying with the
requirements. This certificate indicates that the SO is authorized
to solemnize marriages under his territorial jurisdiction within the

period specified.
The CRASM shall be valid for a period of three years and shall
expire on the thirty-first day of December of every third year, and
shall be renewable within the last quarter of the expiration year.
The effectivity date of the authority to solemnize marriage shall be
indicated in the CRASM.
Rule 2.14 Register of Solemnizing Officers

The registry book which contains the information pertaining
to the registration of SOs.
NOTE:
The repository of the registration of the authority to solemnize
marriage is the Office of the Civil Registrar General. Article 7, par.
2 of the Family Code provides: “Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister
of any church or religious sect authorized by his church or religious
sect and registered with the Civil Registrar General, acting within
religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties
belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious sect;…”
The above-cited provision clearly states that the authority of the
solemnizing officer to solemnize marriage is granted by the church
or religious sect to which he belongs, and not by the State through
the Office of the Civil Registrar General. The law only requires that
such authority to solemnize marriage be registered with the Office
of the Civil Registrar General in order to protect public interest.
It is well-settled in our country that the protection and
promotion of public interest is one of the paramount concerns of
the State. Marriage certainly involves public interest because it
is the foundation of the family, and as such it is an inviolable and
basic social institution. “The basis of human society throughout the
civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is
not only a civil contract, but it is also a new relation, an institution
in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested.” (Perido
vs. Perido, 63 SCRA 97, as cited in Tomasa vda. de Jacob vs. Court
of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999)
Thus, under its sovereign police power, the State requires that
authority to solemnize marriage of the solemnizing officers granted
IN THE PHILIPPINES
by their church or religious sects be registered with the Office of the

Civil Registrar General as a measure of promotion and protection of
public interest.
Pursuant to the mandate of Article 7, par. 2 of the Family Code,
the Office of the Civil Registrar General shall maintain a Register
of Solemnizing Officers issued with Certificates of Registration of
Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM). (Administrative Order
No. 1, Series of 1993, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act
No. 3753 and other laws on Civil Registration, p. 6)
Rule 2.15 Territorial Jurisdiction

A well-defined but delimited area or place where a SO can
validly officiate a marriage. The area or place may be the whole
Philippines, or only part thereof, such as a region, province,
congressional district, or a diocese.
NOTE:
Territory is pertaining to, associated with, or restricted to a
particular territory or district.
Jurisdiction — The territory over which authority is exercised
(Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language).
The territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing officers refers to a
defined but limited area or place where the solemnizing officer can
validly officiate a marriage. The area or place may be the whole
Philippines or only a province or a diocese.
Rule 2.16 Place of Solemnization of Marriage

Place where marriage is solemnized publicly such as in a
church, chapel, temple, mosque, judge’s sala or chamber, mayor’s
office, office of the Consul-General, consul or vice-consul, and not
elsewhere unless with prior written request from the contracting
parties and with prior written approval from the solemnizing officer,
which fact must be declared in a public instrument. (Art. 8, EO 209
otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)
For Muslim marriages, it may be solemnized in any mosque,
at the Office of the Shari’a judge, at the Office of the District or
Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or any other
suitable place agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 19, Section 1,

Chapter Two, Book Two of PD 1083).
For tribal marriages, it is any suitable place agreed upon
by the parties provided it is in accordance with their customs,
traditions and practices.
NOTE:
Any officer, minister or priest, solemnizing marriage in a place
other than those authorized by this Act, shall be punished by a fine
of not less than twenty-five pesos nor more than three hundred
pesos, or by imprisonment of not more than one month, or both, in
the discretion of the court. (Section 40)(N) Act No. 3753 Rule 70(3)
as cited in Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, p. 42)
PLACE OF SOLEMNIZATION UNDER THE MUSLIM CODE

The place of solemnization under Article 19 of the Muslim Code
needs no further explanation. It refers to the mosque, office of the
Shari’a Judge, Office of the Civil Registrar who is the Shari’a Clerk of
Court, the residence of the bride or her wali, or at any suitable place
agreed upon by the parties. In the latter place, there is no need to
submit a sworn written request to the judge for the suitable place as
required by Article 8 of the Family Code. In Islamic marriage, under
Article 19 of the Muslim Code, the agreement of the parties as to
the suitable place of the marriage is enough. No additional problem
is given to the couple who are about to get married. (Comparative
laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code,
Justice Jainal D. Rasul, Rex Book Store, p. 67)
For Muslim marriages, it may be solemnized in any mosque, at
the Office of the Shari’a judge, at the Office of the District or Circuit
Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or any other suitable
place agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 19, Section 1, Chapter Two,
Book Two of PD 1083)
For tribal marriages, it is any suitable place agreed upon by the
parties provided it is in accordance with their customs, traditions
and practices.
The requirement that the marriage be done publicly is based on
the premise that the state takes an active interest in the marriage.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
INSTANCES WHERE PUBLIC SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE

IS NOT REQUIRED
Public solemnization is needed except:
(a) Marriages in chambers of the Justice or Judge;
(b) In marriages in articulo mortis;
(c) In marriages in a remote place; and
(d) When both of the parties request in writing for the
solemnization in some other place. The place must be
designated in a sworn statement. (Paras, Civil Code of the
Philippines, Annotated, 15th Edition with Family Code
p. 380)
EFFECT IF ONE PARTY IS NOT ASKED DURING THE MAR-

RIAGE CEREMONY
If the solemnizing officer after hearing the wife says, she was
willing to take the groom as her husband, forgot to ask the groom on
the same matter, the marriage would be valid, so long as the groom
also signed the marriage certificate. (Karganilla vs. Familiar, C.A.,
7175, 1 O.G. 345 as cited by Paras in Civil Code, Vol. 1, p. 378)
Rule 2.17 Church/Chapel/Temple/Mosque

Any building, either of strong or light materials or combination
of strong or light materials, which is permanent in character, and is
opened during convenient hours of the day, and used actually and
exclusively for holding religious gatherings, rites and services,
including solemnization of marriage, and such building must be
under the possession and control of the religion or religious sect
of which the applicant is a member.
NOTE:
The old Marriage Law (Act No. 3613) defines church, chapel
or temple as any building constructed of strong, mixed or light
materials, open to the faithful at suitable hours of the day and set
aside for the celebration of religious services and the solemnization
of marriages and other sacred ceremonies. (Marcelino T. Lizaso,
The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition,
p. 23)
Article 8 of the Family Code requires that “The marriage shall

be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court,
in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general,
consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except
in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote
places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of
the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case
the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by
them in a sworn statement to that effect”.
Reason for Public Solemnization — The requirement that the
marriage be done publicly is based on the premise that the State
takes an active interest in the marriage. (Edgardo L. Paras, The
Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. 1, 2002, 15th Edition,
p. 380)
However, the above rules are merely directory. Failure to
observe such requirement does not render the marriage void or vitiate
the marriage already performed on the ground that it constitutes a
violation of the requirement that it shall be solemnized in the office
of the judge or in open court (San Gabriel vs. San Gabriel, 85 Phil.
669). Although the validity is not affected, the marriage contract
may not be registered by the civil registrar unless the requirement
is complied with. (Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the
Philippines and the Muslim Code, Justice Jainal D. Rasul, p. 58)
Rule 2.18 Religious Sect

A group of persons or organization professing a common
faith and set of beliefs, and governed or guided by a common
religious doctrine or creed.
Rule 2.19 Religion

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious
attitudes, beliefs and practices.
NOTE:
Religion is concerned over what exists beyond the visible world,
differentiated from philosophy in that it operates through faith or
intuition rather than reason, and generally including the idea of the
existence of a single being, a group of beings, an eternal principle,
or a transcendent spiritual entity that has created the world, that
IN THE PHILIPPINES
governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally

in the natural course of its history, as well as the idea that ritual,
prayer, spiritual exercises, certain principles of everyday conduct,
etc. are expedient, due, or spiritually rewarding, or arise naturally
out of an inner need as a human response to the belief in such a
being, principle, etc.
Religion is a general word, applying to whatever pertains to
faith or worship.
Sect is a body of persons adhering to a particular religious
faith. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language).
Rule 2.20 Religious Services

Gatherings periodically done in a fixed place for the exercise
of religious worship and manifestation of the member’s faith.
NOTE:
Religious service is also called divine service or public religious
worship according to prescribe form and order, or a ritual or form
prescribed for public worship or for some particular occasion.
(Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language)
Rule 2.21 Religion/Religious Sect Deemed Operating in the

Philippines
A religion or religious sect is deemed operating in the
Philippines when a great number of Filipinos profess it, and this
fact appears clearly in the latest census records of the Philippines.
In the absence of census records, or in case of doubt, the founder
or head of the religion or religious sect shall declare in a public
instrument the following facts:
a. Brief history of the religion or religious sect;
b. That said religion or religious sect is duly incorporated
for the administration of its temporalities;
c. That the religion or religious sect has at least one church,
temple or chapel which is used actually and exclusively
for religious rites and worship in the Philippines, and
if more than one, the places in the Philippines wherein

these churches, temples or chapels are respectively
situated, and the name of the priests, rabbis, imams or
religious ministers assigned to each; and
d. That the religion or religious sect has a congregation
of not less than two hundred bonafide active members
who must all be residents of the Philippines and who
attend the religious gatherings and services which said
religion or religious sect holds periodically in its own
church, temple or chapel
NOTE:
The above requirements shall be subscribed and sworn to
and shall be submitted to OCRG. Without those documents, the
application of the solemnizing officer for registration will not be
accepted.
A religion or religious sect is deemed operating when a
great number of Filipino profess it as shown by census records.
Questionnaires used during censuses of population and various
surveys of NSO carry an item of information concerning religious
affiliation. Civil Registration forms such as Certificate of Live
Birth, Certificate of Death, and Certificate of Marriage also carry
this information. Hence, these documents are sufficient proof that a
particular religion or religious sect is operating in the Philippines.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE ON DETER-

MINING WHETHER THE CHURCH, SECT, OR RELIGION OF
THE APPLICANT TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE OPERATES IN
THE PHILIPPINES IS IN GOOD REPUTE
The Constitutionality of Section 34 was assailed in one case.
Its validity was upheld. It was observed that what Sec. 34 of
Act 3613 confers upon the Director of the National Library (now
Administrator of the National Statistics Office) is the duty which,
of course, carries with the power to satisfy himself whether the
“church, sect or religion of the applicant operates in the Philippines
and is in good repute.” “The duty thus conferred is not of inquiry
into the organization or doctrine of a particular church or religion,
but a duty to distinguish and discriminate between a legitimately
established religion or church and one that pretends to be as such,
IN THE PHILIPPINES
as a prerequisite to the issuance of certificate of authority. The law,

therefore, in no sense prohibits nor impairs the free exercise of any
religion. On the contrary, it purports to protect every legitimately
established religion from the imposture of pseudo spurious religious
organizations which ostensibly appear to be dedicated to the practice
of religion and exercise of particular faith but which in reality
are mere marriage agencies.” (People vs. Fabillar, 68 Phil. 584).
(Underscoring supplied).
Rule 2.22 Religion/Religious Sect in Good Refute

A religion or religious sect is in good repute when it holds
religious services or gatherings periodically in a fixed place
devoted actually and exclusively for religious rites and worship,
complies with the requirements of the marriage law and of these
regulations, and that there is nothing in its teachings, principles
and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good custom and
public policy.
Unless and until otherwise shown, the religion or religious
sect appearing in the latest census records of the Philippines, as
being professed by a great number of Filipinos, shall be presumed
to be in good repute.
When the religion or religious sect does not appear in the
latest census records of the Philippines, or in case of doubt, the
question of its being in good repute may be proven by means of a
certification of the Mayor having jurisdiction over the place where
its church, temple or chapel is situated, affirming the facts and
circumstances referred to in the first paragraph of this section.
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON WHETHER THE RELIGIOUS

DENOMINATION IS IN GOOD REFUTE
Jamias vs. Rodriguez

G.R. No. L-2133
July 22, 1948
Facts:
The Philippine Independent Church was broken in two
factions, one headed by Bishop Santiago A. Fonacier and now
succeeded by Bishop Juan Jamias and the other headed by
Bishop Gerardo P. Bacaya, now substituted by Bishop Isabelo
de los Reyes. The split was occasioned by the controversy as

to who is the true head of the church and the allegation by
the latter faction that the former faction has merged with the
Episcopal Church of America. This intramural controversy is
now subject to litigation in the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Manila.
Pending resolution of the controversy, the bishops and
priests who belong to the faction of Bishop Jamias applied
for renewal of their authority to solemnize marriage. At this
point, the Secretary of Education sent a memorandum to the
Director of Public Libraries recognizing Bishop de los Reyes
as the titular head of the church. Thus, the application for
renewal of their authority to solemnize marriage was denied
by the Director of Public Libraries.
Issue:
1) Can the bishops and priests of the faction headed by
Bishop Jamias renew their application for authority
to solemnize marriage pending resolution of the
issue of leadership of the church?
2) Is the Authority to Solemnize Marriage a Ministerial
Duty?
Ruling:
Yes, the bishops and priests of the faction headed by
Bishop Jamias can renew their application for the authority to
solemnize marriage pending decision of the court.
The Supreme Court said that “there is nothing in the
record which shows that the Philippine Independent Church
or its faction headed by Bishop Jamias does not fulfill the “good
refute” condition obligating the Director of Public Libraries,
under Section 34 of Act No. 3613, to issue the authorization to
solemnize marriage, or that said church or faction has lost said
qualification as a result of which, according to Section 35 of
the same law, the authorization may be cancelled. The second
ground provided by the same Section 35 cannot be considered
in this case because the question as to who are the lawful
authorities of said church is yet to be settled in the pending
litigation before the Court of First Instance of Manila.”
The High Court further said that “there is no allegation or pre-
tense to the effect that the bishops and the priests of the faction
IN THE PHILIPPINES
headed by Bishop Jamias have disqualified themselves from continu-

ing to solemnize marriages. The conflict between the two factions,
until finally decided by the competent court, cannot have the effect
of automatically divesting the members of one group or the other of
their legal rights as bishops and priests of the Philippine Indepen-
dent Church. Until the litigation is finally decided, both groups are
entitled to represent themselves as members of the same church to
which they belonged before the conflict has arisen.” “Until the pend-
ing litigation is finally decided, the Director of Public Libraries has a
ministerial duty to issue authorization to solemnize marriages to the
bishops and priests of the group headed by Bishop J as bishops and
priests of the Philippine Independent Church. The followers of the
said faction, in the meantime, should not be deprived of the means
of satisfying one of their fundamental necessities, that their mar-
riages be solemnized by bishops and priests they recognize as true
representatives of their religion in whom they have faith. To compel
them against their conviction to have their marriages solemnized by
bishops and priests of the opposing faction or of other religions is to
violate their freedom of worship. The members of the said religious
group who want to be married should not be kept waiting for an in-
definite period pending final decision of the litigation.”
RULE 3 — DUTIES OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

3.1. Keeps and maintains the national database of
solemnizing officers;
3.2. Issues instructions to the RDs and PSOs with reference
to the implementation of this Order;
3.3. Conducts a thorough investigation for all cases of
violations related to this Order;
3.4. Enforces and monitors the implementation of the Rules
and Regulations of this Order;
3.5. Consolidates the monthly reports/data files submitted
by the RDs;
3.6. Enforces penalty provisions as prescribed by law;
3.7. Prescribes fees for registration of SOs.
NOTE:
The Director of the National Library, (now Administrator
of the National Statistics Office) shall be Civil Registrar General
and shall enforce the provisions of this Act (Act No. 3753 — The
Civil Registry Law). The Director of the National Library, (now NSO
Administrator), in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby
authorized to prepare and issue, with the approval of the Secretary
of Justice, (now National Economic and Development Authority),
and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance. In
the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the Director
of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) shall have the
power to give orders and instructions to the local civil registrars
with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall
be the duty of the Director of the National Library (now NSO
Administrator) to report any violation of the provisions of this
Act and all irregularities, negligence or incompetency on the part
of the officers designated as local civil registrars to the (Chief of
the Executive Bureau or the Director of the Non-Christian Tribes),
as the case may be, who shall take the proper disciplinary actions
against the offenders. (Civil Registry Law-Act No. 3753)
The Civil Registrar General (CRG) is the same person as the
Administrator of the National Statistics Office (NSO). Prior to 27
February 1931, there was no CRG, as the system of civil registration
was purely local government affairs. It was only when Act No. 3753
took effect on 27 February 1931 that the system was centralized with
the Director of the National Library being designated as the Civil
Registrar General. Section 2 of Act No. 3753 provides among others
that “The Director of the National Library shall be Civil Registrar
General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act.”
However, when Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted
on 19 August 1940, the civil registration function of the National
Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics
(now, NSO). Section 2(f) of this law provides that one of the powers,
functions and duties of the Bureau of the Census and Statistics is
“To carry out and administer the provisions of Act No. 3753, entitled
An Act to Establish a Civil Register.”
With regard to the implementation of R.A. No. 9048, two of the
most important powers and functions of the CRG are to impugn the
decisions of C/MCRs, CGs and D/CRs and to promulgate rules and
regulations. (Manual of Instructions, R.A. No. 9048, pp. 6-7).
The Civil Registrar General shall have technical control and
supervision on civil registrars and officials mentioned in Rule 3 (1).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
In the exercise of this technical and supervisory function, the Civil

Registrar General shall have the power to declare ultra vires any
act of civil registrars inconsistent with the prescribed standards,
criteria and procedures mentioned in this implementing rules and
regulations and other pertinent laws on civil registration. (Rule 4,
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993).
RULE 4 — DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOLEMNIZING

OFFICER
4.1. Registers his authority to solemnize marriage at the
NSO, if applicable;
4.2. Displays in a conspicuous place, inside his/her office
his/her CRASM;
4.3. Ensures that the requirements for the solemnization of
marriage under the law are complied with;
4.4. Performs religious services except those SOs who
solemnize marriage inherent to their functions, customs
and traditions as provided by law;
4.5. Solemnizes marriages within the territorial jurisdiction;
4.6. Ensures the accuracy and completeness of entries in
the Certificate of Marriage;
4.7. Submits the Certificate of Marriage to C/MCR for
registration within the reglementary period;
4.8. Files, keeps and preserves Certificate of Marriage;
4.9. Complies with other requirements as may be prescribed
by the CRG.
NOTE:
It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to
furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage
certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the
marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage
was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil
registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the
marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file
the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the
marriage license and, in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting

party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other
than those mentioned in Article 8. (68a) (Article 23, Family Code of
the Philippines).
Solemnizing Officer should prepare and distribute Marriage
Certificates as follow:
(a) One for the contracting parties;
(b) One for the Office of the Civil Registrar General, Manila;
(c) One for the Office of the City/Municipal Civil Registrar
which must be received by them within 15 days after the
celebration); and
(d) One for the person solemnizing the marriage.
RULE 5 — DUTIES OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

5.1. Accepts, reviews and evaluates applications for
registration of authority to solemnize marriage from the
PSOs;
5.2. Records data pertaining to SOs;
5.3. Signs and issues the Certificate of Registration of
Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM);
5.4. Investigates applications which cannot be acted upon
by the PSOs when necessary;
5.5. Recommends to the CRG for resolution applications
which cannot be acted upon by the RD;
5.6. Files, keeps and preserves records of SOs;
5.7. Submits reports/updated data files to CRG on the tenth
day after the reference month;
5.8. Supervises and monitor the activities of all PSOs under
his jurisdiction relative to the implementation of this
Order;
5.9. Implements security measures to preserve the integrity
of the CRASM;
5.10. Performs other functions related to the implementation
of this Order.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
NOTE:
The NSO Regional Office shall receive all applications for
the issuance of the Certificate of Registration and Authority to
Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) and release the same through the
NSO Provincial office, if all necessary requirements are complied
with.
The issuance of CRASM by the Regional Office is facilitated
with the use of the decentralized Solemnizing Officers Information
System or SOIS.
RULE 6 — DUTIES OF THE PROVINCIAL STATISTICS OFFICER

6.1 Ensures the availability of application forms (OCRG-SO
Form No.1);
6.2. Accepts duly accomplished application forms together
with the supporting documents as enumerated under
Sec 7.4 of Rule 7;
6.3. Checks the completeness and correctness of entries;
6.4. Evaluates the application and supporting documents;
6.5. In case of doubt, conducts investigation with respect to
the following:
a. Whether the applicant for registration is performing
other religious rites and services and not merely
solemnizing marriage.
b. Whether or not the religious sect to which the
applicant is a member, has a church, temple or
chapel in the province where the religious rites and
services are periodically conducted.
c. Whether or not the religion or religious sect to which
the applicant is a member, has a congregation of at
least 200 bona fide active members.
6.6 Endorses application forms and all other required
documents to the Office of the Regional Director;
6.7 Submits reports of investigations conducted;
6.8 Accepts payments on prescribed fees and issues
corresponding official receipts;
6.9 Submits monthly financial report to the Accounting

Division;
6.10 Releases CRASM to the concerned SOs;
6.11 Performs other functions related to the implementation
of this Order.
NOTE:
Application forms for registration, whether for new applicant
or renewal, are available at the NSO Provincial Offices through
the Provincial Statistics Officers. All solemnizing officers who are
required to apply for registration of their authority to solemnize
marriage shall secure and file the application forms, OCRG Form
No.1, at the Office of the Provincial Statistics Officer where their
respective church, temple or chapel is situated. Once the requirements
are complied with by the applicant solemnizing officer, the provincial
NSO officer shall forward all the applications received to the NSO
Regional Office for the issuance of the Certificate of Registration
and Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM).
RULE 7 — REGISTRATION PROCEDURES

7.1 Who Shall Apply
The following shall apply for the registration of
authority to solemnize marriage:
a. Bishop
b. Founder of the religion/religious sect
c. Head of the religion/religious sect
d. Priest
e. Imam
f. Tribal Head/Chieftain
g. Other religious ministers/pastors
NOTE:
Tribal heads/chieftains are included in the enumeration of those
who are required to register their authority to solemnize marriage
pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 179, Series of 1993, provided that
IN THE PHILIPPINES
aside from being the social and political leader of their respective
tribes, they also stand as their priest or religious leader.
Pursuant to DOJ Opinion No 13, Series of 2005, Imams are
not required to register their authority to solemnize marriage
with the Office of the Civil Registrar General, when the parties
to the marriage both are Muslims, or the male party is a Muslim
and the marriage is solemnized under the Muslim Law. (New
Procedures in the Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage,
A Paper Presented by Editha R. Orcilla, 4th National Convention of
Solemnizing Officers, Bacolod City, August 9-11, 2005).
7.2 Where to Apply

All SOs enumerated under Rule 7.1 shall secure and file their
application forms for registration from the NSO Provincial Office
of the province where the church, temple or chapel is situated.
NOTE:
Solemnizing Officers will secure the application forms from the
Provincial Offices of the National Statistics Office where the church.
Temple, chapel or mosque is situated. The Provincial Statistics
of NSO accepts the duly accomplished application forms together
with the supporting documents. The same will be submitted to NSO
Regional Director for review and evaluation of the application and
subsequently issue the Certificate of Registration of Authority to
Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) to applicants.
7.3 When to Apply

Applications for registration of authority to solemnize
marriage maybe filed anytime of the year. SOs whose registration
shall expire on the 31st of December of any current year may
submit their applications on or before the 31st of December but
not earlier than the 1st of October of that current year.
7.4 Requirements for Registration

The SOs whose religion or religious sect are deemed operating
in the Philippines and in good repute are required to register their
authority to solemnize marriage with the CRG under Article 3 of
the Family Code shall comply with the following:
a. Accomplished application form (OCRG-SO Form No.

1) in triplicate copies, subscribed and sworn to before
a person authorized to administer oath with affixed
documentary stamp;
b. Three copies of colored ID pictures (2x2) with white
background taken not more than a month ago from the
date of application. Pictures should not be computer
generated to preserve its quality. In cases the person
is using glasses, it should be removed to have a clear
image of the person. The back of the ID picture should
contain the signature of the applicant;
c. A machine copy of appointment as priest, head, founder,
bishop, pastor and minister of the religion or religious
sect;
d. Proper endorsement/designation/recommendation from
the head of religion or religious sect to mention: the full
name, nationality, complete address, location of the
church, temple or mosque where the applicant regularly
perform rites and indicate the extent of his territorial
jurisdiction;
e. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted
by NSO for SOs;
f. Certified True Copy of Certificate of Live Birth;
g. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a citizen of a
foreign country;
h. Certified True Copy of Certificate of Ordination issued
by his/her respective church;
i. Payment of registration fee;
j. Certificate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations
and by-laws, and updated General Information Sheet
(G.I.S) certified by the Head of the religion or religious
sect.
For Heads/Bishops/Presidents/Founders, the following
requirements are required in addition to Requirements 7.4.a
to 7.4.i above:
a. Endorsement or recommendation from the Board of
Trustees/Directors or Church Council.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
b. In case there are no Board of Trustees/Directors, the

head/bishop/president/founder of the religion/religious
sect shall submit a sworn statement duly notarized.
c. Sworn statement containing brief history of the religion/
religious sect and the list of 200 bona fide active
members stating therein their complete address and
signed by the members.
d. A certified Certificate of Registration, Articles of
Incorporations and by-laws, and updated General
Information Sheet (G.I.S.) issued by the Security
Exchange Commission (SEC).
For Imams, the following requirements are required:
documentary stamp;
c. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted
by NSO for SOs;
d. Certified True Copy of Certificate of Live Birth;
e. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a citizen of a
foreign country;
f. Certification from the Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA)
that the applicant is authorized to solemnize marriage
g. Payment of registration fee;
For Tribal Heads/Chieftains, the following requirements are
required:

documentary stamp;
c. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted
by NSO for SOs;
e. Certification from the National Commission on
Indigenous People (NCIP) that the applicant is authorized
to solemnize marriage
f. Payment of registration fee;
NOTE:
Republic Act No. 6514 is an Act Providing that the Authorization
to Solemnize Marriage issued to Priests, Ministers or Rabbis shall
be valid for a period of three years the same to expire on the thirty
first day of December of every third year, amending for the purpose
Article Ninety-Five of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Meanwhile, the present Administrative Order requires proof
of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted by NSO for
Solemnizing Officers as well as certified true copy of his/her certified
live birth, two by two colored ID pictures with white background
and with signatures at the back taken not more than a month ago
from the date of application. Pictures here should not be computer
generated and eye glasses should be removed, if using one.
7.5 Fees
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 197 issued by President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada on January 13, 2000 and implemented on
April 4, 2000, the SOs shall pay the following fees:
For each registration and issuance of authority
to solemnize marriage Php 500.00
IN THE PHILIPPINES
For each certified transcript from the register

of solemnizing officers ........................ Php 100.00
For each duplicate or subsequent copy of
the certificate of authority to solemnize
marriage ................................................ Php 100.00
For each certification issued pertaining to
solemnizing officers ............................ Php 100.00
All fees accruing from the application for registration of the
authority to solemnize marriages of the SOs shall be payable to
the National Statistics Office.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 197 issued by President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada on January 13, 2000 and implemented on
April 4, 2000, the SOs shall pay the following fees:

to solemnize marriage .............................. Php 500.00
of solemnizing officers ............................. Php 100.00
marriage ..................................................... Php 100.00
solemnizing officers ................................. Php 100.00
All fees accruing from the application for registration of the
authority to solemnize marriages of the SOs shall be payable to
NOTE:
A CASE DECLARING THAT THE FEES ARE FOR REGU-
LATION AND NOT FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.
People vs. Fabillar, 38 O.G., No. 43, p. 964. It is contended that,
under the provisions of section 34 of the Marriage Law, as far as
the authority to solemnize marriage is concerned, the authorization,
once issued, continues in force and that the requirement for its
renewal is intended solely for revenue purposes. The contention is
not in accord with either the spirit or the letter of the law. In the first
place, the required fee for the issuance of the certificate of authority
to solemnize marriages is, by its nominal character, intended purely

for regulation and not for revenue. In the second place, renewal,
as required by law, presupposes expiration of the authorization.
And expiration means that the authorization has ceased to exist.
In the third place, after the authorization has expired, the accused
was suspended from the performance of his apostolic functions and,
therefore, he had absolutely no authority to solemnize the marriage
in question. (Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated. Ambrosio
Padilla, Vol. 1. p. 138).
Civil Code of the Philippines Art. 95 — The public official in
charge of registration of priests and ministers, with the approval
of the proper head of Department, is hereby authorized to prepare
the necessary forms and to promulgate regulations for the purpose
of enforcing the provisions of this title. Said official may also by
regulations fix and collect fees for the authorization of priests and
ministers to solemnize marriages as amended by R.A. 6514 of 22
July 1972.
NSO OCRG Administrative Order. No. 1 Section 15 of 1988
prescribed the following rate:
For each registration & Issuance of Authority
To solemnizing marriage (new) 150.00
For reach renewal of authorization 100.00
For each certified transcript from the Register
of Solemnizing Officers 50.00
For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the
Certificate of Authority to solemnize marriage 50.00
Likewise, in compliance with the Executive Order No. 159

issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos, the revised rates effective
October 11, 1999 was implemented as follows:
For each registration & issuance of Authority to
Solemnize marriage (New) 375.00
For each renewal of authorization 150.00
of solemnizing officers 75.00
For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the Certificate
of Authority to solemnize marriage 75.00
IN THE PHILIPPINES
RULE 8 — GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF CRASM

The CRG through the RDs shall cancel the CRASMs issued to
SOs based on the following grounds:
8.1 When the request for cancellation of authority to
solemnize marriage is made by bishop or head of the
religion or religious sect of which the SO is a member;
8.2 When the request for cancellation of authority to
solemnize marriage is made by the SO himself;
8.3 When before the expiry date of his authorization, the SO
ceases to be a member of the religion or religious sect
which he represented at the time of registration;
8.4 When the SO has been convicted by final judgment of
any crime;
8.5 When the SO retires from his function as a priest or
religious minister, or dies, or becomes permanently
incapacitated to discharge the function of his office;
8.6 When the SO willfully violates the provisions of the
existing laws as when he officiates marriage where no
one of the contracting parties is a member of his religion
or religious sect;
8.7 When the SO officiates marriage outside his territorial
jurisdiction;
8.8 When the SO fails or refuses to exhibit his authority to
solemnize marriage when it is demanded from him by
the contracting parties, their parents or guardian;
8.9 When the SO officiates marriage where the contracting
parties do not have a valid marriage license when such
license is required and such fact is known to him;
8.10 When the SO officiates marriage with expired marriage
license;
8.11 When the SO fails or refuses to indicate on the marriage
certificate his registry number and the expiry date of his
authority to solemnize marriage;
8.12 In case of foreigner, when his visa/I-Card expires before
the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage;
8.13 When the SO allows proxy marriages which is a kind

of marriage arrangement where one of the parties to a
marriage is represented merely by someone else who
may be a delegate or a friend of one of the contracting
parties;
8.14 When the SO is represented by a proxy SO or somebody
else who performs the marriage for and in his behalf;
8.15 When the SO is physically incapacitated where his
performance to solemnize marriage is substantially
affected such as blindness, etc.;
8.16 When the SO does other acts in contravention with law.
NOTE:
The above-enumerated provisions are the specific grounds
for cancellation of the certificate of registration and authority to
solemnize marriage. The power to cancel the CRASM for any violation
of the law is vested upon the Civil Registrar General through the
Regional Director. Any violation of the above grounds shall subject
the solemnizing officer concerned to criminal, and civil liability.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 94 states The public

official in charge of registration of priests and ministers shall
cancel the authorization issued to a bishop, head, priest, rabbi,
pastor or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church,
sect, or religion, on his own initiative or at the request of any
interested party, upon showing that the church, sect or religion
whose ministers have been authorized to solemnize marriage
is no longer in operation. The cancellation of the authorization
granted to a priest, pastor, or minister shall likewise be ordered
upon the request of the bishop, head or lawful authorities of the
denomination, church, sect or religion to which he belongs.
RULE 9 — PENALTY PROVISIONS

ACT 3613
Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of marriage. Any priest
or minister solemnizing marriage without being authorized by
the Civil Registrar General or who, upon solemnizing marriage,
refuses to exhibit his authorization in force when called upon to do
so by the parties or parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons
IN THE PHILIPPINES
having charge; and any bishop or officer, priest, or minister of

any church, religion or sect the regulations and practices whereof
require publications previous to the solemnization of a marriage
in accordance with section 10, who authorizes the immediate
solemnization of a marriage that is subsequently declared illegal;
or any officer, priest or minister solemnizing marriage in violation
of the provisions of this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished
by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two
thousand pesos.
Section 40. Marriage in improper places Any officer, minister or
priest solemnizing marriage in a place other than those authorized
by this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by a fine of not
less than twenty-five pesos nor more than three hundred pesos,
or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the
discretion of the court.
NOTE:
Under the Family Code, marriage shall be solemnized publicly
in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or
temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul, or vice-consul,
as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages
contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance
with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the parties request
the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may
be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn
statement to that effect. (Article 8, Family Code).
Thus, aside from the places designated by law and the parties
in proper cases, the solemnizing officer is prohibited to solemnize
marriages elsewhere.
Section 41. Failure to deliver marriage certificate. Any officer,

priest, or minister failing to deliver to either of the contracting
parties one of the copies of the marriage contract or to forward
the other copy to the authorities within the period fixed by law for
said purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more
than one month or by a fine of not more than three hundred pesos,
or both in the discretion of the court.
Section 42. Affidavit on marriage in articulo mortis. Any
officer, priest, or minister who, having solemnized a marriage in
articulo mortis, or any other marriage of an exceptional character,
shall fail to comply with the provisions of Chapter II of this Act

(now Chapter 2 Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment
for not less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fine
of not less than three hundred pesos nor more than two thousand
pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
NOTE:
Under the Family Code, a person solemnizing a marriage in
articulo mortis shall execute an affidavit attesting to the fact he has
ascertained the ages, relationship of the contracting parties and
the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage. Likewise, he is
required by law to submit the original of such affidavit to the local
civil registrar of the municipality where the marriage took place
together with the marriage certificate within thirty days. (Articles
29-30, Family Code) Failure to do so, he shall be punished under the
above provision.
Section 43. Unlawful signboards. Any person who, not being

authorized to solemnize marriage, shall publicly advertise himself,
by means of signs or placards placed on his residence or office
or through the newspapers, as authorized to solemnize marriage,
shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month
nor more than two years, or by a fine of not less than fifty pesos
not more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of
the court.
Section 44. General penal clause. Any violation of any
provision of this Act (now Family Code) not specifically penalized,
or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos
Section 45. Disqualification of priests and ministers. Any
priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church, sect,
or religion convicted of any of the provisions of this Act or of any
crime involving moral turpitude, shall, in addition to the penalties
incurred in each case, be disqualified to solemnize marriage for a
period of not less than six months nor more than six years at the
discretion of the court. (as amended by Act No. 4263)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony.
Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil
authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of
the Marriage Law.
The penalty is imprisonment for not less one month nor more
than two years, or a fine of not less than 200.00 nor more than
P2,000.00 shall be imposed upon the offender. (Section 39, Act No.
3613, otherwise known as Marriage Law)
RULE 10 — RETROACTIVITY CLAUSE

These rules shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with
the Civil Code and other laws.
NOTE:
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary
is provided. (Article 4, Civil Code of the Philippines) In general,
laws are prospective, not retroactive. If the rule is that laws are
retroactive, grave injustice would occur, for these laws would punish
individuals for violations of laws not yet enacted.
While in general, laws are prospective, they are retroactive in
the following cases:
a. If the laws themselves provide for retroactivity;
b. If the laws are remedial in nature;
c. If the law is penal in nature, provided it is favorable to the
accused or convict, and provided further that the accused
or convict is not a habitual delinquent;
d. If the laws are of an emergency nature and are authorized
by the police power of the government;
e. If the law is curative; and
If a substantive right be declared for the first time, unless vested

rights are impaired. (Paras, Civil Code, pp. 30-33)
RULE 11 — SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

If any portion or provision of these rules is declared void or
unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof
shall not be affected by such declaration.
RULE 12 — REPEALING CLAUSE

All circulars, memoranda, rules and regulations or issued by
the CRG or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of these
rules are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
RULE 13 — DATE OF EFFECTIVITY

These rules shall take effect fifteen days after its publication
in the Official Gazette.
Done in the City of Manila, Philippines this 16th day of February,
2007.
NOTE:
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides: “Laws shall take effect
after fifteen days following the completion of its publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.”
Executive Order No. 200, dated June 18, 1987, modifying
Article 2 of the Civil Code, now provides for the publication of laws
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines as a requirement for its effectivity.
It is well-settled that administrative orders, rules and regula-
tions have the force and effect of law. The fact that administrative
order, rules and regulations is punitive in character is the principal
reason why publication should be made.
Administrative Order No. 1, series 2007 was issued by the
Office of the Civil Registrar General. It has the force and effect of
law once it has become effective. Because of its penal character which
can be found in its penal provisions, A.O. No. 1 should be published
first before it has to take effect. This is based on the principle and
theory that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its
penal provisions, a law, regulation, order or circular must first be
published, and the people officially and specifically informed of its
contents and the penalties for violation thereof.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
209
APPENDICES
IN THE PHILIPPINES
211
Appendix 1
OCRG-SO Form No. 1

Revised March 2005
(To be accomplished in triplicate)
Attach 2 x 2 picture
O.R. No. ________________ w/ signature
Date Paid _______________ at the back
Amt. Paid _______________

Sta. Mesa, Manila
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY
TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
(Fill out completely, accurately and legibly. Use ink or typewriter.)
____________________
Date
The Civil Registrar General

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Sir/Madam:
I hereby declare:
1. That my full name is ________________________________
2. (For alien applicants) That I am a citizen of____________
__________ and my ICR No. is ___________ and my ACR
No. is ___________ and presently residing at ____________
____________________________________________________
(No.) (Street) (Sitio/Barangay)
____________________________________________________
(City/Municipality/Province)
211
IN THE PHILIPPINES
3. That I was born on ________________ at ______________ ;

4. That I am a member of_______________________________;
(Name of religion or religious sect)
5. That I am duly appointed as _________________________;

(Specify the title or position)
by__________________________________________________;
(State the title, name and position of the appointing officer)
6. That in accordance with my appointment, a true copy

of which is hereto attached, I am authorized to perform
religious rites and services including solemnization of
marriages in accordance with my religion or religious
sect;
7. That my jurisdiction for purposes of solemnizing marriages
is (specify the exact territorial jurisdiction):
____________________________________________________
8. That my religion or religious sect operates in the
Philippines and is in good repute and I am assigned to its
church, temple or chapel situated in ___________________
_____________________________;
________________________________________________
9. That I apply for registration as Solemnizing Officer

in accordance with Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of
the Philippines promulgated on August 3, 1988 and
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007 and request
that an authorization to solemnize marriage be issued to
me. ________________________________________________
(Signature over Printed Name of the Applicant)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of

_________________, in the city/municipality of __________________,
applicant exhibiting his Community Tax Certificate No. __________
___________, issued at __________________________, on ___________
______________.
______________________
Notary Public
APPENDIX 1 213
OCRG-SO FORM NO. 1 (Revised March 2005)
Page No. ______

Doc. No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of ______
(Affix documentary stamp)
Secs. 3-4
214 HANDBOOK FOR
THESOLEMNIZING
JUDICIARY OFFICERS
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Appendix 2
CIRCULARS/MEMORANDA ISSUED BY OCRG
Circular No. 89-12

1 March 1989
To : All Regional/Provincial Census Officers and Solem-

nizing Officers
Subject : TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SOLEMNIZ-
ING OFFICERS
For the purpose of this Circular, only those solemnizing officers

enumerated in Article 7(2) of the Family Code are covered. They are
the priests, rabbis, imams, or ministers of any church or religious
sect, including the bishops, heads and founders. The territorial
jurisdiction of solemnizing officers refers to a defined but limited
area or place where the solemnizing officer can validly officiate a
marriage. The area or place may be the whole Philippines or only a
province or a diocese.
Article 8 of the Family Code provides among other things that
the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church, chapel or
temple, and not elsewhere. Exceptions from the general rule are the
following: (1) marriage contracted at the point of death, or in a remote
place, and (2) where both of the parties request the solemnizing
officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at
a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that
effect.
Reading the provision of the above-cited provision of Article 8 of
the Family Code, the territorial jurisdiction of the solemnizing officer
must be necessarily limited in the place where the church, chapel or
temple is situated. For example, XYZ Religion has five chapels, all
of which are located within Metro Manila. The ministers (or pastors)
of this religion can have territorial jurisdiction only within Metro
214
APPENDIX 2 215
Manila and not whole Philippines, for an obvious reason, that said
ministers (or pastors) do not have chapels in Mindanao, Visayas and
in other places outside Metro Manila where they could solemnize
marriage in accordance with law.
The second exception given in Article 8 of the Family Code does
not mean an exception from the rule of territorial jurisdiction. It is
an exception from the rule that a marriage shall be solemnized in a
church, chapel or temple, but the house or place designated by the
contracting parties must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the
concerned solemnizing officer.
As a rule, therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing
officer is the province where the church, chapel or temple to which he
is assigned is located. For a Catholic priest, his territorial jurisdiction
is the diocese or archdiocese to which he belongs. The territorial
jurisdiction to cover whole Philippines shall be granted only to
bishops, founders, presidents, and heads of religions or religious
sects in consideration of the possible expansion and establishment of
additional churches, chapels or temples of such religion or religious
group.
TOMAS P. AFRICA
19 December 2000
MEMORANDUM
For : All Regional Directors, Provincial Statistics Officers

and Officers In-Charge
Subject : ASSIGNING OF POPULATION REFERENCE
NUMBER (PRN) TO CERTIFICATES OF LIVE
BIRTH FOR THE YEAR 2001 NO LONGER NEC-
ESSARY
Under the Civil Registry System Information Technology

Project (CRS-ITP), a sub-system for the generation of Birth
Reference Number (BReN) is being developed to replace the system
of generating Population Reference Number (PRN). The BReN will
be used in connection with the issuance of Birth Card to interested
party.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
In view of this new development, the PRNs will no longer be

generated for the year 2001, and no PRN lists will be sent to the
local civil registry offices.
Please disseminate the information to all city/municipal civil
registrars in your respective areas of jurisdiction.
TOMAS P. AFRICA
22 November 2000
MEMORANDUM

Subject : SIGNATURE SPECIMEN OF GERMAN EMBASSY
OFFICERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY
Attached is a copy of the names and signature specimens of

the officers of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany who
are authorized to issue Certificate of Legal Capacity to a German
national wishing to contract marriage under Philippine laws, for
your information and reference.
CARLITO B. LALICON
Director III
25 July 2001
MEMORANDUM

Subject : THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION LAW
OF 2000
This is to inform you that there is a new law on naturalization,

which was recently approved by President G.M. Arroyo. The new law
is Republic Act No. 9139 entitled “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN
ALIENS BY ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES” or otherwise known as “The Administrative
Naturalization Law of 2000”.
APPENDIX 2 217
The object of R.A. No. 9139 is embodied in Section 2 (Declaration

of Policy) which provides:
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall control

and regulate the admission and integration of aliens into its
territory and body politic including the grant of citizenship
of aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing in
the Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship by
administrative proceedings subject to certain requirements
dictated by national security and interest.
In applying for naturalization under R.A. No. 9139, the
petitioner (applicant) is required to submit to the Special Committee
on Naturalization a certified photocopy of civil registry documents
enumerated in Section 5, Item 2. Excerpt of this section provides
that:
Sec. 5 (2). Petition for Citizenship. — The application shall

be accompanied by:
(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner’s
birth certificate;
(b) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner’s
alien certificate of registration and native born certificate
of residence;
(c) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner’s
marriage certificate, if married, or the death certificate of
his spouse, if widowed, or the court decree annulling his
marriage, if such was the fact;
(d) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of birth
certificates, alien certificate of registration or native born
certificate residence if any, of petitioner’s minor children
wherever applicable;
In case the birth of the petitioner and that of his/her children (if
any) have not been registered yet, the petitioner and his/her children
may apply for delayed registration of their births as provided for
under Section 15.
Sec. 15. Any person who failed to register his/her birth

with the concerned city or municipal civil registrar may, within
in two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, file a petition
provided that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
none of the disqualifications under this Act and subject to the

requirements of existing laws.
Issuance of the various civil registry certifications and
processing of the applications for delayed registration of vital events
are most likely the areas where we can extend assistance to those
aliens who may wish to be naturalized under R.A. No. 9139.
Under Section 17 of the law, the Special Committee on
Naturalization is required to promulgate the implementing rules
and regulations. As soon as we have the implementing rules and
regulations, another memorandum defining exactly the LCRO’s role
will be issued by this Office.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
SAMPLE: REPORT TO THE SCN
(USE LETTERHEAD OF LCRO)

(Date)
Hon. Antonio L. Villamor

Executive Director
Special Committee on Naturalization
Office of the Solicitor General
7/F Amorsolo St.,
Makati City
Dear Dir. Villamor,
This is in regard to the requirements of Section 7, RA 9139, otherwise
known as “The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000”.
Please be informed that this office has received and posted the
following petitions, along with the supporting documents, on the
corresponding dates. Information received concerning the petitioner
is likewise indicated opposite their names.
1. (Name of Petitioner) Date Posted List Any Information (or if
none, place “No Information received”)
APPENDIX 2 219

For your information and guidance.

Very truly yours,
(Name)
Civil Registrar of (City / Municipality)
SAMPLE: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

The following are classes of persons who are not qualified to
be naturalized as Filipino citizens under Section 4 Republic Act No.
9139 (Administrative Naturalization law of 2000)
(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with
any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized government;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety
of violence, personal assault or assassination for the
success or predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious disease.
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or
who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country with whom the
Philippines is at war; and
(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do
not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or
subjects thereof.
In this connection, if you have knowledge of the fact or
any information that might lead you to conclude that the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
following petitioners, whose petitions and supporting

documents are posted below, are NOT QUALIFIED to be
naturalized as Filipino citizens, kindly inform the Civil
Registrar immediately about the matter.
1. (Name of petitioner)
For information and guidance.
(Name)
Civil Registrar
September 7, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To : All Civil Registrars

Subject : GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTING SECTION 7, RA
9139 PURSUANT TO THE PERTINENT PROVI-
SIONS OF SECTION 7, REPUBLIC ACT (RA) NO.
9139, THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GUIDELINES
IN IMPLEMENTING THE SAID PROVISIONS:
1. The Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) will

furnish the Civil Registrar of the Petitioner’s Place of
Residence with a copy of the petition for naturalization
and its supporting documents together with a notice
to cause the posting of said petition and its supporting
documents.
2. Upon receipt of the petition for naturalization and its
supporting documents, the Civil Registrar concerned
shall immediately cause the posting of said petition
and supporting documents for period of thirty (30) days,
accompanied by a NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, a sample of
which is attached for your reference.
3. A copy of the petition and supporting documents shall be
posted in any public or conspicuous area in the building,
offices and premises of the office of the civil registrar
concerned.
APPENDIX 2 221
4. Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the petition,

the local civil registrar concerned shall directly submit to
the SCN a report stating:
5. In the absence of any derogatory information or adverse
information, the civil registrar concerned, within the same
period of time, should likewise notify the SCN of such fact.
A form letter for such report is likewise attached for your
ready reference.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
Copy furnished:
Regional Directors
Management Committee
24 September 2001
MEMORANDUM
To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrar
Subject : IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9139
Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Section 7 of Republic

Act No. 9139, which read:
Section 7. xxx. The Committee shall immediately furnish
the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Bureau of
Immigration (BI), the civil registrar of the petitioner’s place
of residence and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
copies of the petition and its supporting documents. These
agencies shall have copies of the petition posted in any public or
conspicuous area in their buildings, offices and premises, and
shall within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, submit
to the Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has
any derogatory record on file or any such relevant and material
information which might be adverse to petitioner’s application
for citizenship.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
For the implementation of the above provision, please be

advised as follows:
1. The Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) will
furnish the City/Municipal Registrar of the petitioner’s
place of residence with a copy of the petition for
naturalization and its supporting documents together
with a notice to cause the posting of said petition and its
supporting documents.
2. Upon receipt of the petition for naturalization and its
supporting documents, the concerned City/Municipal
Civil Registrar shall immediately cause the posting of said
petition and supporting documents for a period of thirty
(30) days, accompanied by a NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
which shall read as follows:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

The following are the classes of persons who are not qualified
to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under Section 4 of Republic Act
No. 9139 (Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000):
(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with
any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized government;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety
of violence, personal assault or assassination for the
success or predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable
Contagious diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or
who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos.
(g) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country with whom the
Philippines is at war; and
APPENDIX 2 223
(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do

not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or
subjects thereof.
In this connection, if you have knowledge of the fact or any
information that might lead you to conclude that the following
petitioner/s, whose petition/s and supporting documents are below
posted, are NOT QUALIFIED to be naturalized as Filipino citizens,
kindly immediately about the matter:
1. xxxx
2. xxxx
3. xxxx
3. A copy of the petition and supporting documents shall be
posted in any public or conspicuous area in the buildings,
offices and premises of the local Civil Registry Office
concerned,
4. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the
City/Municipal Civil Registrar concerned shall directly
submit to the SCN a report stating:
(a) whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record
on file; or
(b) any such relevant information which might be
adverse to petitioner’s application for citizenship.
5. In the absence of any derogatory information or adverse
information, the City/Municipal Civil Registrar concerned,
within the same period of time, should likewise notify the
SCN of such fact.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Hon. Antonio L. Villamor

Executive Director
Special Committee on Naturalization
Office of the Solicitor General
7/F Amorsolo St.,
Makati City
Dear Dir. Villamor,
This is in regard to the requirements of Section 7, RA 9139,
otherwise known as “The Administrative Naturalization Law of
2000”.
Please be informed that this office has received and posted the
following petitions, along with the supporting documents, on the
corresponding dates. Information received concerning the petitioner
is likewise indicated opposite their names.
Very truly yours,

(Name)
Civil Registrar of (City/Municipal)
15 November 2001
MEMORANDUM
To : All Regional Directors, Provincial Statistics Officer
City/Municipal Civil Registrars
Subjects : FORMATION OF LCRO/NSO FIELD UNIT
This is to announce that we recently formed and established

the “LCRO/NSO FIELD UNIT” for the benefit of all Regional Offices
and Provincial Offices of NSO, and Local Civil Registry Offices
APPENDIX 2 225
(LCROs). The principal function of the unit is to receive and process

applications for civil registration certifications coming from field
offices of NSO and from LCROs, either through fax, letter, e-mail or
personal hand carry.
The Unit is headed by Ms. Marlene Aurellano, the Secretary of
Director Carlito B. Lalicon, and the members with their respective
assignment are the following:
Name Assignment
Daisy Rojo Regions 6 and 11
Meliza Chan Yu Regions 9 and 10
Irene Bernales Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12
CAR, ARMM, CARAGA, and all
LCROs
In sending the requests or applications, please label your
address in the following manner:
The Director
Attn.: LCRO/NSO FIELD UNIT
Civil Registry Department
In case follow-up is necessary or if the requested certifications
are not received in due time, the concerned party may call (02) 926-
7357 and as for the particular employee responsible for the receiving
and processing of the applications. Those who are connected with
the internet may use this e-mail address of Ms. Marlene Aurellano
(CRS.Secretariat@mail.census.gov.ph) that of Director Carlito B.
Lalicon (C.Lalicon@mail.census.gov.ph)
Lastly, please be informed also that the period of processing the
applications by this Unit shall be the same as that of applications
received from other sources. The requested certifications shall be
sent to the requesting parties through the conventional postal
service system.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
IN THE PHILIPPINES
18 April 2002
MEMORANDUM

Subject : OPINION NO. 11, S. 2002 OF THE SECRETARY
OF JUSTICE CONCERNING FILING FEE OF PE-
TITION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
For your information and guidance, we are providing you the

attached copy of Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 of the Secretary of Justice
concerning the filing fee in connection with the implementation of
Republic Act No. 9048. The issue which was resolved by the Secretary
of Justice was whether or not a local government unit can impose a
filing fee in an amount different from what was promulgated by the
Inter-Agency Committee which was mandated under the said law to
promulgate the implementing rules and regulations.
Among other things, the Secretary of Justice said:
“xxx… we rule that the filing fees as imposed by
Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2001 should prevail over the
filing fees imposed by the said City Ordinance since the rules
and regulations promulgated by the civil registrar general
pursuant to the provisions of R.A No. 9048 have the force and
effect of law (U.S v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]; See Co Chiong
v. Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned
Administrative Order was issued in implementation of R. A.
No. 9048 and under the said Law, it is the civil registrar, not
the local government units, that has the authority to issue rules
and regulations in implementation of the provisions thereof.”
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
APPENDIX 2 227
March 8, 2002
Ms. Carmelita N. Ericta
Office of the Civil Registrar General
EDSA Corner Times St., West Triangle
Quezon City 1104
Madam:
This refers to your request for opinion as to which filing fees
shall prevail, that prescribed under Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 2001 (implementing rules and regulations) promulgated
and issued by the Civil Registrar General or that prescribed under
Ordinance No. 7786-2001 passed by the City Council of Cagayan de
Oro.
The query arose when prior to the promulgation of the said
ADMINISTRATIVE order on July 24, 2001, Rules and Regulations
Governing the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9048 (An Act
Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul
General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry
and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register
Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles
376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinance No. 7786-2001
on June 19, 2001 entitled “ AN ORDINACE LEVYING A FILING
FEE FOR PETITION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR OR
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY, OR TO CHANGE THE
FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME, IN THE CITY CIVIL REGISTER
AT THE RATES PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.:
Section 1 of the said Ordinance provides:
Section 1. — There shall be levied, imposed or collected a filing
fee upon any person who will file with the City Civil Registrar a
petition for the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an
entry, or for the change of first name or nickname, in the City Civil
Register, at the following rates:
(a) correction of a clerical or typographical error P250.00
(b) change of first name or nickname P500.00
IN THE PHILIPPINES
On the other hand, Rule 18 of Administrative Order No. 1,

Series of 2001, provides, among others, that the city/municipal civil
registrar or the district/circuit registrar “is hereby duly authorized
to collect from every petitioner a filing fee in the amount of one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for the correction of clerical or typo-
graphical error, and three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) for the
change of first name or nickname,’’ but that an indigent petitioner
as defined under Rule 2.7 shall be exempt from the payment of said
fee.
It is also provided under the said Rule that the local legislative
body shall ratify the fees therein prescribed upon affectivity of said
Order. Prior to ratification by the local legislative body, all fees
collected in connection with the Order shall go to the Local Civil
Registry Office (LCRO) trust fund provided that the fees prescribed
therein shall be uniform in all cities and municipalities in the
country, and in all Philippine Consulates.
The said Administrative Order was enacted pursuant to
Section 10 of R.A No. 9048, which states that “The civil registrar
general shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the
Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court
Administrator, the University of the Philippines Law Center and
the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary
rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not
later than three (3) months from the affectivity of this law.”
Subject to the discussion hereunder, we rule that the filing fees
as imposed by Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2001 should prevail
over the filing fees imposed by the said City Ordinance since the rules
and regulations promulgated by the civil registrar general pursuant
to the provisions of R.A. No. 9048 have the force and effect of law
(U.S. v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]; See Co Chiong v. Cuaderno, 83
Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative Order was
issued in implementation of R.A. No. 9048 and under the said law,
it is the civil registrar general, not the local government units, that
has the authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation
of the provisions thereof.
Finally, it is a well-established principle in the law of municipal
corporations that the legislative bodies of municipal corporations,
which are mere creations of Congress, may not enact municipal
legislation invading or intruding into an area already covered by a
APPENDIX 2 229
statue, or contravening provisions of the same (Secretary of Justice

Op. No. 77, s. 1971).
Very truly yours,
HERNANDO B. PEREZ
Secretary
August 5, 2005
MEMORANDUM

Subject : REITERATION OF THE GUIDELINES IN IMPLE-
MENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9139
This refers to the attached OCRG Memorandum (Ref. No.

01CRD00-214, dated July 25, 2002; Ref. No. 01CRD00-1273, dated
September 7, 2001 and Ref. No. 01-CRD00-278 dated September 24,
2001) on the implementation of the pertinent provisions of Section 7
of Republic Act No. 9139.
Please be reminded on the following guidelines:
1. The petition for naturalization and its supporting
documents should be posted for a period of thirty (30)
days;
2. Posting of the petition should start upon receipt from
the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) of the
following: a) petition for naturalization; b) supporting
documents; and c) notice to the public;
3. The concerned City/Municipal Civil Registrar shall
directly submit to the SCN within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the petition a report stating: a) whether or not
the petitioner has any derogatory record on file; or b)
whether or not there is any information adverse to the
petition for naturalization.
4. Please furnish the OCRG with a copy of the report.
Submit the report to the Office of the Civil Registrar
General, attention: Lourdes J. Hufana, OIC-Director,
Civil Registry Department, National Statistics Office,
EDSA corner Times St., West Triangle, Quezon City.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
September 9, 2002
MEMORANDUM
From : (SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTA

To : Regional Directors
Subject : ADJUSTMENT OF FEES FOR UNCONVERTED
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
After two (2) years of implementing the Civil Registry System-

Information Technology Project (CRS-ITP), our office has classified
the civil registry documents in its archives into two. Those that
were converted into digital formats and are now loaded into the
computerized database are called converted documents while
those that are yet to undergo this process are called unconverted
documents. The converted documents can be released within the
day or the following day upon request.
For the unconverted documents, the requests are electronically
sent to Manila for verification. After verification, the completed
document requests are delivered through the postal system using
our franking privilege (Census-Free Postal mails). The delivery
period using this system is stretched and affects the schedule of
release of requested documents to our clients, especially for areas
outside Metro Manila.
After projecting the expected volume and distribution of
requests, NSO has concluded that a P10.00 increase in the fee will
allow for the use of a courier service to avail of a more speedy means
of document delivery, without having to pass the full burden of
faster service on to our clients. To make this feasible, documents
will be sent by groups using standard courier packet envelopes from
the central office to the regional Census Serbilis Centers.
Last June 10, 2002, the National Economic Development
Authority communicated to NSO the approval of the P10.00 increase
through the office of Deputy Director General Raphael Perpetou M.
Lotilla. Hence, the fee for unconverted document requests shall
APPENDIX 2 231
be increased from the current P60.00 to P70.00 per copy in all

our Census Serbilis Centers outside Metro Manila. The approved
increase is expected to defray the cost of sending the completed
documents from the NSO central office back to the field offices using
courier services.
This fee adjustment shall take effect on October 1, 2002. As
part of your responsibility, please reflect the newly approved rate of
P70.00 in the “Schedule of Fees” posted in your respective outlets.
The Regional Director concerned should countersign this notice
regarding the new rate and should be posted at the outlet beginning
September 13, 2002 to inform the public of the adjustment of fees.
For your immediate compliance.
January 27, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To : Regional Directors, Provincial Census Officers,

Accountants, Bookkeepers and Collecting Officers
From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA
Administrator
Subject : REVISED PROCEDURES IN THE REMITTANCE
AND REPORTING OF COLLECTIONS FROM
SALE OF CIVIL REGISTRY FORMS
In view of the fact that all NSO Provincial Offices can already
avail of the on-line deposit facility by Land Bank of the Philippines,
the following are the revised procedures in the remittance and
reporting of collections from sale of Civil Registry Forms:
1. All payments received from sale of Civil Registry forms
shall be issued Official Receipts and remitted intact the
following banking day through the nearest Land Bank
Branch, for on-line credit to the account of the Office of
the Civil Registrar General No. 1442-1003-02, LBP, UN
Avenue Branch.
2. Charges for on-line deposit, if any, shall be deducted from
the amount to be remitted. Payment for the bank service
fee will be reflected by the bank teller on the deposit slip.
3. The duplicate Official Receipt, Report of Collections and
Deposits (see attached form) and validated copy of the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
deposit slip shall be submitted to the Central Office, Attn.:

Accounting Division, within five days (5) days after the
reference month for the accounting of the transactions.
4. Centralized accounting including procurement and
payment of these forms is being done for the following
reasons:
• To avoid additional manpower and other incidental
expenses in handling forms.
• With the increase in the required bank maintaining
balance, the Office cannot afford to provide the
amount for every province/region.
• To facilitate the control and monitoring of accounts
payable and receivable accounts.
5. All one-way deposit accounts previously maintained with
Land Bank shall be closed. The balance including interest
earned shall be remitted to the OCRG account. Copy of
the bank statement or passbook shall be forwarded to
the Accounting Division for recording and reconciliation
purposes.
This takes effect immediately and shall remain enforced until
revoked or modified.
For your guidance and compliance.
REPORT OF COLLECTIONS AND DEPOSITS (RCD)

INSTRUCTIONS
A. This report shall be accomplished as follows:
1. Agency — name of the agency
2. Date — date covered by the report
3. Report No. — shall be numbered one series for each year
as follows:
00-00-000
Serial number (one series per year)

Month
Year
APPENDIX 2 233
4. Sheet No. — page number of the report which shall be

series for each month
5. Official Receipt Date — date of the Official Receipt or
Report of Collections by Sub-Collector
6. Official Receipt Number — serial numbers of the Official
Receipts issued by the Cashier or Sub-Collector including
the cancelled ones listed in numerical sequence
7. Responsibility Center Code — code assigned to each cost
center
8. Payor — name of the cashier/Sub-Collector
9. Particulars — details or nature of the collection
10. Amount — amount received per Official Receipt or per
report of Collections of the Sub-Collector
11. Certification — the certification shall be signed by the
Collecting Officer on the last sheet of the report after the
totals.
B. A summary shall be prepared below the last entry in the report
as follows:
Summary:
Undeposited Collections per last Report P xxxx.xx
Collections per OR Nos.--_____to_____ xxx.xx
Deposits:
Date:______________ P xxx.xx
Date:______________ P xxx.xx xxx.xx
xxxx.xx
C. This shall be prepared two (2) copies daily to be distributed as
follows:
Original — Accounting Division together with the duplicate
copy of the OR
Duplicate Copy — Cash Section/ Collecting Officers’ File
D. Collections should be deposited intact daily. The balance of
collections not deposited during the day to cut-off should be
deposited on the first banking hour of the next working day.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
To : All Regional Directors

From : (Sgd.) LOURDES J. HUFANA
OIC-Director, Civil Registry Department
Subject : AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURE TO BE AD-
OPTED AT THE REGIONAL CENSUS SERBILIS
CENTERS
This is to formalize the agreement made during the recent

Regional Conference regarding the authentication procedure to be
adopted at the Regional Census Serbilis Centers.
As per discussion, all Regional Serbilis Centers shall now follow
the authentication procedure enumerated below starting November
4, 2002.
1. Requests for authentication whose records are covered
by converted years (Converted) —
The process shall automatically proceed to copy issuance of the
requested birth record through CRS. If a certain request results to
a negative find, the certified true copy submitted by the requesting
party shall be used and the request shall undergo signature
verification using the CRS.
Please be informed that as of October 30, 2002, all birth
documents, from 1945 to 1999 including late registered, endorsements
and births which occurred outside the Philippines, are now converted
and now located in the production database.
The authentication fee is P110.00
2. Requests for authentication whose records are not
covered by the converted years (Unconverted) —
Authentication shall follow signature verification. No
verification of the document shall take place.
Authentication fee is P110.00
3. Requests for authentication of late registered docu-
ments —
These are forwarded electronically to CF for verification to
ensure that there are no duplicate records at NSO’s physical archives
and the CRS database. If NSO has a copy, a certified true copy is
issued. Otherwise, using the certified true copy submitted by the
party, signature verification using the CRS is followed.
APPENDIX 2 235
With the completion of the conversion and migration of timely

and late registered birth documents for the years 1945 to 1999 and
the endorsed documents, this procedure shall apply to late marriage
and death documents. For births, this procedure will apply to those
registered late in 2000 onwards.
Fee is P60.00.
Please be informed that the above-mentioned procedure is found
in the Job Aids for Request Service Officers and Outlet Supervisors
given to you.
26 November 2002
To : All Regional Directors/Outlet Supervisors

From : (SGD.) LOURDES J. HUFANA
Subject : NEW RATE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CIVIL REG-
ISTRY DOCUMENTS
Please be informed that effective 02 December 2002, NSO shall

implement the new rate for the issuance of certified true copies of
converted documents. For example, birth documents from 1945 to
1999 including late registrations, endorsements and foreign births,
shall be P 125.00 as approved by National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA).
The fee to be collected for the authentication of timely registered
documents, converted or unconverted, shall likewise be increased to
P125.00.
Attached herewith is a copy of the poster, as a notice to the public
on the increased rate for certification on civil registry documents.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE ADVISORY SCHEDULE OF

FEES
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 2, 2002
ISSUANCE OF CERTI- P 60.00

FIED COPIES AND AU- (Metro Manila)
THENTICATION OF:
• BIRTH
• MARRIAGE P 70.00
• DEATH (Outside Metro P 125.00
Manila)
CERTIFICATE OF NO P 110.00 Not Applicable
MARRIAGE (CENOMAR)
v SOURCE DOCUMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
NSO Administrator and Civil
Registrar General
December 28, 2002

To : All Regional Directors/OICs
OIC-Director; Civil Registry Department
Subject : RENEWAL OF CRASM
The implementation of the decentralized Solemnizing Officers

Information System (SOIS) dated October 4, 2002 allowed the NSO
Regional Offices to receive and process applications for renewal of
Certificate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage
granted by the religious heads to their members.
However, acceptance of applications and processing for renewal
of Certificate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage
(CRASM) belonging to a SECT of national coverage was still done by
the Central Office. Reason given was to allow the Regional Offices to
be familiar with the system and for CRD to clean the SOIS database.
These include:
APPENDIX 2 237
1. Roman Catholic Church

2. Iglesia ni Cristo
3. Iglesia Filipina Independiente
4. Luzon Convention of Southern Baptist Churches
5. North Philippine Union Mission of Seventh Day Adventist
6. Proclaim Christ Until He Comes Fellowship
7. Samahang Tagapaglaganap ng mga Iglesia ni Kristo
8. Jesus is Lord Fellowship
9. Jesus is Alive Community
10. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the Phils.
Please be informed that effective January 2, 2002, all Regional
Offices shall be allowed to receive and process the applications
for renewal of CRASM belonging to the above-mentioned SECTs.
Hence, the Central Office shall accept and process applications for
solemnizing officers who will register their authority for the first
time and those considered new applications only.
Cc: Adm. CARMELITA N. ERICTA

OIC-Deputy Adm. Paula Monina G. Collado
February 10, 2003

Memorandum Circular 03-01
To : All Civil Registrars/ Officers-in-Charge
Subject : OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE AT THE LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRY OFFICE
The Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) has observed

the increasing number of Local Civil Registry Offices (LCRO), which
have incumbent Local Civil Registrars, and yet the duties and
functions of the LCRO are performed by a designated Officer-In-
Charge (OIC).
The situation contemplates a case where a designated OIC
performs all functions of an LCR, except the provisions of R.A.
9048. The incumbent LCR who is not on leave or does not have any
administrative case filed against him, is detailed elsewhere, but
made to sign only, and/or process only R.A. 9048 petitions.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
This results in two personalities performing one function

creating a confusion for the public, and undermines the smooth flow
of operations of the system.
Civil registration is one undertaking made up of several fields.
The functions and duties arising from R.A. 9048 are merely additional
functions to those already existing at the local civil registry office
and with the LCR. They are not separate and distinct functions.
Therefore, it is not proper for an OIC referred to above, to perform
some of the functions of the office, while at the same time another
performs just R.A. 9048 functions.
This practice defeats the intent of R.A. 9048 which provides that
the head of the local civil registry system, effective immediately, the
OCRG will recognize the duly designated OIC as the valid occupant
of the LCRO. However, if circumstances of such designation not
fall under any of the exceptions allowing OICs to act on R.A. 9048
petitions, any and all such petitions emanating from the LCRO will
be impugned.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
03 April 2003
OIC-Director, Civil Registration Department
Subject : REITERATION OF MEMORANDUM DATED AU-
GUST 10, 2001 RE PRICE OF CIVIL REGISTRA-
TION FORMS
This is to reiterate that the new price of Municipal Forms 102,

103, 90, 97 and the attachments are as follows:
Certificate of Marriage — P 170.00/pad
Certificate of Live Birth — P 170.00/pad
Certificate of Death — P 170.00/pad
Application of Marriage — P 135.00/pad
Certificate of Foundling — P 90.00/pad
Fetal Death — P118.50/pad
APPENDIX 2 239
MUSLIM FORMS
Birth Attachment — P 45.00/pad
Death Attachment — P 45.00/pad
Marriage Attachment — P 45.00/pad
Copy Furnished: All NSO Regional Directors

All NSO Provincial Statistics Officers
26 June 2003
MEMORANDUM
To : All Regional Director/ Provincial Statistics Officers

Subject : REQUESTS MADE THROUGH E-MAILS, FAX
MESSAGES AND LETTERS/COMMUNICATIONS
NSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General
Effective immediately, all Regional and Provincial Offices with

Serbilis Centers are hereby instructed to stop sending applications
for certifications of birth, marriage, death and other documents
through e-mails, fax, and/ or letters/communications. All applications
filed in your office must be processed through the CRS.
On the other hand, all Provincial Offices which do not have
Serbilis Centers are advised to enter the applications using
BREQS.
Please be reminded that requests for Court Order, Legal
Instruments and Endorsements shall still be forwarded to the Central
Office, attention CRD while R.A. 9048 requests will be addressed
to the Administrator’s Office. However, the Central Office will not
accept follow-up on R.A. 9048 petitions. Please advise petitioners to
course their inquiry at the Local Civil Registry Office where they
filed the said petition.
For your information and strict compliance.
Thank you.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
5 July 2003
MEMORANDUM
To : All Regional Director/Provincial Statistics Officers
Administrator and Civil Registrar General
Subject : TRANSFER AND APPLICATIONS FOR AN-
NOTATED CIVIL REGISTRY DOCUMENTS
AFFECTED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRA-
TOR IN NSO-STA. MESA TO THE CIVIL REG-
ISTRY DEPARTMENT IN NSO-EDSA
1. Effective 16 July 2003, all applications for civil registry

documents in Security Paper (SECPA) that have been
processed under Republic Act No. 9048 shall be filed at:
Area A, Ground Floor, Vibal Building
NSO EDSA corner Times St.
2. Therefore, the requesting public may no longer file their
application for SECPA, at the Office of the Administrator
at NSO in Sta. Mesa starting July 16, 2003.
3. The fee for a copy of annotated SECPA is P 125.00
4. Please be reminded that the requirements for first time
requesters of annotated SECPA are the following C/
MCR-issued documents: a.) C/MCR and CRG approved
PETITION, b) Certificate of Finality, c) annotated
certificate, and d) original (un-annotated) certificate.
5. Together with the above-mentioned requirements and
the payment in Postal Money Order, all applications
coming from the field offices shall be sent to the following
address:
Lourdes J. Hufana
3/F Vibal Bldg., NSO EDSA cor Times St.
6. Please disseminate to your constituents and respective
C/MCRs
APPENDIX 2 241
MEMORANDUM
To : All Regional Directors/ Provincial Statistics Officers

Date : September 15, 2003
Subject : PROHIBITION OF CERTIFYING PHOTOCOPIES
OF NSO-ISSUED CIVIL REGISTRY DOCUMENTS
IN SECPA
It has come to our knowledge that there are clients requesting

NSO to certify photocopies of their civil registry documents,
allegedly true copies of previously issued documents in security
paper (SECPA). In most instances, clients were able to previously
secure a copy of the civil registry document from a Census Serbilis
Centers (CSCs) and are need of additional copies of the same.
The act of certifying a photocopy (Xerox) to be a true copy of the
record is well-intended but there remains the need to safeguard the
integrity of the documents we issue and stake our reputation upon.
If we certify the photocopy without direct verification from our own
database, we cannot say with certainty that the document presented
to us is genuine including the paper it was allegedly printed on.
While in all probability small, there is a possibility that tampering
or modification may have occurred.
To preserve the integrity of NSO-issued documents, the
practice of certifying photocopy is hereby disallowed. Clients are to
be advised to secure additional copies from any CRS outlet.
For your guidance and implementation.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
IN THE PHILIPPINES
4 November 2003
MEMORANDUM
For : All Employees at the Civil Registry Department Re-
gional Directors and Regional Serbilis Outlet Staff
Provincial Statistics Officers and Provincial Serbilis
Outlets
Subject : GUIDELINES IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
TO THE MEDIA
The Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) is considered

by the media and other agencies as the main source of reliable
information to establish identity and status of persons. This is
especially true for private individuals and public officials who are
the focus of intense media scrutiny.
To maintain the integrity of civil registry product and the
quality of our service, the following guidelines are formulated for
the information and strict compliance of all concerned. Violation of
these guidelines is tantamount to a violation of reasonable office
rules and regulations, and may subject the offender to administrative
penalties.
1. Unless accompanied by an express written clearance from
the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator or Director
of the Civil Registry Department (CRD) or their duly
authorized representatives, no personnel is authorized
to provide any information, whether verbal or otherwise,
pertaining to the civil status or identification of any
individual, to a representative of the media or agency. In
the case of field offices, such clearance shall be given by
the Regional Director (RD), Provincial Statistics Office
(PSO) or their duly authorized representatives.
2. Duly authorized representatives are limited to the Division
Chiefs of the CRD, or in the case of the Administrator
and Deputy Administrator, whoever shall be designated,
provided that in no case shall their salary grades be lower
than SG 18. For field offices, authorized representatives
shall be those designated by the RD or PSO, whose salary
grade should not be lower than SG 15. Designation orders
to this effect shall be issued by the proper official.
APPENDIX 2 243
3. No request from any media or other agency pertaining to

the above-mentioned cases shall be entertained unless it
is accompanied by a letter request from their respective
heads.
4. Official response to such requests shall be only through a
certification, the templates of which are attached to this
memorandum. Should a copy of the document be required,
an application must be filed and approved by the person
identified in Items 1 and 2, after which, general processing
and issuance procedures shall be followed.
5. Release of the official response shall be made only to the
same representative who filed the application or made
the request.
6. Copies of all such requests, certifications and documents
issued shall be kept on file at the OCRG for record
purposes.
4 January 2004
MEMORANDUM
For : ALL RDs/ PSOs/OICs
Administrator
Subject : NEW DECENTRALIZED VITAL STATISTICS SYS-
TEM
An updated Decentralized Vital Statistics System (DVSS2K)

will be implemented this year. Civil registry documents registered
starting January 2004 shall be processed using this new system.
DVSS2K is windows-based and is an interactive system from
processing of documents to preparation and matching of index fields
with scanned images for the CRS.
In this regard, the Central Office (CO) will conduct two levels
of five-day training (see Annex A) for CO employees, Regional
Statisticians and Provincial Representative with Assistant
Statistician level or higher. There will be five training centers in
the country for seven groups of trainees. Two representatives each
from the Civil Registration Department and Information Resources
Department will be trainers for the five-day training in each of the
Regional Training Centers.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The Regional Statisticians will serve as the Help Desk Officers

to document DVSS2K related problems and solutions provided to
POs in their respective regions and will be first to know and help
out in any problems encountered by the PO on DVSS2K operations.
The Provincial representative will be the processor or the immediate
supervisor of the DVSS2K processor/s.
Machines to be utilized in the training and eventually in the
operations will be delivered and assembled in the regional training
centers two or three weeks before the training (see Annex 2). In
the Visayas and Mindanao Areas, an employee of the Information
Technology Operations Division (TOD) will be going to each of the
regional center for the computer assembly with the help of the
computer technician of the host of the region.
Please provide the list of trainees from your region to the
Civil Registration Department not later than January 12, 2004 for
documentation purpose through e-mail at M.Espinoza@census.gov.
ph.
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 2004-01
January 8, 2004
To : All Local Civil Registrars
Consuls/DFA/DepEd/DOH/DSWD/DOJ/DOLE/
CHR/PNP
ARMM
OMA
UCP
Punong Barangays
National Barangay Operations Office
NSO Regional Directors/Provincial Statistics Offi-
cers/OICs
Subject : RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE REGISTRA-
TION OF BIRTHS OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF
SPECIAL PROTECTION (CNSP)
In addition to the procedures provided for in Administrative

Order No. 1, Series of 1993, (Implementing Rules and Regulations
of Act. No. 3753 and Other Laws on Civil Registration) the following
rules and regulations shall apply to all cases of Children In Need
APPENDIX 2 245
of Special Protection (CNSP) pursuant to Republic Act 610 (Special

Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act).
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to
their development;
WHEREAS, the best interest of children shall be the
paramount consideration in all actions concerning them, whether
undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts
of law, administrative authorities and legislative bodies consistent
with the principles of First Call for Children as enunciated in the
United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child;
WHEREAS, every effort therefore shall be exerted to promote
the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful
and happy life;
NOW, THEREFORE, the following rules and regulations
governing the registration of births of CNSP are hereby adopted.
Rule 1. Definition. Children in Need of Special Protection
(CNSP) shall refer to all persons below 18 years of age, or those 18
years old and over but are unable to take care of themselves because
of physical or mental disability or condition; who are vulnerable to
or are victims of abuse, neglect, exploitation, cruelty, discrimination
and violence (armed conflict, domestic violence) and other analogous
conditions prejudicial to their development. CNSP include but are
not limited to:
1. Sexually/physically-abused children;
2. Children in commercial sexual exploitation;
3. Children in conflict with the law;
4. Children involved in armed conflict;
5. Working children or victims of child labor;
6. Children in various circumstances of disability;
7. Displaced children/refugee children;
8. Children directly affected by Human Immuno-deficiency
Virus (HIV/Sexual Transmitted Infections/Diseases (STI/
D);
IN THE PHILIPPINES
9. Street children;
10. Children in substance abuse;
11. Mentally challenged children; and
12. Abandoned children/ children without primary caregiver.
Rule 2. Persons Responsible to Register CNSP. Imme-
diately after finding a CNSP, the finder shall report the incident
to the Punong Barangay of the place where the CNSP was found/
rescued, and to the nearest Police Headquarters/authorities.
Thereafter, the finder with the assistance of the Punong Barangay
or the police authority shall facilitate the commitment of the child to
the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), or to
a duly licensed and accredited orphanage or charitable institution.
In case the finder is given custody of the child, he shall cause the
registration of the child.
Any government institution or non-government organization
(NGO) licensed and accredited by DSWD which is in custody of
CNSP or who possesses any information about the CNSP shall cause
the registration of the birth.
Rule 3. Place of Registration and Reglementary Period.
The registration of CNSP shall be made in the Local Civil Registry
Office (LCRO) where the child was born, if known. If the place of
birth is unknown, the registration shall be made in the place where
the child was found, or in the residence of the custodian.
The registration shall be made sixty (60) days from the date
of the actual custody of the child, except during armed conflicts,
emergencies, natural calamities and other difficult circumstances, in
which case registration shall be made (60) days, after the cessation
thereof. Failure of the custodian to register the child within the
reglementary period shall make him liable under existing laws.
Rule 4. Requirements for the Registration of CNSPs.
The following requirements shall be complied with for the
registration of birth of a CNSP:
1. Certification of no birth record (Negative Certification)
from the OCRG
2. Certification from DSWD that the child is a CNSP
indicating the following information:
a. Name of the child;
APPENDIX 2 247
b. Sex of the child;

c. Date of birth;
d. Place of birth;
e. Name of al least one parent; and
f. Citizenship of parent/s
For unfilled items in the Certificate of Live (COLB) the word
“Unknown” is acceptable.
The approximate date of birth of the child may be certified by
medical/dental practitioners as proof of age.
Rule 5. Fees. No fees and other related charges such as
processing fees and/or penalties shall be imposed on the registration
of births of CNSPs.
Rule 6. Multiple Registration. In case of multiple registration
of CNSPs, the first registration shall prevail. Appropriate
annotation shall be indicated by the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) in
the Remarks portion of the Municipal Form 102 stating that the
child was “PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED ON (date/place)’’ with a
corresponding registration number.
Rule 7. Regular Reporting. The LCR shall submit the list
of registered CNSPs to DSWD and OCRG every tenth day of the
month.
Rule 8. Annotations on the COLB. The COLB shall bear
the annotation that the registration is done pursuant to this
Memorandum Circular.
This Memorandum Circular shall take effect on January 15,
2004.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
IN THE PHILIPPINES
October 8, 2004


Subject : GUIDELINES ON SECURING COPIES OF DOCU-
MENTS AFFECTED BY R.A. NO. 9255 FROM THE
OCRG
Please be informed that effective October 1, 2004 the Civil

Registration Department shall observe the following:
a.) The new office hours at NSO-EDSA is from 7:30 AM to
4:30 PM. Only clients who are inside the premises on or
before 4:30 shall be served.
b.) Workdays will be from Monday to Friday only.
c.) Overtime services shall be for Monday to Friday only after
office hours.
There shall be no work on Saturdays.
For your information.
cc. Civil Registration Department
All C/MCRs
File
APPENDIX 2 249
October 11, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To : All Local Civil Registrars/ Officers-in-Charge
Subject : USE OF BIRTH REFERENCE NUMBER (BREN)
GENERATED THROUGH THE CIVIL REGISTRY
SYSTEM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJ-
ECT (CRIS-ITP) REPLACING THE POPULATION
REFERENCE NUMBER (PRN)
This is to reiterate the attached memorandum with Reference

No. 00CRD00-795 issued on December 19, 2000 which provides
that the Population Reference Number (PRN) in the Certificates of
Live Birth will no longer be generated from the year 2001 onwards.
The Civil Registry System Information Technology Project (CRS-
ITP) has replaced the PRN with the generation of Birth Reference
Number (BReN).
It is observed that some Local Civil Registrars are still
submitting reports using the PRN. Please be informed that this is
no longer required.
For your information and compliance.
All NSO Regional Directors and Provincial Statistics Officers
File
IN THE PHILIPPINES
October 18, 2004

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 04-12
To : All Local Civil Registrars/ Officers-in-Charge

Subject : CLARIFICATION ON THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255
Under Rule 2.1 of Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2004

(Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255),
public document is defined as “affidavits of recognition executed by
the father such as the Affidavit of Admission of Paternity or the
Affidavit of Acknowledgement”.
The definition of public document as provided by the Supreme

Court, however, is not limited to the two affidavits mentioned.
Specifically, a public document is a document to the execution of
which a person in authority or notary public takes part (Bermeho
vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764). In addition, the Rules of Court (Section
19, Rule 132) also provided examples of public documents. Annex A
of this circular provides a list of examples of public document.
For purposes of R.A. No. 9255, the definition of public document
is hereby changed to include those enumerated in Annex a, provided
that in such document, the paternity of the father to the child is
clearly shown.
File
THE FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC DOCU-

MENTS
Section 19, Rule 132, Rules of Court
1. Written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
APPENDIX 2 251
public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign

country;
2. Documents acknowledge before a notary public, except
last wills and testaments; and
3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to be entered therein.
Supreme Court Rulings

1. Any instrument notarized by a notary public or a
competent public official with the solemnities required by
law.
2. Blank forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippines in
accordance with Act 90 of the Philippine Commission.
3. Official receipts prescribed by the governments to be
issued upon receipts of money for public purposes.
4. A cashbook of a public official in which entries are made
of account of public moneys received.
5. An official receipt printed in accordance with standard
forms.
6. A copy of the record of possesory information, the original
of which was filed in the registry of property, partakes
of the character of a judicial proceeding and of a public
document.
7. Legislative acts.
8. Civil service examination papers are public documents
because they form part of the documents on the files of
the civil service.
9. A cedula or certificate.
10. Certificate of land registration.
11. Personnel information sheet of the NBI.
12. All documents acknowledgement by a notary public and
certified to by him are considered public document in this
jurisdiction.
13. Transcript of stenographic notes taken during a hearing
by an official court stenographer.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
14. Pleadings filed in court.

15. Index cards of the civil service containing data about a
civil service employee, including his passing of the civil
service, his appointments, service records.
16. All records of the civil register.
November 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To : All Regional Directors

Subject : NSO FEES TO BE IMPOSED IN BREQS TRANS-
ACTIONS
The Batch Request Entry System (BREQS) is an of-line

application software designed for use by NSO-authorized partners
in managing applications for certifications and copy issuance of civil
registry documents.
For BREQS application at the LGUs, the following fees shall
be collected:
Php125.00 for copy issuance of birth, marriage and death
certificate.
Php160.00 for issuance of CENOMAR Please be informed
that the LGU may charge additional fees as allowed by their local
ordinance.
BREQS processing for copy issuance of birth, marriage and
death certificate is three days while for CENOMAR request, nine
days, exclusive of delivery time.
For your guidance.
cc. Civil Registration Department File
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
Administrator, National Statistics Office
APPENDIX 2 253
January 21, 2005
MEMORANDUM

Subject : CIVIL REGISTRATION MONTH (FEBRUARY
2005)
In accordance with Proclamation No. 682, issued by President

Corazon C. Aquino on 19 January 1991, February is Civil
Registration Month. This year we will celebrate this with theme
“Pangalan ko, Karapatan ko.” One of the highlights of this year’s
celebration is the launching of the Global Campaign on Universal
Birth Registration (UBR). UNICEF together with international non-
government organizations such as Plan International spearheads
this campaign. Since the Birth Registration Project (BRP) is in its
preliminary stage, this is the best time to promote the project as
well. An intense information dissemination and education drive
through tri-media (TV, Radio and Newspaper) nationwide shall be
administered. Apart from this, we encourage all Regional Directors,
Provincial Statistics Officers and Local Civil Registrars to conduct
the following activities:
Mobile Registration
All Local Civil Registry Offices in coordination with the
Provincial Statistics Officers may conduct the mobile registration. The
City/Municipal Civil Registrars are requested to initiate the passing
of a resolution from their respective Sangguniang Bayan declaring
February 7-11, 2005 as Mobile Registration Week. The Provincial
Statistics Officers may also coordinate with the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan for the enactment of a similar resolution.
Display of Streamers
The display of streamers in all field offices of NSO-Office of the
Civil Registrar General and Local Civil Registry Offices has been
institutionalized to promote awareness on the Civil Registration
Month. The streamers are usually solicited from commercial firms
who take the occasion as an opportunity for advertisement. The
theme of the celebration should be clearly printed on the streamer.
(Attached is the standard format of the streamer)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Charitable Activity
One of the most rewarding feelings is to be to share what you
have without expecting something in return. Since, February is
celebrated as the love month, we may also consider having Charitable
Activity during this celebration. Local Civil Registry Offices and
NSO-OCRG Field Offices may choose their target institution.
Free Issuance of Certifications

Free issuance of certifications by all Local Civil Registry Offices
in connection with Civil Registration Month is one of the essential
activities that directly benefit the general public. If possible, we
suggest that this be done on the 23 of February as a support to the
global campaign on Universal Birth Registration (UBR). For this
activity to be effective, the Local Civil Registry Offices shall officially
inform their respective officials (members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, the Mayor and the City/Municipal Treasurer) that the free
issuance of certifications is a yearly activity in connection with
Civil Registration Month. In the past years and for some local
government units, a resolution from the Sangguniang Bayan was
passed authorizing the City/Municipal Civil Registrars to issue
certifications of birth, death and marriage free of charge. The same
way may be done this year, if necessary.
Other Relevant Activities

For other activities relevant to this celebration, the NSO field
offices and the Local Civil Registry Offices are given the discretion
to determine which activities can be undertaken in their respective
localities. These activities could be motorcade, mass wedding,
symposium, information/education campaign, slogan contest, etc.
We are also attaching herewith the schedule of activities to be
conducted by NSO-CRD Manila.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
NSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General
cc: Regional Directors

APPENDIX 2 255
10 February 2005


OCRG
The following guidelines are issued to ensure a standard

procedure in securing copies of OCRG-annotated documents
resulting from the provisions of R.A. No. 9255:
A. FOR PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED COLB
1. Applicants may be advised to file their requests for copies

of annotated civil registry documents resulting from the
provisions of R.A. No. 9255 at:
NSO-EDSA
Area A, Ground Floor, Vibal Building
EDSA corner Times Street
2. Requests may also be coursed through the NSO Regional/
Provincial Office, which shall facilitate the filing of requests.
3. Requests filed at the NSO Regional/Provincial Offices should be
forwarded together with the payment in Postal Money Order
to the NSO Civil Registration Department with the following
address:
Dir. Lourdes J. Hufana
Director III, Civil Registration Department
3/F Vibal Building
Subject: RA 9255
4. First time requests for annotated documents must be
accompanied by the following documents:
IN THE PHILIPPINES
a. Certified true copy of the unannotated COLB

b. Certified true copy of the annotated COLB
c. Certified true copy of the Public Document/Private
Handwritten Instrument, if applicable
d. Certified true copy of the Affidavit to Use the Surname of
the Father, if applicable
5. The above requirements need not be submitted for subsequent
requests.
6. Requests for annotated documents under these rules, the
applicant should indicate in the application form that the
request concerns R.A. No. 9255.
7. The processing fee for a copy of annotated document from NSO
is P125.
B. FOR NEWLY REGISTERED COLB
Newly registered COLBs affected by R.A. No. 9255, whether

timely or delayed, are included in the regular submissions of the
LCROs to NSO Provincial Offices.
1. Requests for copies of these COLBs maybe filed at any Census
Serbilis Outlets.
2. If the requested documents have not been enrolled in the CRS
database, these will be treated as unconverted and will follow
the same procedures for securing unconverted documents.
Cc: Civil Registration Department
All NSO Department Directors
File
APPENDIX 2 257
MEMORANDUM
To : All RDs/PSOs/MCRs
Subject : FREE BIRTH REGISTRATION OF CHILDREN IN
NEED OF SPECIAL PROTECTION (CNSP)
Date : August 1, 2005
It is the policy of the State to promote the welfare of the

children. As stated in the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603),
“every effort should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance
his opportunities for a useful and happy life.”
Children in Need of Special Protection (CNSP) includes
dependent, abandoned and neglected children whose parental
authority has been transferred to the care of suitable/accredited
person or institution.
In accordance with Presidential Decree No. 326 (sic) issued
by then President Fidel V. Ramos on February 14, 1994 and with
the Memorandum of Agreement entered into with the League of
Municipalities on October 14, 2002, we advocate and encourage that
all City/Municipal Civil Registrars (C/MCRs) shall facilitate the
registration of CNSPs free of charge.
We reiterate the need to strengthen the effective civil
registration of these CNSPs. The NSO-OCRG supports free birth
registration of CNSPs provided they have complied with the
Certificate of Indigency issued by the Department of Social Welfare
and Development.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
IN THE PHILIPPINES

OCRG
Date : August 1, 2005
The Re-verification (RV) Tracking Utility of CRS is a facility

in the Serbilis Outlets mainly used to track a processed transaction
which was electronically sent to the Special Request Unit (SRU) or
Vibal for re-verification.
The following guidelines are hereby promulgated to ensure a
uniform procedure in sending documents to CRD for RV:
a. Who are allowed to use the RV Tracking Utility?
Only NSO Serbilis Centers Personnel are allowed to
use the RV Tracking Utility of CRS. For online field
offices, documents for RV shall be sent to their respective
Regional Offices for processing. The process of Electronic
Endorsement shall be followed in sending requests for RV
at CRD.
b. When is re-verification applicable?
v A copy issuance or CENOMAR transaction yielded
a negative result in the CRD database, but upon
verification in the CRQS database (old NSO
database), yielded a positive match. (POSITIVE IN
THE CRQS)
v A copy issuance/authentication transaction resulted
in a positive result but the image is blurred/
unreadable. (BLURRED/UNREADABLE IMAGE)
v A copy issuance/authentication transaction yielded
negative in both CRS and CRQS database, but the
client is able to show personal copy of the document.
(WITH PERSONAL COPY)
v A copy issuance/authentication transaction resulted
in a positive result but the document does not
APPENDIX 2 259
have the proper annotation. (WITHOUT PROPER

ANNOTATION)
c. What cases are outside the scope of the RV Tracking
Utility?
v The client was issued a negative certification done
through manual process (unconverted) and has
undergone the process of endorsement.
v The client was issued a copy of the document with
blurred/unreadable entries verified through the
manual process (unconverted) and has undergone
the process of endorsement.
v The client was issued an “Exception Notice”
certification and has followed the instructions set
forth in the “Exception Notice”.
d. For cases in Item C, how will the documents be sent to
CRD?
The document/certification issued by CRD together
with the necessary supporting documents which can help
in the retrieval of the proper document shall be forwarded
to CRD using the following address:
EDITHA R. ORCILLA
Chief, Document Management Division
Re: Document for RV
e. How will the result of the re-verification be transmitted
back to the requesting client?
SRU, Vibal shall return of re-verification to the
Servicing Outlets, which in turn shall transmit the
documents to the transmitting field office/client. Servicing
Outlets are on-line Regional and Provincial CRS Outlet
where original copies of endorsement/piecemeal documents
are accepted for processing. It is also responsible in using
copy of the approved endorsement/piecemeal in CRS
paper.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
21 June 2005
To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars/Consuls Gener-

al
Subject : CLARIFYING SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 9048 (PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT FOR
CHANGE OF FIRST NAME)
Pursuant to Section 2 of the Civil Registry Law (Act No. 3753 as

amended by the Local Government Code of 1991), this Memorandum
Circular is hereby issued to clarify the application of Section 5 of
R.A. No. 9048, particularly the form to be used in compliance with
the publication requirement of petition for change of first name
(CFN).
Section 5 of R.A No. 9048 provided that the petition to be
published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation.
It appears that some petitions for CFN are denied by C/MCRs
on the ground of non-compliance with the publication requirement of
the law i.e. for not publishing the petition for CFN itself (Forms Nos.
4.1 and 4.2). Some C/MCRs insist that the petition itself (Forms Nos.
4.1 and 4.2) should be published and not the Notice of Publication
(Form No. 10.0 and 10.2).
Section 5 of R.A. 9048 should not be interpreted to limit
publication only to Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2. The term “petition should
be liberally construed to refer to “act” of petitioning for the change of
name, and not the pleading itself.
In Section 3 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, the law which
applies to petitions for change of name prior to the approval of
R.A. No. 9048, the court allows the publication of order reciting
the purpose of the petition with the date and place of hearing. The
contents of the entire pleading are not published.
APPENDIX 2 261
Taking into consideration the above interpretation and the

high cost of publication, petitions for CFN shall be granted/affirmed
upon substantial compliance with the publication requirement
under Section 5 of R.A. 9048.
Further, Forms Nos. 10.1 and 10.2 (Notice of Publication) notify
all persons adversely affected by the petition to file their written
opposition with the Local Civil Registrar or Consular Office abroad.
This notice is not provided in Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2.
Petitions for CFN denied by the C/MCR for using Forms Nos.
10.1 and 10.2 can file an Appeal as provided under R.A. 9048.
This Memorandum Circular takes effect immediately.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
cc. Department of Foreign Affairs

Civil Registry Department
All Regional Directors/OIC
All NSO Provincial Statistics Officer/OIC
June 28, 2005

To : All Regional Directors/Provincial Statistics Officers/

OICs
Subject : REGISTRATION OF THE AUTHORITY TO SOL-
EMNIZE MARRIAGE
1. Effective 01 July 2005, applications for Certificate of

Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) of new
solemnizing officers as well as applications for renewal
of authority to solemnize marriage shall be filed at their
respective NSO Provincial Offices (POs).
New Solemnizing Officers include those who apply
for the first time, those whose authority to solemnize
marriage has already expired but did not file for renewal
within the prescribed period which is on or before the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
31st of December of the third year and those who changed

religious sect.
The PO shall subject all applications to preliminary
quality check and conduct investigation if necessary.
After the preliminary checks, new applications shall be
forwarded to the NSO-OCRG for processing and issuance
of CRASM. Application for renewal shall be forwarded to
NSO Regional Office (RO) for processing and issuance of
CRASM.
2. Effective 01 January 2006, all applications whether
new or renewal shall be sent by the POs to the ROs for
processing and issuance of CRASM.
The OCRG shall be responsible in the keeping,
maintenance and preservation of the register of all
Solemnizing Officers.
For your guidance and strict compliance.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
April 8, 2005
Subject : CENOMAR AS REQUIREMENT FOR LEGITIMA-
TION
It has been observed that documents for legitimation submitted

and endorsed by the City/Municipal Civil Registrars (C/MCRs) to
the PCRG have been processed and allowed for legitimation without
checking whether the parents have been previously married. The
CENOMAR is hereby made an additional requirement to prevent
instances of approving legitimation of children particularly with
parents either of whom has as existing valid marriage with another
person.
Under Rule 66(2) of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993,
“only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parent/s who,
APPENDIX 2 263
at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified

by any impediment to marry each other, may be legitimated. Since
previous marriage is an impediment to remarry, legitimation shall
not prosper.
In this respect, the concerned C/MCR may require the parties
applying for legitimation to present a CENOMAR. The CENOMAR
shall become an additional requirement before annotating the COLB
of the child. This is to make sure that the parent/s of the child whose
legitimation is being sought is free from a previous marriage.
For your guidance.
cc: All Regional Directors
2 January 2005
Ms. Olivia Gulla
Regional Director
NSO-CAR
Dear RD Gulla:
This refers to your fax letter regarding the case raised by Mr.
George Gunday, Municipal Civil registrar of Balbalan, whose first
name appears as “BOY” in the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of
one Aldrin Bagne.
Please be informed that the opinion cited in the letter (Ref. No.
04GAD06-386) assumed that the birth of Mr. Aldrin Bagne occurred
in 1993 or thereafter. However per attached birth certificate, the
birth occurred in 1972, prior to the effectivity of Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 1993. Given this, the name “BOY” was consi-
dered as descriptive word as embodied in Administrative Order No.
3, Series of 1942, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1975 and
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983. As such, a supplemental
report is appropriate in this case to supply the true name in the
COLB.
We hope to have clarified the issue further. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
Administrator
IN THE PHILIPPINES
cc: Director Lourdes Hufana

All NSO Regional Director
Mr. George Gunday, MCR, Balbalan, Kalinga
October 17, 2005
Mr. Marieto M. Tan, Sr.

League President
League of City/Municipal Civil Registrars of
Misamis Occidental, Incorporated
Clarin, Misamis Occidental
Dear Mr. Tan:
This refers to Resolution No. 2005-005 of the League of City/
Municipal Civil Registrars of Misamis Occidental for the indefinite
suspension of the implementation of Memorandum Circular No.
2005-01 issued by our Office making CENOMAR a requirement for
legitimation.
To clear the issue on this Memorandum Circular, we would
like to particularly refer you to the third paragraph of the same.
Please note the word “may” in the sentence herein. We used the
word “may” to reiterate that this requirement is not mandatory but
provides an option to the C/MCR to require the parties to present
the CENOMAR in applying for legitimation.
In the second sentence of the same paragraph. Please note that
we used the word “shall”. This means that when the parties submit
the CENOMAR or when the C/MCR requires the submission of such
document, it automatically becomes a requirement for legitimation.
Very truly yours,
LOURDES J. HUFANA
Director, Civil Registration Department
cc: Mr. Salvador A. Aves

Regional Director, National Statistics Office
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
APPENDIX 2 265
January 6, 2006
Dr. Salvador A. Aves
Regional Director
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
Dear Mr. Aves:
This refers to your query on whether Memorandum Circular
90-04 on delayed registration of births of illegitimate children needs
approval of the Civil Registrar General is still in effect?
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, has expressly
superseded Memorandum Circular 90-04, specifically in Rule 25.
There maybe some similar provisions between the two but under
the Statutory Rule of laws, “the latter law supersedes the other”.
Further, all provisions of the said Memorandum Circular has been
extensively covered by Administrative Order No. 1.
As to the application of R.A. 9255 in cases of delayed
registration, we have already reiterated that the law covers births
occurring during the enactment of the Family Code. A child, if born
within the effectivity of the Family Code and was late registered
shall follow the rule on delayed registration and shall immediately
use the surname of the father, if acknowledged pursuant to R.A.
9255.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LOURDES J. HUFANA

Director, Civil Registration Department
IN THE PHILIPPINES
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 2007 – 004
February 7, 2007
To : City/Municipal Civil Registrars and Officers-in-

Charge
Subject : GUIDELINES IN PREPARING AND ISSUING
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Rule 11 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993 (A.O. 1)

provides the guidelines in preparing a supplement report at the local
civil registry office. The specific provisions in A.O. 1 are reiterated
and additional guidelines are issued to ensure the uniformity of
procedures being implemented by all local civil registrars and
personnel.
The following are the guidelines:
1. A supplemental report is used to supply entries or
information in the Certificate of Live Birth, Certificate
of Marriage, Certificate of Death, and Certificate of
Fetal Death, which are inadvertently omitted when the
document was registered.
2. However, the “Medical Certificate” in the Certificate of
Death and all applicable certifications contained in the
Certificate of Marriage should be accomplished completely
before registration. Hence, no supplemental report having
reference to the mentioned certificates is acceptable. [A.O.
1 a, Rule 11 (1)]
3. The supplemental report shall not be used in any manner
to change or to correct any entry, which was previously
entered in the civil register, or to circumvent the provisions
of Article 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which
prohibits any change or correction of an entry in the civil
register without judicial order. [A.O. 1, Rule 11(2)]
This rule still applies with the enactment of Republic
Act 9048, which amended Article 412.
4. The civil registrar shall accept only one supplemental
report for more than two omitted information in any
APPENDIX 2 267
registered event. In cases where there are more than two

omitted information, all papers related thereto shall be
forwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar General.
[A.O. 1, Rule, 11(13)]
Cases which need to be referred to the Office of the
Civil Registrar General (OCRG) shall be submitted to
the:
Attn. Ms. Editha R. Orcilla
Vibal Bldg., corner Times St. and EDSA
5. The OCRG shall provide the feedback to the civil
registrar regarding the result of the submitted case/
s of supplemental report for more than two omitted
information within fifteen days after receipt of the cases.
Feedback means whether the case/s raised have been
approved or disapproved. Whenever necessary, follow-up
on the results of the cases may be through the following
email addresses:
to: E. Orcilla@census.gov.ph
cc: C. Ericta@census.gov.ph, L. Hufana@census.gov.ph
6. Pending approval by the OCRG on supplemental report
cases with more than two omitted information, the
local civil registry offices should refrain from effecting
the supplemental report and from issuing civil registry
documents with supplemental report to the client.
7. The supplemental report may be filed by the parents/
guardian or the party concerned, if of age, who shall
execute an affidavit indicating the entry/entries missed in
the registration and the reason/s why there was a failure
in supplying the required entry. [A.O. 1, Rule 11 (4)]
8. Ensure that the following requirements are complied
with:
• Affidavit for supplemental report indicating the
facts of events like name/s of the documents owner/s,
date and place of event, entry/entries, omitted, and
reason/s for failure to supply the missing information
at the time of registration;
IN THE PHILIPPINES
• Certified copy of the document with the omitted

entry/entries;
• Supplemental report using the appropriate form as
stated in guideline # 9;
• Certified copy of the Certificate of Marriage of the
parents of the document owner, if document affected
is a Certificate of Live Birth.
9. Upon receipt of the requirements stated in the guidelines
# 8 above, the local civil registry office shall prepare the
supplemental report using the appropriate form, that
is, Certificate of Live Birth, Certificate of Marriage,
Certificate of Death, or Certificate of Fetal Death,
whichever is appropriate.
The omitted entry/entries shall be entered in the
appropriate space/s in the said forms in addition to the
following items:
• Certificate of Live Birth/Certificate of Death/
Certificate of Fetal Death
Province
City/Municipality
Registry Number
Name of the Document Owner
Informant
Prepared By
Received at the Office of the Civil Registrar
• Certificate of Marriage
Names of the contracting parties
Received at the Office of the Civil Registrars
10. The Affidavit for supplemental report shall not be
registered in the Registry Book for Legal Instruments.
For control purposes, the registry number of the civil
registry document affected by the supplemental report
should be transcribed on the upper right hand portion of
the Affidavit.
11. Correspondingly, the following shall also be written under
the Remarks column of the Civil Register:
“With Supplemental Report, prepared by (complete
name of the person who prepared the supplemental
APPENDIX 2 269
report) on (date of entry of the supplemental report) for

(omitted entry/entries).”
12. The local civil registry office shall issue a certified copy or
transcription of the document bearing the effects of the
supplemental report. Said certified copy shall be marked
“with Supplemental Report” to be written on the upper
right hand portion of the document.
13. The local civil registry office shall submit certified true
copies of the following documents to the OCRG
• Copy of the Affidavit for Supplemental Report
• Copy of the supplemental report
• Copy of the document with omitted entry/entries
• Copy of the document bearing the effects of
the supplemental report with the mark “With
Supplemental Report”
The above shall be submitted to the:
Attn: Ms. Editha R. Orcilla
Vibal Bldg., cor. Times St. and EDSA
Subject: Supplemental Report
For your compliance.
To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars Consuls Gener-

al
Subject : MIDDLE NAME AND MIDDLE INITIAL IN THE
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH
Date : February 13, 2007
For the information of all concerned, this Memorandum

Circular is hereby adopted in response to various queries relative to
the proper use of middle name and middle initial. This will ensure
uniformity in recording civil registry documents.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Please be informed that in the birth registration procedures

the City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) shall require the infor-
mant to fill-up the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) completely, i.e.,
the child’s first, middle and last name. Illegitimate children, may,
however, opt to have or not have a middle name. In case the infor-
mant provides for the middle name the entry maybe as follows:
“a. The mother’s maiden surname, if the child is legitimate;
b. The mother’s maiden middle name, if the child is
illegitimate, was born on or before 3 August 1988 and was
acknowledged only by the mother;
c. The mother’s middle name, if the child is illegitimate and
was born after 3 August 1988;
d. The father’s middle name, if the child is illegitimate and
was acknowledged only by the father;
e. The mother’s middle name, if the child is illegitimate and
neither parent acknowledged the child.”
(page 15, Instructions Manual Civil Registry Forms/Accomplishment
and Coding, Office of the Civil Registrar General)
Once registered, the first, middle and last names entered in
the COLB becomes the permanent name of the child. The same may
only be changed of corrected under RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) or
under the proper court as the case may be.
If the informant supplied the middle name in the COLB, all
entries therein become the middle name of the child. For compound
middle names such as dela Cruz, de la Cruz, del Rosario and de
Guzman, the preposition dela, de la, del and de form part of the
middle name. As such, the first letter of the said preposition which
is “D” becomes the middle initial. However, it should be noted that
what was asked in COLB is middle name and not middle initial,
hence, the complete middle name should be entered in the COLB.
Similarly, for compound middle names such as Lopez Vito,
Palma Gil, Sta. Rosa and San Buenaventura, the middle initial shall
be the first letter of the compound name which is L, P, and S as the
case maybe.
This Memorandum Circular applies without prejudice to
existing rules for registration of Muslim Filipinos and Indigenous
Peoples.
For your guidance.
APPENDIX 2 271
To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars Consuls Gener-

al
Subject : GUIDELINES IN FILING THE APPROPRIATE
PETITION INVOLVING THE USE OF JR., II, III
AND THE LIKES UNDER RA 9048
Date : February 13, 2007
The following illustrated cases serve as guidelines in the filing

of appropriate petition involving the use of Jr., II, III and the like.
The Civil Code of the Philippines provides:
“Article 375 — In case of identity of names and surnames

between ascendants and descendants, the word “Junior” can be
used only by a son. Grandsons and other direct male descendant
shall either:
1. Add a middle name or the mother’s surname, or
2. Add the Roman numerals, II, III and so on.”
Further, Rule 11 of Administrative Order No. 1 series of 1993,
otherwise known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act
No. 3753, provides:
“Rule 11 (1) — A supplemental report using the appropriate
form maybe filed to supply information inadvertently omitted
when the document was registered. xxx.”
(2) — The supplemental report shall not be used in any
manner to change or to correct any entry which was previously
entered in the civil register or to circumvent the provision of
Article 412 of the Civil Code (or Republic Act No. 9048)..”
Based on the foregoing laws, and rules, the illustrated cases and
the guidelines in the proper course of action to take care provided as
follows:
CASE NO. 1. The word Jr. is inadvertently omitted in the child’s

first name in Certificate of Live Birth (COLB).
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Example:
Name of Child in COLB Name of Father

Juanito Juanito
The additional name “Jr.” was not entered (omitted) in the

COLB to distinguish the father from the child. The petitioner may
apply for supplemental report under Rule 11 of AO No. 1, Series
of 1993, we considered the first name “Baby Boy” and “Baby Girl”
as if names were omitted, hence these are cases falling under the
procedure of supplemental report in 1993, onwards the entry “Baby
Girl or Boy” were considered as an entry in name, hence, can be
filed as a petition as a petition for correction of entry under RA 9048
(Clerical Error Law).
CASE NO. II. The additional name “JR.” was erroneously entered
in the COLB as part of the child’s first name but the father’s first
name is different from the child. “JR.” can be considered erroneously
entered.
Example:

Ramon, Jr. Ramoncito
Thus, the proper petition to be filed is a petition for correction

(CCE) of child’s first name to delete “Jr.” as provided under Republic
Act 9048.
If the petitioner wants to correct the father’s first name from
Ramoncito to Ramon, the proper petition to be filed is the petition
for correction of clerical error (CCE) in the father’s first name under
RA 9048.
CASE NO. III. The Roman numeral “II” (instead of Jr.) is
inadvertently placed as part of the child’s first name in the COLB.
Example:

Mario II Mario
APPENDIX 2 273
Under this case, the additional name to be entered should be

Jr. not II. A petition for correction of clerical error is proper under
this case.
CASE NO. IV. The Roman numeral “III, IV” and so on was added to
the first name of the child without any other previous or older child
using the additional name “JR”.
Example:

Tirso III Tirso
The first name of the child is registered with Roman numeral

“III” but the father’s first name is the same as that of the child.
Under this case, the petitioner may file a petition for correction of
clerical error to correct III to Jr.
CASE NO. V. The additional name “JRA” or the use of Roman

numeral II was inadvertently placed in the child’s name who is a
female.
Example:

Julie Jra./Julie II Julie
There is no legal basis for a daughter or other female

descendants to use the additional name “JRA” or placing any Roman
numeral with their first names. Article 375 of the Civil Code applies
only to the “son”, grandson”, or “other direct descendants”.
The proper petition to be filed is a petition for Change of First
Name (CFN) under RA 9048.
CASE NO. VI. If the name of the child is written in full as “JUNIOR”
and it is to be changed to short “JR” and vice-versa, the proper
petition to be filed should be a petition for CFN.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Example:
Name of Child in COLB

From To
Junior Jr.
Ric, Jr. Ric Junior
CASE NO. VII. If the additional name Sr./Jr., is to be entered in the

father’s name either in the COLB and Certificate of Marriage (CM)
the same must be subjected to the filing of a petition for correction of
clerical error (CCE) under RA 9048 and not through the procedures
of supplemental report under A.O. 1 s. 1993 provided the Sr./Jr.
appear in the father’s COLB.
Example: Father’s first name is to be corrected.
Name of Child in COLB

From To
Carlo Cruz Carlo Cruz Jr.
Carlo Cruz Carlo Cruz Sr.

275
Appendix 3
DOJ OPINIONS
OPINION 73, S. 2005
Manila
February 28, 2005
Administrator
P.O. Box 779 Manila
Madam:
stated therein relating to the effect/s, if any, of the provisions of
Article 7 of Executive Order No. 209,1 as amended, upon the pertinent
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1083,2 Article of E.O. No. 209,
as amended, in part, reads:
xx xx;
or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general,
acting within the limits of the written authority granted him
by church or religious sect xxx;
xx xx3
1
Entitled “The Family Code of the Philippines,” promulgated on July 6, 1987.
2
Also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines”, issued
on Feb. 4, 1977.
3
Op. cit., stress supplied.
275
IN THE PHILIPPINES

18 of P.D. No. 1083 which pertinently provide, to wit:
Art. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. — Marriage
may be solemnized:
competent under Muslim law to solemnize marriage or;
(c) By the judge of the Shari’a District Court of Shari’a Circuit
Court or any person designated by the judge, should the
proper wali refuse without justifiable reason, to authorize
the solemnization.4
Code, you now elevate the matter to the Department for opinion.
into the other pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1083 and E.O. No.
209, as amended respectively, specifically those relating to the
The subject Code of Muslim Personal Laws, insofar as material,
states;
Art. 3. Conflict of provisions. — (1) In case of conflict between
any provision of this Code and laws of general application, the former
shall prevail.
(2) Should the conflict be between any provision of this Code
and special laws or laws of local application, the latter shall be
liberally construed in order to carry out the former.
(3) The provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to
Muslim and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the
prejudice of a Non-Muslim.5
4
Op. cit., Section 1 (Requisites of Marriage), Chapter Two (Marriage [NIKAM]),
Title II (Marriage and Divorce), Book Two (Persons and Family Relations).
5
Ibid, Title II (Construction of Code and Definition of Terms), Book One
(General Provisions); underscoring ours.
APPENDIX 3 277
DOJ OPINIONS
Art. 13. Application. — (1) The provision of this Title

shall apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are
Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the
marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this
Code in any part of the Philippines.
(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-
Muslim solemnized not, in accordance with Muslim law or this
Code, the Civil Code of the Philippines shall apply.
the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage,
xxx solemnization and registration of marriage xxx, shall be
governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws,6
Upon the other hand, Article 254 of the Family Code is
clear, thus:
ART. 254, Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of
Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil
Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Article 17, 18, 19,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No.
603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as
amended, and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamation,
rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith
are hereby repealed.7
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction to give effect to
the general intent of the legislature that can be ascertained from a
consideration of the whole statute and not only a particular provision
thereof.8 The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from any
single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases,
clauses or sentences but from a general consideration or view of the
act as a whole.9
Equally basic is the rule that when the words and phases of
determined from the language used and the statute must be taken to
6
Ibid., Chapter One (Applicability Clause), title II (Marriage and Divorce),
Book Two (Persons and Family Relations); emphasis provided.
7
Title XII (Final Provisions); stress added.
8
Manila Lodge No. 761 vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 162, 177.
9
Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, 13 SCRA 459, 446-467.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
mean exactly what it says.10 The rationale is because when the law is
clear, there is no room for interpretation-only for application.11
the construction of its provisions vis-à-vis other laws as well as the
Code or E.O. No. 209 included, the former shall govern. This is
true even if the general law is a later enactment and broad enough
to include the provisions of the Code.12 The reason is because the
legislature. Moreover, and as specifically applied to the Family
Code, its repealing clause is a general one, i.e., save for provisions of
special law.
thereof, “the provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to
Muslims and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the
prejudice of a non-Muslim.” Likewise, by express mandate of Article
13 of the Decree, “the essential requisites and legal impediments to
marriage” and “solemnization and registration” the marriage of the
persons mentioned therein, among others things, “shall be governed
by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.”
Muslims or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized
enumerating those persons authorized to solemnize marriage, which
undeniably includes an imam,13 governs.14 Conversely, when the
the authority of the solemnizing officer, including the registration
10
Baranda vs. Gustillo, 165 SCRA 757, 770.
11
Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. NLRC, 206 SCRA 701, 711.
12
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487,
496.
13
See also, Raul and Ghazali, Muslim Code of the Philippines: Commentaries
and Jurisprudence, 1984 ed., p. 128.
14
Also, Article 13, P.D. No. 1083.
APPENDIX 3 279
DOJ OPINIONS
with the civil registrar general, under Article 7 of the Family Code,
which further amended the Civil Code of the Philippines, applies.
This is explicit even from a reading of Article 13(2) of the Muslim
Personal Laws itself.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) RAUL M. GONZALES

Secretary
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Appendix 4
REFERRED CASES/QUERIES
OPINION NO. 90, S. 2000
Use of the Surname by the Son of Malaysian National
November 9, 2000
Sir:
The opinion of this Department is requested regarding the use
of a surname by the son of a Malaysian national, Mr. Redi Mik bin
Abdullah.
As stated in your letter, Brendan Christopher was born on June
21, 2000, in Guimbal, Iloilo, the legitimate child of the spouses Redi
Mik bin Abdullah, a Malaysian national, and Victoria G. Alemania,
a Filipino citizen; that in his Certificate of Live Birth, the hospital
entered the name of the child as: “Brendan Christopher Alemania
Abdullah”, while his mother’s name was entered as “Victoria
Abdullah”; that his father, however, alleges that he has no surname
and that the word “bin” in his name means “son of”, hence if he is
to identify himself, his name is “Redi Mik son of Abdullah” and that
“Abdullah” is his father’s name and not his surname.
The Municipal Civil Registrar withheld the registration of the
birth of the child and submitted the problem for your resolution. It
is your position that pursuant to Article 364 of the Civil Code, which
states that “Legitimate and legitimated children should use the
surname of the father”, should be strictly followed and, therefore,
“Abdullah” should be regarded as the surname of the child and
which should also be adopted as the married name of the wife. This,
however, is not acceptable to Mr. Redi Mik bin Abdullah. Hence, this
request.
We regret to inform you that we have to decline rendition of
opinion on the subject matter of your query. The query involves
280
APPENDIX 4 281
the substantive rights of private parties and since the opinion of

the Secretary of Justice is merely advisory in nature, such opinion
would not be binding upon said private parties, who, if adversely
affected by such opinion, may take issue therewith and contest it
before the courts. As a matter of policy therefore, the Secretary of
Justice consistently refrained from rendering opinions on questions
which are justifiable in nature or those which may be the subject
of litigation before the courts. (Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 91,
1957; Op. Nos. 19 and 92, s. 1971; Op. No. 108, s. 1978 and Op. No.
46, s. 1981).
Very truly yours,
ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO
Secretary
1) Re power to control and supervised LCRs

2) Whether LCRs can still perform duty to administer
oath
May 17, 2001

Administrator Tomas F. Africa
EDSA, Corner Times St.
West Triangle, Quezon City 1104
S i r:
Subject of herein request for opinion are the following queries,
to with:
1. Whether or not the power to control and supervise local
civil registry offices in the country by the Civil Registrar
General has been removed by Section 479 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991. In connection therewith, are City/Municipal
Registrars no longer under the control and supervision of
the Civil Registrar General; and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
2. Whether or not the City/Municipal Civil Registrars can

still perform their duty to administer oath.
The first query, it appears, was precipitated by the view
expressed by some quarters that Section 479 of the Local Government
Code of 1991, which defines the “Qualifications, Powers and Duties”
of the local civil registrar, repealed Act No. 3753, otherwise known
as the Civil Registry Law of the Philippines.
It is the contention of that Office, however, that Section 479 of
the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed only Section 12 of the
Civil Registry law which pertains to the duties of local civil registrars
and not Section 2 which pertains to the powers and duties of the
Civil Registrar General. It is stated that if it were true that the Civil
Registrar General has no more power to control and supervise local
civil registry offices, there would be chaos in the implementation of
the laws on civil registration as there would be no more single and
higher authority to give uniform orders and instructions to them,
and to enforce the provisions of the Civil Registry Law; that in such
a case, the 1,607 City/Municipal Registrars would be having his or
her own rules and regulations governing civil registration in his or
her local government units, thereby creating the possibility that one
vital event may not be acceptable for registration in one municipality,
but a similar vital event can be registered in another municipality.
It is the belief of the Office that removing or diminishing the power
of the Civil Registrar General “to control and supervise” local civil
registry offices was never intended by Congress in enacting the Local
Government Code of 1991.
The second query, on the other hand, was raised in view of the
absence of an expressed provision in the Local Government Code
of 1991 allowing local civil registrars to administer oath. It is the
position of the Office, however, that the local civil registrars can still
administer oath based on the provisions of the Family Code which
expressly or impliedly give such authority to them. Cited in particu-
lar is Article 24 which expressly authorizes the local civil registrar
to administer oath to all interested parties mentioned therein.
The crux of the first query lies on whether the Civil Registrar
General exercises supervision and control over local civil registrars.
We answer in the negative. Section 479 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 did not remove the power “to control and supervise
local civil registry offices” from the Civil Registrar General, because
there was nothing to remove in the first place.
APPENDIX 4 283
Obviously, the first query reflects a misreading or

misapprehension of Act. No. 3753 entitled “An Act to Establish a
Civil Register.” It must be stressed that even under the said Act, the
Civil Registrar General has only “direction and supervision” over
local civil registrars and not “control and supervision” as claimed.
The Civil Registry Law, as amended, is clear and categorical:
Section 2. Civil Registrar General: His Duties and Powers.
— The Administrator of the National Statistics Office shall be the
Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act.
The Administrator of National Statistics Office, in his capacity as
Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue
and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance.
Administrator of the National Statistics Office shall have the power
to give orders and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars
with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall
be the duty of the Administrator of the National Statistics Office to
report any violation of the provisions of this Act and irregularities,
negligence or incompetency of the City/Municipal Registrars to the
City or Municipal Mayors, as the case may be, who shall take the
proper disciplinary action against the offenders.
Section 3. City/Municpal Civil Registrars — The City/
Municipal Civil Registrar appointed by the City/Municipal Mayor
shall be under the direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar
General. (Emphasis supplied)
The power of “control and supervision” is not the same as the
power of “direction and supervision”, which is the power expressly
granted by the Civil Registry Law (see Section 3, supra.) to the Civil
Registrar General over the City/Municipal Civil Registars.
“Supervision and control” means and shall include authority
to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or
regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain
the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and
decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the
execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards, guide-
lines, plans and programs (Section 38 (1) Chapter 7, Book IV, E.O.
No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987).
“Supervision”, on the other hand, as defined in the case of
Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 (1955), means overseeing or the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers

perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglect to fulfill them,
the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to
make them perform these duties, while “direction” is an instruction
or series of instructions for doing something; information as to
the method, route, etc. (Webster’s New International Dictionary,
Second Edition; and in another sense, it is nearly synonymous with
instruction (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).
Applying the aforequoted definitions to the instant case, the
Civil Registrar General cannot modify, reverse or annul the acts and
decisions of city or municipal civil registrars for that would be an
exercise of the power of control which he does not possess. What he
can do is to see to it that the city or municipal civil registrars perform
their duties in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations
on civil registration. And this is completely in line with the powers
expressly granted to the Civil Registrar General under Section 2
of the Civil Registry Law, which is the “power to give orders and
instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with reference to the
performance of their duties as such” and “to report any violation
and irregularities, negligence or incompetency of the City/Municipal
registrars to the City/Municipal Mayors who shall take the proper
disciplinary action against the offenders.” To stress, it is the city
or municipal mayor concerned, acting upon the report of the Civil
Registrar General, who shall take disciplinary action against any
local civil registrar found to have violated the provisions of the Civil
Registry Law. (see Section 2, Act No. 3753, as amended)
In any case, Act No. 3753, as amended, a special law, is not
among the laws expressly and explicitly repealed by Section 534 of
the Local Government Code of 1991, a general law. This can only
mean that there was no such intent on the part of the legislature
to abrogate the power of direction and supervision of the Civil
Registrar General over local civil registrars in the country. For if
repeal of particular or specific law or laws is intended, the proper
step is to so express it. (Agujetas vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA
17) Neither is there an implied repeal. It is a well-settled rule of
statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implications are
not favored (Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, Third Edition,
p. 322, citing Valdez vs. Tuazon, 40 Phil. 943 (1920); Phil. American
Management Co., Inc. vs. Phil. American Management Employees
Assn., 120 SCRA 760 (1983). The presumption against implied
repeal is stronger when, of the two laws, one is special, and the other
APPENDIX 4 285
general, as obtaining in the instant case, and this rule applies even
though the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the
matter covered by the special statute (Ibid., citing Manila Railroad
Co. vs. Rafferty, 40 SCRA 224 (1919); Commissioner of Internal
Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487 (1992).
Anent the second query, we believe that the power of local civil
registrars to administer oath as provided in Section 12 (g) of the
Civil Registry Law still exists. Section 12 (g) provides:
Section 12. Duties of the Local Civil Registrars — Local Civil
Registrars shall xxx (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil
registry purposes.”
The power of the local civil registrars to administer oath under
the aforequoted provision is sufficiently within the purview of the
general clause in Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991
which states that the local civil registrar shall “exercise such other
powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be
prescribed by law or ordinance” (see par. 3). However, as stated in
the Civil Registry Law (see Sec. 12 (g), supra.) the power of the local
civil registrar to administer oath shall be limited to civil registry
matters and the same must be free of charge.
Very truly yours,
HERNANDO B. PEREZ
Secretary
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Whether Permanent or Temporary/OIC/Assistant LCR

acting as LCR can validly Act RA 9048.

EDSA Corner Times St., West Triangle
Quezon City 1104
Madam:
This refers to your request for opinion on whether or not a duly
appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC) in case other than the following,
namely:
1. City/Municipal Civil Registrar with permanent or
temporary status of appointment duly confirmed by the
Civil Service Commission;
2. OIC who acts for an incumbent City/Municipal Civil
Registrar who is on leave; and
3. Assistant City/Municipal Civil Registrar who acts for and
in behalf of the incumbent City/Municipal Civil Registrar
who may either be on leave or cannot perform the function
on account of physical or legal causes.
can validity-carry out the provisions of Republic Act No. 9048 (An
Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul
General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical error in an entry and/
or change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without
need of a Judicial Order; Amending for this purpose Articles 376
and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines).
The request arose in the wake of your concern towards the
practice of some local government units where there are permanently
appointed city/municipal civil registrars, but the mayors detail them
elsewhere and another person is designated as OIC to perform the
functions of the civil registrar.
This Department answers the query in the affirmative.
The law makes it mandatory for city and municipal governments
to appoint a civil registrar. The instant query contemplates of a
APPENDIX 4 287
situation where there is a duly appointed civil registrar but the

mayor designates another person as OIC to perform the functions of
the civil registrar.
In the case of Teodoro J. Santiago vs. The Commission of
Audit (199 SCRA 125), the Supreme Court held that designation
connotes merely the impositions or additional duties, usually by
law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an
earlier appointment (or election). (see also Binamira vs. Garrucho,
188 SCRA 158)
A public officer has the right to exercise the powers and perform
the duties connected with his office. (Martin, Administrative Law,
Law of Public Officers and Election Law, 1987, p. 261)
As such, the authority of the public officers consists of those
powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the act
appointing him; expressly annexed to the office by law;
attached to the office by common law as incidents to it; and
under the doctrine of necessary implication, all powers necessary for
the exercise of the powers are deemed impliedly granted. (Nachura,
Political Law, 1991 Ed., p. 294)
Having been duly designated as OIC of the office of city/
municipal civil registrar, the person so designated has the authority
to perform the powers and duties of the office on top of his regular
duties.
However, for your information and guidance only, the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) has ruled that by the very nature of his
designation, an officer-in-charge enjoys limited powers which, it
is believed; are at best confined to the functions of administration
and to see to it that the office continues its usual activities. (CSC
Resolution No. 1692 dated October 20, 1987)
Very truly yours,
HERNANDO B. PEREZ
Secretary
IN THE PHILIPPINES

On which filing fees shall prevail, those prescribed by
RA 9048 or those prescribed by city ordinance of Cagayan de
Oro City.
March 08, 2002

EDSA corner Times St., West Triangle
Quezon City 1104
Madam:
This refers to your request for opinion as to which filing fees
shall prevail, that prescribed under Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 2001 (implementing rules and regulations) promulgated
and issued by the Civil Registrar General or that prescribed under
Ordinance No. 7786-2001 passed by the City Council of Cagayan de
Oro.
The query arose when prior to the promulgation of the said
Administrative order on July 24, 2001, Rules and Regulations
Governing the implementation of Republic Act No. 9046 (An Act
Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul
General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical in an Entry and/or
Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without
Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376
and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinance No. 7786-
2001 on June 19, 2001 entitled “AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A
FILING FEE FOR PETITION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR
OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY, OR TO CHANGE
THE FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME, IN THE CITY CIVIL
REGISTER AT THE RATES PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.”
Section 1 of the said Ordinance provides:
Section 1. — There shall be levied, imposed or collected
a filing fee upon any person who will file with the City
Civil Registrar a petition for the correction to a clerical or
APPENDIX 4 289
typographical error in an entry, or for the change of first name

or nickname, in the City Civil Register, at the following rates:
(a) correction of a clerical or typographical error — P 250.00
(b) change of first name or nickname — P 500.00
On the other hand, Rule 18 of Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 2001, provides, among others that the city/municipal civil
registrar or the district/circuit registrar “is hereby duly authorized
to collect from every petitioner a filing fee in the amount of one
thousand pesos (P 1,000.00), for change of first name or nickname,”
but that an indigent petitioner as defined under Rule 2.7 shall be
exempt from the payment of said fee.
It is also provided under the said Rule that the local legislative
body shall ratify the fees therein prescribed upon affectivity of said
Order. Prior to ratification by the local legislative body, all fees
collected in connection with the Order shall go to the Local Civil
Registry Office (LCRO) trust fund: provided that the fees prescribed
therein shall be uniform in all cities and municipalities in the
country, and in all Philippine Consulates.
The said Administrative Order was enacted pursuant to
Section 10 of R.A. No. 9048, which states that “The civil registrar
general shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the
Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court
Administrator, the University of the Philippines law Center and the
Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary rules
and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not later
than three (3) months from the effectivity of this law.”
Subject to the discussion hereunder, we rule that the filing fees
as imposed by Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2001 should prevail
over the filing fees imposed by the said City Ordinance since the rules
and regulations promulgated by the civil register general pursuant
to the provisions of R.A. No. 9048 have the force and effect of law
(U.S. v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1941]; See Co Chiong v. Cuaderno, 83
Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative Order was
issued in implementation of R.A. No. 9048 and under the said law;
it is the civil registrar general, not the local government units, that
has the authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation
of the provisions thereof.
Finally, it is a well-established principle in the law of municipal
corporations that the legislative bodies of municipal corporations,
IN THE PHILIPPINES
which are mere creation of Congress, may not enact municipal

legislation invading or intruding into an area already covered by a
statute, or contravening provisions of the same (Secretary of Justice
Op. No. 77, s. 1971).
Very truly yours,
HERNANDO B. PEREZ
Secretary
February 28, 2005

Administrator
P.O. Box 779 Manila
Madam:
stated therein relating to the effect/s, if any, of the provisions of
Article 7 of Executive Order No. 2091, as amended, upon the per-
tinent provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1083, Article 7 of E.O.
No. 209, as amended, in part reads:
xx xx;
or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect
and registered with the civil register general, acting within the
limits of the written authority granted him by his church or
religious sect xxx;
xx xx.
In general, you inquire “whether or not Article 7(2) of the Family
Code of the Philippines repealed or amended Presidential Decree
No. 1083, otherwise known as ‘Code of Muslim Personal Laws (of
the Philippines).”’ In particular, you ask “whether the requirement
for registration of written authority to solemnize marriage found in
the Family Code takes precedence over P.D. No. 1083”.
18 of P.D. No. 1083 which pertinently provide, to wit:
APPENDIX 4 291
Art. 18. Authority to solemnized marriage. — Marriage

may be solemnized:
competent under Muslim law to solemnize marriage; or
(c) By the judge of the Shari’a District Court of Shari’a
Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge,
should the proper wali refuse without justifiable reason,
to authorized the solemnization.
Code, you now elevate the matter to this Department for opinion.
into the other pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1083 and E.O No.
209, as amended, respectively, specifically those relating to the
The subject Code of Muslim Personal laws, insofar as material,
states:
Art. 3. Conflict of provisions. — (1) In case of conflict
between any provision of this Code and laws of general
application, the former shall prevail.
(2) Should the conflict between any provision of this
Code and special laws or laws of local application, the latter
shall be liberally constructed in order to carry out the former.
(3) The provisions of this Code shall be applicable only
to Muslim and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to
the prejudice of a non-Muslim.
xxx xxx
Art. 13. Application. (1) The provision of this Titles shall
apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslim,
or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is
solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any
part of the Philippines.
(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and non-
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this

Code, the Civil Code of the Philippines shall apply.
the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage,
xxx solemnization and registration of marriage xxx, shall be
governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.
Upon the other hand, Article 254 of the Family Code is clear,
thus:
ART. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of
Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil
Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, a8, a9,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No.
603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as
amended, and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclaiming,
rules and regulations, on parts thereof, inconsistent the
herewith are hereby repealed.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction to give effect
to the general intent of the legislature that can be ascertained
from a consideration of the whole statute and not only a
particular provision thereof. The meaning of the law is not to
be extracted from any single part, portion or section or from
isolated words and phrases, clauses or sentence but from a
general consideration or view of the act as a whole.
Equally basic is the rule that when the words and phrases of
determined from the language used and the statute must be taken
to mean exactly what it says. The rationale is because when the law
is clear, there is no room for interpretation-only for application.
the construction of its provisions vis-à-vis other laws as well as the
Code or E.O. No. 209 included, the former shall govern. This is
true even if the general law is a later enactment and broad enough
to include the provisions of the Code. The reason is because the
legislature. Moreover, and as specially applied to the Family Code,
its repealing clause us a general one, i.e., save for provisions of
APPENDIX 4 293
special law.
thereof, “(t)he provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to
Muslim and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the
prejudice of a non-Muslim.”
Likewise, by express mandate of Article 13 of the Decree,
“the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage”
and “solemnization and registration” the marriage of the persons
mentioned therein, among other things, “shall be governed by this
Code and other applicable Muslim laws.”
Muslim or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized
enumerating those persons authorized to solemnized marriage,
which undeniably includes an imam, governs. Conversely, when the
the authority of the solemnizing officer, including the registration
with the civil registrar general, under Article 7 of the Family Code,
which further amended the Civil Code of the Philippines, applies.
This is explicit even from a reading of Article 13(2) of the Muslim
Personal laws itself.
Very truly yours,
RAUL M. GONZALES
Secretary
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Seventh Congress of the

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sixth Special Session
Begun and held in the City of Manila on Friday, the nineteenth day
of May, nineteen hundred and seventy-two
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6514
AN ACT PROVIDING THAT THE AUTHORIZATION TO

SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE ISSUED TO PRIEST, OR
MINISTERS OR RABBIS SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD
OF THREE YEARS THE SAME TO EXPIRE ON THE
THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER OF EVERY THIRD
YEAR AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE NINETY-
FIVE OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in congress assembled:
Section 1. Article 95 of Republic Act Numbered Three Hundred
and eighty-six is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Art. 95. The public official in charge of registration of
priests, ministers or rabbis with the approval of the proper
head of department, is hereby authorized to prepare the
necessary forms and to promulgate rules and regulation for the
purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Title: PROVIDED,
That the authorization to solemnize marriages shall be valid
for a period of three years, shall expire on the thirty-first day
of December: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the authorization
to solemnize marriage issued prior to and valid on the date of
the approval of this amendatory Act shall continue to be valid
until the thirty-first day of December of the year when this
amendatory Act takes effect, any regulation to the contrary
notwithstanding: PROVIDED, FINALLY, That the words “my
authority to solemnize marriage expires on December 31, 19__”
shall be indicated in all marriage contracts just below the title
of the person so authorized to solemnize marriages.
“Priests or minister, or rabbis belonging to one diocese,
religious order or congregation, or sect, may apply for autho-
APPENDIX 4 295
rization and or renewal of such authorization, through their

bishop, head of religious order or congregation chief of minis-
ters, or duly authorized representative.
“The public official who is in charge of registration may
also regulate, fix and collect fees for the authorization to
solemnize marriage.”
SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
APPROVED:
GIL J. PUYAT CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of
Representatives
This Act, which originated in the Senate was finally passed by

the same on June 20, 1972.
Finally passed by the House of Representatives on June 14,
1972.
Eliseo M. Tonza Inocencio B. Pareja
Secretary of the Senate Secretary of the House of
Representatives
APPROVED: July 22, 1972
FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President of the Philippines
LEGAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING MARRIAGES

3.1. Article 34 Family Code:
“No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man
and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry
each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing
facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under
oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting
parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage”.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
3.2. Article 3 (3) Family Code:

1. xxxxxxx
2. xxxxxxx
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.
“No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization
of marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the
contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing
officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses
of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.
This declaration shall be signed by the contracting parties and
their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer”.
3.4. Article 7 (2) Family Code:
“Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or
religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect
and registered with the Civil Registrar General, acting within
religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting
parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious
sect”.
“Marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the
church, chapel or in the temple”.
“A marriage license shall be issued by the local civil
registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting
parties reside, except where no license is required”.
3.7. Article 352 Revised Penal Code:
“Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect
or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal
APPENDIX 4 297
marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the

provisions of the marriage law”.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1083

Chapter Two
Marriage (Nikah)
SECTION 1. — Requisites of Marriage
ART. 14. Nature. — Marriage is not only a civil contract but

a social institution. Its nature, consequences and incidents are
governed by this Code and the Shari’a and not subject to stipulation,
except that the marriage settlement may to a certain extent fix the
property relations of the spouses.
ART. 15. Essential requisites. — No marriage contract shall
be perfected unless the following essential requisites are complied
with:
(a) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;
(b) Mutual consent of the parties freely given;
(c) Offer (ijab) and the acceptance (gabul) duly witnessed by
at least two competent persons after the proper guardian
in marriage (wali) has given his consent; and
(d) Stipulation of customary dower (mahr) duly witnessed by
two competent persons.
ART. 16. Capacity to control marriage. — (1) Any Muslim male
at least fifteen years of age and any Muslim female of the age of
puberty or upwards and not suffering from any impediment under the
provision of this Code may contract marriage. A female is presumed
to have attained puberty upon reaching the age of fifteen.
(2) However, the Shari’a District Court may, upon petition of
a proper wali, order the solemnization of the marriage of a female
who though less than fifteen but not below twelve years of age, has
attained puberty.
(3) Marriage through a wali by a minor below the prescribed
ages shall be regarded as betrothal and may be annulled upon the
petition of either party within four years after attaining the age of
IN THE PHILIPPINES
puberty, provided no voluntary cohabitation has taken place and

the wali who contracted the marriage was other than the father or
paternal grandfather.
ART. 17. Marriage ceremony. — No particular form of marriage
ceremony is required but the ijab and the gabul in marriage shall
be declared publicly in the presence of the person solemnizing the
marriage and two competent witnesses. This declaration shall be
set forth in an instrument in triplicate, signed or marked by the
contracting parties and said witnesses, and attested by the person
solemnizing the marriage. One copy shall be given to the contracting
parties and another sent to the Circuit Registrar by the solemnizing
officer who shall keep the third.
ART. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. — Marriage may be
solemnized:
competent under Muslim Law to solemnize marriage; or
(c) By the judge of the Shari’a District of Shari’a Circuit Court
or any person designated by the judge, should the proper
wali, refuse without justifiable reason, to authorize the
solemnization.
ART. 19. Place of solemnization. — Marriage shall be
solemnized publicly in any mosque, office of the Shari’a judge, office
of the District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali,
or at any other suitable place agreed upon by the parties.
ART. 20. Specification of dower. — The amount or value of
dower may be fixed by the contracting parties (mahr-musamma)
before, during or after the celebration of the marriage. If the amount
or the value thereof has not been so fixed, a proper dower (mahr-
mithl) shall, upon petition of the wife, be determined by the court
according to the social standing of the parties.
ART. 21. Payment of dower. — Subject to the stipulation of the
parties, the dower may be fully or partially paid before, during or
after the marriage. The property or estate of the husband shall be
liable for the unpaid dower, or any part thereof.
ART. 22. Breach of contract. — Any person who entered into
a contract to marry but subsequently refuses without reasonable
ground to marry the other party who is willing to perform the same
APPENDIX 4 299
shall pay the latter the expenses incurred for the preparation of the
marriage and such damages as may be granted by the court.
SECTION 2. — Prohibited Marriages
ART. 23. Bases of prohibition. — No marriage may be contracted

by parties within the prohibited degree;
(a) Of consanguinity;
(b) Of affinity; and
(c) Of fosterage.
ART. 24. Prohibition by consanguinity (tahrimjbin-nasab). —
No marriage shall be contracted between:
(a) Ascendants and descendants of any degree;
(b) Brothers and sisters, whether germane, consanguine or
uterine; and
(c) Brothers or sisters and their descendants within the third
civil degree.
ART. 25. Prohibition by affinity (tahrim-bil-musahara). — (1)
No marriage shall be contracted between:
(a) Any of the spouses and their respective affinal relatives
in the ascending line and in the collateral line within the
third degree.
(b) Stepfather and stepdaughter when the marriage
between the former and the mother of the latter has been
consummated;
(c) Stepmother and stepson when the marriage between the
former and the father of the latter has been consummated;
and
(d) Stepson or stepdaughter and the widow, widower or
divorcee of their respective ascendants.
(2) The prohibition under this article applies even after the
dissolution of the marriage creating the affinal relationship.
ART. 26. Prohibition due to fosterage (tahrim-bir-rada’a). —
(1) No person may validly contract marriage with any woman
IN THE PHILIPPINES
who breastfed him for at least five times within two years after his
birth.
(2) The prohibition on marriage by reason of consanguinity
shall likewise apply to persons related by fosterage within the same
degrees, subject to exceptions recognized by Muslim law.
SECTION 3. — Subsequent Marriages
ART. 27. By a husband. — Notwithstanding the rule of Islamic

law permitting; Muslim to have more than one wife but not more
than four at a time, no Muslim man can have more than one wife
unless he can deal with them with equal companionship and just
treatment as enjoined by Islamic law and only in exceptional cases.
ART. 28. By widow. — No widow shall contract a subsequent
marriage unless she has observed an idda of four months and ten
days counted from the date of the death of her husband. If at that
time the widow is pregnant, she may remarry within a reasonable
time after delivery. In such case, she shall produce the corresponding
death certificate.
ART. 29. By divorce. — (1) No woman shall contract a subsequent
marriage unless she has observed an idda of three monthly courses
counted from the date of divorce. However, if she is pregnant at the
time of the divorce, she may remarry only after delivery.
(2) Should a repudiated woman and her husband reconcile
during her idda, he shall have a better right to take her back without
need of a new marriage contract.
(3) Where it is indubitable that the marriage has not been
consummated where the divorce was effected, no idda shall be
required.
ART. 30. Marriage after three talaq. —
(1) Where a wife has been thrice repudiated (talaq bain kubra)
on three different occasions by her husband, he cannot remarry her
unless she shall have married another person who divorces her after
consummation of the intervening marriage and the expiration of the
idda.
(2) No solemnizing officer shall perform the subsequent
marriage mentioned in the preceding paragraph unless he has
ascertained that there was no collusion among the parties.
APPENDIX 4 301
SECTION 4. — Batil and Fasid Marriages
ART. 31. Batil marriages. — The following marriages shall be

void (batil) from the beginning:
(a) Those contracted contrary to Articles 23, 24 and 26;
(b) Those contracted in contravention of the prohibition
against unlawful conjunction; and
(c) Those contracted by parties one or both of whom have
been found guilty of having killed the spouse of either of
them.
ART. 32. Fasid marriages. — The following marriages shall be
irregular (fasid) from their performance:
(a) Those contracted with a female observing idda;
(b) Those contracted contrary to Article 30;
(c) Those wherein the consent of either party is vitiated
by violence, intimidation, fraud, deceit or misrepre-
sentation;
(d) Those contracted by a party in a condition of death, illness
(marad-ul-maul) without the same being consummated;
(e) Those contracted by a party in a state of ihram, and
(f) Mixed marriages not allowed under Islamic law
ART. 33. Validation of irregular marriages. —
(1) Irregular marriages may be made regular by a new
marriage contract in the following cases:
(a) Those referred to in Article 32(a), after the impe-
diment has been removed;
(b) Those referred to in Article 32(b), upon compliance
with the requirement of Article 30;
(c) Those referred to in Article 32(c), after the causes
vitiating consent have ceased;
(d) Those referred to in Article 32(d), in case the party
recovers;
(e) Those referred to in Article 32(e), when the party is
no longer in a state of ihram, and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(f) Those referred to in Article 32(f), after conversion to

a faith that could have made the marriage valid.
(2) The effects of the new marriage under the first paragraph
shall retroact to the date of the celebration of the irregular
marriage.
SECTION 5. — Rights and Obligations Between Spouses
ART. 34. Mutual rights and obligations. —

(1) The husband and the wife are obliged to live together,
observe mutual respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support in accordance with this Code.
(2) When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the
conjugal union or brings danger, dishonor or material
injury upon the other, the injured party may petition the
court for relief. The court may counsel the offender to
comply with his or her duties, and take such measures as
may be proper.
(3) The husband and the wife shall inherit from each other in
accordance with this Code.
(4) The husband and the wife shall have the right to divorce
in accordance with this Code.
ART. 35. Rights and obligations of the husband. — The husband
shall fix the residence of the family. The court may exempt the wife
from living with her husband on any of the following grounds:
(a) Her dower is not satisfied in accordance with the
stipulations; or
(b) The conjugal dwelling is not in keeping with her social
standing or is, for any reason, not safe for the members of
the family or her property.
ART. 36. Rights and obligations of the wife. —
(1) The wife shall dutifully manage the affairs of the
household. She may purchase things necessary for the maintenance
of the family, and the husband shall be bound to reimburse the
expenses, if he has not delivered the proper sum.
(2) The wife cannot, without the husband’s consent, acquire
APPENDIX 4 303
any property by gratuitous title, except from her relatives

who are within the prohibited degrees in marriage.
(3) The wife may, with her husband’s consent, exercise any
profession or occupation or engage in lawful business
which is in keeping with Islamic modesty and virtue.
However, if the husband refuses to give his consent on
the ground that his income is sufficient for the family
according to its social standing or his opposition is based
on serious and valid grounds, the matter shall be referred
to the Agama Arbitration Council.
(4) The wife shall have the right to demand the satisfaction
of her mahr.
(5) Unless otherwise stipulated in the marriage settlements,
the wife retain ownership and administration of her
exclusive property.
(6) The wife shall be entitled to an equal and just treatment
by the husband.
SECTION 6. — Property Relations Between Spouses
ART. 37. How governed. — The property relations between

husband and wife shall be governed in the following order:
(a) By contract before or at the time of the celebration of
marriage.
(b) By the provisions of this Code; and
(c) By custom.
ART. 39. Stipulation in the marriage settlements. — Every
stipulation in the marriage settlements or contract referred to in
the preceding article shall be void and without effect whatsoever,
should the marriage not take place. However, stipulation that do not
depend upon the contract of marriage shall be valid.
ART. 40. Ante nuptial property. — The wife shall not lose
ownership and administration of all properties brought by her to the
marriage in the absence of any written agreement to the contrary,
and she may dispose of the same by deed or otherwise even without
the consent of her husband.
ART. 41. Exclusive property of each spouse. — The following
shall be the exclusive property of either spouse.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(a) Properties brought to the marriage by the husband or the

wife;
(b) All income derived by either spouse from any employment,
occupation or trade;
(c) Any money or property acquired by either spouse during
marriage by lucrative title;
(d) The dower (mahr) of the wife and nuptial gifts to each
spouse;
(e) Properties acquired by right of redemption, purchase or
exchange of the exclusive property or either; and
(f) All fruits of properties mentioned in the foregoing
paragraphs.
ART. 42. Ownership and administration. — Each spouse
shall own, possess, administer, enjoy and dispose of his or her own
exclusive estate even without the consent of the other. However,
the court may, upon petition of either spouse, grant to the other the
administration of said spouse.
ART. 43. Household property. — Household property which
customarily pertains to or is used by either spouse shall be prima
facie presumed to be the property of said spouse.
ART. 44. Right to sue and be sued. — The wife may independently
of the husband, sue or be sued in the following cases:
(a) When the litigation is between husband and wife;
(b) If the suit concerns her exclusive property;
(c) If the litigation is incidental to her profession, occupation
or business;
(d) If the litigation concerns the exclusive property of the
husband, the administration of which has been transferred
to her; or
(e) Such other appropriate cases as may be allowed by the
general principles of Islamic law and other laws.
Laws on Marriage re Administrative Order No. 3, Series of
2004
Rules and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and
Events Concerning Civil Status of Filipino Indigenous Peoples
APPENDIX 4 305
Rule 2.7. Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage. — refer to

community elders, tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-
political structures certified by NCIP or authorities duly acclaimed
and respected in the tribal communities and registered in accordance
with the guidelines of OCRG on Solemnizing Officers who perform
and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions
and practices of the community.
Rule 8. Registration of Marriages. — Registration of marriages
among members of ICCs/IPs shall be governed by the following
rules:
1. Marriages performed in accordance with customary laws,
rites, traditions and practices shall be recognized as valid.
(Rule VI, Section, RA 8371)
2. Marriages among ICCs/IPs performed in accordance with
customary laws, rites, traditions, and practices, shall be
reported within thirty (30) days after the date of marriage
by the person authorized to solemnize marriage, or in his
default, by the parties to the marriage, to the C/MCR of
the city or municipality where the marriage ceremony
was celebrated.
3. In cases of delayed registration of marriages among
members of ICCs/IPs, the testimony of authorized
community elders, solemnizing officers or authorities of
traditional socio-political structures stating the facts and
circumstances of marriage shall be admissible as evidence
of marriage for purposes of registration.
4. The person authorized to solemnize marriage, or in his
default the C/MCR, shall indicate on the remarks portion
of the Certificate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, Revised
January 1993) that said marriage was solemnized in
accordance with ICCs/IPs customary laws of either
contracting party.
5. Upon receiving the Certificate of Marriage (Municipal
Form 97, Revised January 1993), the C/MCR shall require
the informant to accomplish or to give the following data in
the accomplishment of Municipal Form No. 97 Attachment
IP Form No. 3: ethnic affiliation of contracting parties,
marriage order, amount of dowry and other stipulations
of the marriage.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
6. The Municipal Form 97 and the attachment thereto shall

be permanently kept together and shall constitute the
record of marriage of ICCs/IPs.
7. Other matters relative to registration of marriages among
ICCs/IPs not covered by this rule shall be governed by
the pertinent provisions of Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 1993.
Rule 9. Registration of Dissolution of Marriages. — Registration
of dissolution of marriages performed in accordance with customary
laws and practices of ICCs/IPs shall be governed by the following
rules:
1. Dissolution of marriages refers to the termination of
marriage as declared in a ruling or decision of the Council
of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holders, or other
tribunal and body authorized under the indigenous
political structure of the ICC/IP for causes sanctioned by
established customary law or practice after exhaustion of
all possible means or reconciliation between the spouses.
2. Dissolution of marriage by agreement of the parties
or unilateral declaration of separation of any party
to the marriage without observing the processes and
requirements of customary law and practice of the
concerned ICC/IP shall not be registered.
3. For purposes of registration of dissolution of marriage,
the NCIP Provincial Office of the area where the marriage
was celebrated in accordance with customary law and
practice shall issue a certification to the effect that the
parties and members of a particular ICC/IP and that the
marriage dissolution was made in accordance with the
customary law and practice of the ICC/IP concerned or
the testimony of community elders, solemnizing officers
or authorities of traditional socio-political structures of
specific ICCs/IPs tribe shall be admissible evidence of
marriage dissolution. Such certification/testimony shall
constitute the Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage (IP
Form No. 4).
4. Five copies of the Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage
shall be submitted within thirty (30) days after the date
of the dissolution of marriage by the interested party to
APPENDIX 4 307
the C/MCR for registration in the city or municipality

where the marriage was dissolved. For purposes of this
rule, the interested party may either be the husband, the
wife of the immediate relatives.
The C/MCR shall distribute the five copies of the
Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage as follows: first copy
to the husband; second copy of the wife; third copy to the
Civil Registrar General; forth copy for his file and fifth
copy to the NCIP.
5. The C/MCR of the City or municipality where the marriage
was dissolved shall record the Certificate of Dissolution
of Marriage in the Register of Dissolution of Marriage
for members of ICCs/IPs and shall forward a copy to the
C/MCR where the marriage was registered for proper
annotation.
Rule 10. Registration of Revocation of Dissolution of Marriage.
— Registration of Revocation of Dissolution of Marriage among
members of ICCs/IPs shall governed by the following specific rules:
1. Within seven (7) days after the revocation of dissolution of
marriage reconciliation, wether the husband or the wife
shall file a sworn statement (IP Form No. 5) in five copies
with the C/MCR of the city or municipality where the
Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage was registered. Such
fact of revocation shall be annotated in the Certificate of
Dissolution of Marriage.
The five copies of the Sworn Statement of Revocation
of Dissolution of Marriage, after registration, shall be
distributed by the C/MCR as follows: first copy to the
husband; second copy of the wife; third copy to the Civil
Registrar General; fourth copy for his file and fifth copy to
the NCIP.
2. The C/MCR of the city or municipality where the
dissolution of marriage was revoked shall record the sworn
statement (IP Form No. 5) in the Register of Revocation
of Dissolution of Marriage for members of ICCs/IPs and
shall forward a copy to the C/MCR where the marriage
was registered for proper annotation.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE

LICENSE
(AO No. 1, series of 1993)
Rule 47. Reglementary Period and Place of Registration. (1)

Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties
shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the
proper local civil registrar (now civil registrar) which shall specify
the following:
a) Full name of the contracting parties;
b) Place of birth;
c) Age and date of birth;
d) Civil status;
e) If previously married, how, when and where the previous
marriage was dissolved or annulled;
f) Present residence and citizenship;
g) Degree of relationship of the contracting parties;
h) Full name, residence and citizenship of the father;
i) Full name, residence and citizenship of the mother; and
j) Full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian or
person having charge, in case the contracting party has
neither father nor mother and is under the age of twenty-
one years. (Article 11, Family Code) (N)
(2) The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all
applications for marriage licenses filed with him in a registry book
strictly in the order in which the same are received. He shall record
in said book the names of the applicants, the date on which the
same are received. He shall record in said book the names of the
applicants, the date on which the marriage license was issued, and
such other data as may be necessary. (Article 25, Family Code) (N)
Rule 48. Requisites of Application for Marriage. (1) The local
civil registrar, upon receiving such application, shall require the
presentation of the original birth certificates or, in default thereof,
the baptismal certificates of the contracting parties or copies of
such documents duly attested by the persons having custody of the
originals. These certificates or certified copies of the documents
APPENDIX 4 309
required by this Article (now Rule) need to be sworn to and shall be

except from the documentary stamp tax. The signature and official
title of the person issuing the certificate shall be sufficient proof of
its authenticity. (Article 12 paragraph 1, Family Code) (N)
If either of the contracting parties is unable to produce his
birth or baptismal certificate or a certified copy either because of
the destruction or loss of the original, or if it is shown by an affidavit
of such party or of any other person that such birth or baptismal
certificate has not yet been received though the same has been
required of the person having custody thereof at least fifteen days
prior to the date of the application, such party may furnish in lieu
thereof his current residence certificate or an instrument drawn
up and sworn to before the local civil registrar concerned or any
public official authorized to administer oaths. Such instrument shall
contain the sworn declaration of two witnesses of lawful age, setting
forth the full name, residence and citizenship of such contracting
party and of his or her parents, if known, and the place and date
of birth of such party. The nearest of kin of the contracting parties
shall be preferred as witnesses, or, in their default, persons of good
reputation in the province or the locality. (Article 12 paragraph 2,
Family Code) (N)
The presentation of the birth or baptismal certificate shall
not be required if the parents of the contracting parties appear
personally before the local civil registrar concerned and swear to
the correctness of the lawful age of said parties, as stated in the
application, or when the local civil registrar shall, by merely looking
at the applicants upon their personally appearing before him, be
convinced that either or both of them have the required age. (Article
12 paragraph 3, Family Code) (N)
(2) In case either of the contracting parties has been previously
married, the application shall be required to furnish, instead of the
birth or baptismal certificate required in the last preceding Article
(now paragraph), the death certificate of the deceased spouse or
the judicial decree of the absolute divorce, or the judicial decree of
annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage,
in case the death certificate cannot be secured, the party shall make
an affidavit setting forth this circumstance and his or her actual
civil status and the name and date of death of the deceased spouse.
(Article 13, Family Code) (N)
(3) In case either or both of the contracting parties, not having
been emancipated by a previous marriage, are between the ages of
IN THE PHILIPPINES
eighteen and twenty-one, they shall, in addition to the requirements

of the preceding Articles, exhibit to the local civil registrar, the
consent to their marriage of their father, mother, surviving parent
or guardian, or persons having legal charge of them, in the order
mentioned. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the
interested party, who personally appears before the proper local
civil registrar, or in the form of an affidavit made in the presence
of two witnesses and attested before any official authorized by law
to administer oaths. The personal manifestation shall be recorded
in both applications for marriage license, and the affidavit, if one is
executed instead, shall be attached to said applications. (Article 14,
Family Code) (N)
(4) Any contracting party between the age of twenty-one and
twenty-five shall be obliged to ask their parents or guardian for
advice upon the intended marriage. If they do not obtain such advice,
or if it be unfavorable, the marriage license shall not be issued till
after three months following the completion of the publication of the
application thereof. A sworn statement by the contracting parties
to the effect that such advice has been sought, together with the
written advice given, if any, shall be attached to the application for
marriage license. Should the parents or guardian refuse to give any
advice, this fact shall be stated in the sworn statement. (Article 15,
Family Code) (N)
(5) In the cases where parental consent or parental advice
is needed, the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the
requirements of the preceding Articles, attach a certificate issued
by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage
under Article 7 of this Code or a marriage counselor duly accredited
by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting
parties have undergone marriage counseling. Failure to attach said
certificate of marriage license for a period of three months from
the completion of the publication of the application, issuance of
the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the
issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the
validity of the marriage. (Article 16 paragraph 1, Family Code) (N)
should only one of the contracting parties need parental consent or
parental advice, the other party must be present at the counseling
referred to in the preceding paragraph. (Article 16 paragraph 2,
Family Code) (N)
(6) The local civil registrar shall prepare a notice which
shall contain the full names and residences of the applicants for
APPENDIX 4 311
a marriage license and other data given in the applications. The

notice shall be posted for ten consecutive days on a bulletin board
outside the office of the civil registrar located in a conspicuous place
within the building and accessible to the general public. This notice
shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to the
marriage to advise the civil registrar thereof. The marriage license
shall be issued after the completion of the period of publication.
(Article 17, Family Code) (N)
(7) In case of any impediment known to the local civil registrar
or brought to his attention, he shall note down the particulars thereof
and his findings thereon in the application for a marriage license,
but shall nonetheless issue said license after the completion of the
period of publication, unless ordered otherwise by a competent court
at his own instance or that of any interested party. No filing fee shall
be charged for the petition nor a bond required for the issuance of
the order. (Article 18, Family Code) (N)
(8) When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens
of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage
license can be obtained, to submit a certificate of legal capacity to
contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular
officials. (Article 21 paragraph 1, Family Code) (N)
Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall, in
lieu of the certificate of legal capacity herein required, submit an
affidavit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract
marriage. (Article 21 paragraph 2, Family Code) (N)
(9) The local civil registrar shall require the payment of
the fees prescribed by law or regulations before the issuance of the
marriage license. No other sum shall be collected in the nature of
a fee or tax of any kind for the issuance of said license. It shall,
however, be issued free of charge to indigent parties, that is, those
who have no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient
for their subsistence, a fact established by their affidavit or by their
oath before the local civil registrar. (Article 19, Family Code) (N)
(10) The license shall be valid in any part of the Philippines
for a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue, and
shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration of said
period if the contracting parties have not made use of it. The expiry
date shall be stamped in bold characters on the face of every license
issued. (Article 20, Family Code) (N)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Rule 49. Number of copies to be accomplished for Distribution.

— It shall be the duty of the contracting parties to accomplish four
(4) copies of the Application for Marriage License for registration.
After the registration, the civil registrar shall distribute copies of
the document bearing the civil registry number as follows: first copy
to the registrant; second copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar
General; third copy shall be retained for his file; and fourth copy to
the solemnizing officer. (N)
THE CIVIL REGISTRY LAW ACT NO. 3753,

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A CIVIL REGISTER
SECTION 1. Civil Register. — A Civil register is established

for recording the civil status of persons, in which shall be entered:
(a) births; (b) deaths; (c) marriages; (d) annulment of marriages; (e)
divorces; (f) legitimations; (g) adoptions; (h) acknowledgement of
natural children; (i) naturalization; and (j) changes of name.
SECTION 2. Civil Registrar General; His Duties and Powers.
— The Director of the National Library* shall be Civil Registrar
General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The Director
of the National Library, in his capacity as Civil Registrar General,
is hereby authorized to prepare and issue, with the approval of
the Secretary of Justice, regulations for carrying out the purposes
of this Act, and to prepare and order printed the necessary forms
for its proper compliance. In the existence of his functions as Civil
Registrar General, the Director of the National Library shall have
the power to give orders and instructions to the local civil registrars
with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be
the duty of the Director of National Library to report any violation
of the provisions of this Act and all irregularities, negligence or
incompetency on the part of the officers designated as local civil
registrars to the (Chief of the Executive Bureau or the Director of the
Non-Christian Tribes) Secretary of the Interior, as the case may be,
who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.
SECTION 3. Local Civil Registrars. — Except in the City of
Manila, where the duties of local civil registrar shall be performed
by the officer of the Philippine Health Service designated by the
*Director of the Bureau of the Census and Statistics under Sec. 21 (f), Act 591
and now Executive Director, National Census and Statistics Office, PD No. 418.
APPENDIX 4 313
Director of said Service, the treasurers of the regular municipalities,

municipal districts and cities shall be local civil registrars of the
respective municipalities, municipal district or cities, and shall
perform the duties imposed upon them by this Act without extra
compensation, in addition to their ordinary duties. In his capacity
as local civil registrar, the officer designated by the Director of the
Health Service as local civil registrar of Manila and the treasurers
above mentioned shall be under the direction and supervision of the
Civil Registrar General.
SECTION 4. Civil Registry Books. — The local civil registrars
shall keep and preserve in their offices the following books, in which
they shall, respectively, make the proper entries concerning the civil
status of persons:
1. Birth and death register,
2. Marriage register, in which shall be entered not only the
marriages solemnized but also divorces and dissolved
marriages,
3. Legitimation, acknowledgement, adoption, change of
name, and naturalization register.
SECTION 5. Registration and Certification of Births. — The
declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth
or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn
child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil
register. Such declaration shall be exempt from the documentary
stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than
thirty days after the birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance
at the birth or by either parent of the newly born child.
In such declaration, the persons above mentioned shall
certify to the following facts:(a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and
nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship, and religion of parents
or, in case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil
status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; (f) and such
other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued.
In the case of an exposed child, the person who found the same
shall report to the local civil registrar the place, date and hour of
finding and other attendant circumstances.
In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be
signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only
by the mother if the father refuses. In the latter case, it shall not
IN THE PHILIPPINES
be permissible to state or reveal in the document the name of the

father who refuses to acknowledge the child, or to give therein any
information by which such father could be identified.
Any fetus having human features which dies after twenty-four
hours of existence completely disengaged from the maternal womb
shall be entered in the proper registers as having been born and
having died.
SECTION 6. Death Certificate and Register. — No human
body shall be buried unless the proper death certificate has been
presented and recorded in the office of the local civil registrar. The
physician who attended the deceased or, in his default, the health
officer concerned, or in default of the latter, any member of the family
of the deceased or any person having knowledge of the death, shall
report the same to the local health authorities, who shall issue a
death certificate and shall order the same to be recorded in the office
of the local civil registrar. The death certificate, which shall be issued
by the attending physician of the deceased or, in his default, by the
proper health officer, shall contain the following data which shall
be furnished by the person reporting the death: (a) date and place
of death, (b) full name, (c) age, (d) sex, (e) occupation or profession,
(f) residence, (g) status as regards marriage, (h) nationality of the
deceased, and (i) probable cause of death.
During epidemics, bodies may be buried provided the proper
death certificates have been secured, which shall be registered not
later than five days after the burial of the body.
SECTION 7. Registration of Marriages. — All civil officers and
priests or ministers authorized to solemnize marriages shall send a
copy of each marriage contract solemnized by them to the local civil
registrar within the time limit specified in the existing Marriage
Law.
In cases of divorce and annulment of marriage, it shall be
the duty of the successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of
marriage to send a copy of the final decree of the court to the local
civil registrar of the municipality where the dissolved or annulled
marriage was solemnized.
In the marriage register there shall be entered the full name and
address of each of the contracting parties, their ages, the place and
date of the solemnization of the marriage, the names and addresses
of person or persons who gave their consent to the marriage, and
APPENDIX 4 315
the full name, title, and address of the person who solemnized the
marriage.
In cases of divorce or annulment of marriage, there shall be
recorded the names of the parties divorced or whose marriage was
annulled, the date of the decree of the court, and such other details
as the regulations to be issued may require.
SECTION 8. Registration of Legitimations by Subsequent
Marriage. — The acknowledgment of the children legitimated by
subsequent marriage, referred to in article one hundred and twenty-
one of the Civil Code, may be recorded in the legitimation register,
entering: (a) the names of the parents; (b) that at the time when the
children were conceived, the aforesaid parents could have contracted
marriage, and that they actually contracted marriage, stating the
date and place when such marriage was solemnized, the minister
who officiated, and the civil register where such marriage was
recorded; (c) the names of the children legitimated, with reference
to their birth certificates.
SECTION 9. Registration of Acknowledgments by Public
Instrument. — Any voluntary acknowledgment by the natural
parents or by only one of them by public instrument, shall be
recorded in the acknowledgment register of the civil register of
the municipality where the birth of the acknowledged child was
registered, setting forth the following data: (a) full name of the natural
child acknowledged; (b) age; (c) date and place of birth; (d) status as
to marriage, and residence of the child acknowledged; (e) full name
of the natural father or mother who makes the acknowledgment;
(f) full name of the notary public before whom the document was
acknowledged; (g) full names of witnesses to the document; (h) date
and place of acknowledgment of said document, and entry and page
number of the notarial register in which the same was recorded.
It shall be the duty of the natural parent whose voluntary
acknowledgment was made by means of a public instrument to send
a certified copy thereof to the local civil registrar of the municipality
in the civil register where of the acknowledged child was recorded,
not later than twenty days after the execution of such instrument
for registration thereof.
SECTION 10. Registration of Adoption, Changes of Name,
and Naturalizations. — In cases of adoptions, changes of name,
and naturalizations, it shall be the duty of the interested parties
or petitioners to register the same in the local civil register of
IN THE PHILIPPINES
the municipality where the decree was issued. The names of the
interested parties and such other data as may be required by the
regulations to be issued shall be entered in the register.
SECTION 11. Duties of Clerks of the Court to Register Certain
Decisions. — In cases of legitimation, acknowledgment, adoption,
naturalization, and change of given or family name, or both, upon
the decree of the court becoming final, it shall be the duty of the
clerk of the court which issued the decree to ascertain whether the
same has been registered, and if this has not been done, to have said
decree recorded in the office of the civil registrar of the municipality
where the court is functioning.
SECTION 12. Duties of Local Civil Registrar. — Local civil
registrars shall (a) file registrable certificates and documents
presented to them for entry; (b) compile the same monthly and
prepare and send any information required of them by the Civil
Registrar General; (c) issue certified transcripts or copies of any
certificate or document registered upon payment of the proper
fees; (d) order the binding, properly classified, of all certificates or
documents registered during the year; (e) send to the Civil Registrar
General, during the first ten days of each month, a copy of the
entries made during the preceding month, for filing; (f) index the
same to facilitate search and identification in case any information
is required; and (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil register
purposes.
SECTION 13. Documents Registered are Public Documents. —
The books making up the civil register and all documents relating
thereto shall be considered public documents and be prima facie
evidence of the truth of the facts therein contained. They shall be
open to the public during office hours and shall be kept in a suitable
safe which shall be furnished to the local civil registrar at the expense
of the general fund of the municipality concerned. The local civil
registrar shall not under any circumstances permit any document
entrusted to his care to be removed from his office, except by order
of a court, in which case the proper receipt shall be taken. The local
civil registrar may issue certified copies of any document filed, upon
payment of the proper fees required in this Act.
SECTION 14. Expenses and Fees of the Office of the Civil
Registrar. — All expenses in connection with the establishment of
local civil registers shall be paid out of municipal funds and for this
purpose, municipal councils and boards shall make the necessary
appropriations out of their available general funds.
APPENDIX 4 317
For the registration of documents and for certified copies of

documents on file in the local civil registrar’s office, fees shall be
charged in accordance with the following schedule:
For registration of a legitimation ...................... 2.00

For registration of an adoption .......................... 2.00
For registration of an annulment of marriage .. 10.00
For registration of a divorce............................... 10.00
For registration of a naturalization................... 20.00
For registration of a change of name ................ 2.00
For certified copies of any document in the register for
each one hundred words ............................ 20
The Civil Registrar General or any local civil registrar may
issue certified copies of documents free of charge for official use or at
the request of a competent court. All fees collected for such purposes
shall accrue to the general fund of the municipality concerned.
SECTION 15. Preservation of Present Register Books. — All
birth, death, and marriage registers and other papers relating
thereto at present in the keeping of the municipal secretaries or the
clerk of the Municipal court of Manila shall be transferred by the
same to the officers acting as local civil registrars in each city of
municipality and shall form part of the archives of the latter.
SECTION 16. False Statements. — Any person who shall
knowingly make false statements in the forms furnished and shall
present the same for entry in the civil register, shall be punished by
imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than six, or by a
fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than five hundred,
or both, in the discretion of the court.
SECTION 17. Failure to Report Other Violations. — Any
person whose duty is to report any fact concerning the civil status
of persons and who knowingly fails to perform such duty, and any
person convicted of having violated any of the provisions of this Act,
shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than two
hundred pesos.
SECTION 18. Neglect of Duty with Reference to the Provisions
of this Act. — Any local registrar who fails properly to perform
his duties in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
regulations issued hereunder, shall be punished, for the first offence,

by an administrative fine in a sum equal to his salary for not less
than fifteen days nor more than three months, and for a second or
repeated offense, by removal from the service.
SECTION 19. Application of This Act to the Special Provinces.
— The Director of the National Library, in his capacity as Civil
Registrar General, is hereby authorized, upon recommendation of
the (Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes) Secretary of the
Interior, to designate the municipalities in the specially organized
provinces where the provisions of this Act shall be applied.
SECTION 20. Transitory Provisions. — All rights, duties,
and powers established by Act Numbered Thirty-six hundred and
thirteen, entitled the Marriage Law, with reference to the procedure
for the issuance of the marriage license prior to the solemnization
of marriage, the registration of marriages, and the filing of the
documents in connection therewith, conferred and imposed by
said Act upon the clerk of the Municipal Court of Manila and
the municipal secretaries, are hereby transferred to the officer of
the Health Service designated by the Director of said Service, in
accordance with section three of this Act, and to the municipal
treasurers, respectively, in their capacity as local civil registrars.
All duties and powers established by subsections (d) and (e) of
section twenty-two hundred and twelve of the Administrative Code,
imposed and conferred by said section upon the municipal secretaries,
are hereby likewise transferred to the municipal treasurers in their
capacity as local civil registrars.
SECTION 21. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith
are hereby repealed.
SECTION 22. This Act shall take effect three months after its
approval.
Approved, November 26, 1930.
APPENDIX 4 319
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6809
AN ACT LOWERING THE AGE OF MAJORITY FROM TWENTY-

ONE TO EIGHTEEN YEARS, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED TWO
HUNDRED NINE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209, the Family

Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of
majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at
the age of eighteen years.”
Sec. 2. Articles 235 and 237 of the same Code are hereby
repealed.
Sec. 3. Article 236 of the same Code is also hereby amended to
read as follows:
“Art. 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental
authority over the person and property of the child who shall
then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life, save
the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases.
“Contracting marriage shall require parental consent
until the age of twenty-one.
“Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate
from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for
children and wards below twenty-one years of age mentioned
in the second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil
Code.”
Sec. 4. Upon the effectivity of this Act, existing wills, bequests,
donations, grants, insurance policies and similar instruments
containing references and provisions favorable to minors will not
retroact to their prejudice.
Sec. 5. This Act shall take effect upon completion of its
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: December 13, 1989
IN THE PHILIPPINES
PAPERS PRESENTED DURING THE 4th NATIONAL

CONVENTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS HELD AT
BACOLOD CITY ON AUGUST 9-11, 2005
NEW PROCEDURES IN THE REGISTRATION OF THE

AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
By
Editha R. Orcilla
The provisions of the Civil Code concerning the registration

of the authority to solemnize marriage of solemnizing officers,
particularly Article 92, were amended by the Family Code of the
Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988. The amendatory
provision of the law is Article 7, paragraph 2. Under this provision,
the duties and powers of the Director of the National Library to
register the authority to solemnize marriage of solemnizing officers
were transferred to the Civil Registrar General (CRG) who is also
the Administrator of the National Statistics Office (NSO).
For the purpose of implementing the provision of Article 7(2)
of the Family Code, the CRG promulgated Administrative Order
No. 1, series of 1988 which was published in the Official Gazette
on October 24, 1988 and took effect on November 9, 1988. This
Order contained the rules and regulations governing the granting of
authority to solemnize marriage to bishops, heads of religions and
religious sects, priests, rabbis, imams and other religious ministers
and their registration with the Office of the Civil Registrar General
(OCRG). It contained seventeen (17) sections.
After almost seventeen (17) years, the OCRG finds it
appropriate to amend Administrative Order No. 1 series of 1988 to
further improve the services it renders to the solemnizing officers
(SOs), hence, the promulgation of Administrative Order No. 2
series of 2005. This Order contains the new rules and regulations
including the new registration procedures governing the registration
of authority to solemnize marriage of solemnizing officers and shall
be implemented in January 2006.
The new registration procedure is contained under Rule 7 of
the said Order. It includes the sub-topics on:
(a) Who shall apply
(b) Where to apply
APPENDIX 4 321
(c) When to apply

(d) Requirements for registration
(e) Fees
(f) Forms to be used
These subtopics shall be discussed separately.
Before we discuss the new registration procedures for
solemnizing officers, it is important to consider first the two (2)
general requirements which the religion or religious sect has to
comply with before its solemnizing officers can be entered in the
register solemnizing officers. These are:
(a) that the religion or religious sect is operating in the
Philippines
(b) that the religion or religious sect is in good repute
These two general requirements are still maintained in the
new Administrative Order.
When can we say that a religion or religious sect is operating
in the Philippines?
Philippines when a great number of Filipinos profess it as shown by
census records. Questionnaires used during censuses of population
and various surveys of NSO carry an item of information concerning
religious affiliation. Civil registration forms such as Certificate of
Live Birth, Certificate of Death and Certificate of Marriage also carry
this information. Hence, these documents are sufficient proof that a
particular religion or religious sect is operating in the Philippines.
In a case where the religion or religious sect of which the
solemnizing officer is a member is not in the census records, or not
publicly known, or in case of doubt, its founder or head is required to
declare in a public instrument the following information:
(a) brief history of the religion or religious sect
(b) religion or religious sect is incorporated and registered
with SEC
(c) religion or religious sect at least one church, temple or
chapel and if more than one, the places where these are
situated, and the name of the priests or religious ministers
assigned to each
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(d) Religion or religious sect has at least 200 bona fide active
members who are residents of the Philippines.
This sworn statement shall be submitted to the OCRG.
Without this document, the application of the solemnizing officer for
registration will not be accepted.
The other requirement is that it is in good repute. A religion
or religious sect is in good refute when it holds religious services
or gatherings periodically in a fixed place devoted actually and
exclusively for religious rites and worship, complies with the
requirements of the marriage law and of the implementing rules
and regulations and that there is nothing in its teachings, principles
and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good customs and public
policy.
Unless and until otherwise shown, the religion or religious sect
appearing in the latest census records of the Philippines, as being
professed by a great number of Filipinos, shall be presumed to be in
good refute.
When the religion or religious sect does not appear in the
census records, or in case of doubt, the question of its being in
good refute may be proven by means of a certification of the Mayor
having jurisdiction over the place where its church, temple or chapel
is situated affirming the fact that it holds religious services or
gathering periodically in a place of worship, that it complies with the
marriage laws, and that there is nothing on its teachings, principles
and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good custom and public
policy.
Let us now proceed with the registration procedures. First, we
shall discuss who among the authorities/persons who can solemnize
marriage are required to register with the OCRG their authority to
solemnize marriage.
Section 7.1 of Rule 7 of AO # 2 s of 2005 provides that only
the following solemnizing officers are required to apply for the
registration of their authority to solemnize marriage with the
OCRG.
(a) Bishop
(b) Founder of the religion/religious sect
(c) Head of the religion/religious sect
APPENDIX 4 323
(d) Priest
(e) Tribal heads/Chieftain
(f) Other religious ministers/pastors
The tribal heads/chieftains are included in the enumeration
pursuant to the DOJ Opinion No. 179 series of 1993 provided that
aside from being the social or political leader of their respective
tribes, they also stand as their priest or religious head.
Pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 13 series of 2005, Imams are not
required to register their authority to solemnize marriage with the
OCRG when the parties to the marriage are both Muslims or the
male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized under the
Muslim Law.
Where to apply? This is still a question to many applicant SOs
specially those who are new applicants.
For the information of all concerned, application forms for
registration whether for new applicant or renewal, are available at
the NSO Provincial Offices (NSO POs). All solemnizing officers who
are required to apply for registration their authority to solemnize
marriage shall secure and file the application forms, OCRG SO
Form No. 1, at the NSO PO where their respective church, temple
or chapel is situated.
Once the required requirements are complied with by the
applicant SO, the NSO-PO shall forward all the applications received
to the NSO Regional Office (RO) for the issuance of the Certificate
of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM).
The issuance of CRASM by the RO is facilitated with the use of the
decentralized Solemnizing Officers Information Systems or SOIS.
Example:
Solemnizing Officer A is a member of religious sect Y whose
church is situated in Bacolod City. If Solemnizing Officer A
wants to apply for the registration of his authority to solemnize
marriage, he shall proceed to the NSO PO of Bacolod City to
secure and file his application since his church is situated in
Bacolod City.
When can a Solemnizing Officer file for registration his/her
authority to solemnize marriage?
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Filing of applications for the registration of the authority to

solemnize marriage maybe done at any time of the year. However,
those solemnizing officers whose registration shall expire on the 31st
day of December of any current year may submit their applications
on or before the 31st day of December but not earlier than the 1st
day of October of that current year.
What are the requirements then for registration? Take note
that under this new registration procedures, there is only one set of
requirements for new applicants and those renewing their CRASM.
In order that the application for the registration of the authority
to solemnize marriage of a SO be approved by NSO, whether a new
applicant SO or renewal, he/she shall comply with the following
requirements:
(a) Proof of attendance in one-day orientation seminar
conducted by NSO for SOs. A separate guidelines shall be
issued to this effect;
(b) Certified true copy of his/her Certified of Live Birth;
(c) Accomplished application form (OCRG SO Form No. 1) in
triplicate copies, subscribed and sworn to before a person
authorized to administer oath with affixed documentary
stamp;
(d) Two by two colored ID pictures with white background
and with signatures at the back taken not less than a
month ago from date of application. Pictures should not
be computer generated to preserve its authenticity. In
case the person is using glasses, it should be removed to
have a clear image of the person;
(e) A machine copy of appointment as priest, head, founder,
bishop, pastor and minister of the religious sect;
(f) Proper endorsement/designation/recommendation from
the head of religion or religious sect to mention: the
full name, nationality, complete address, location of the
church, temple or chapel where the applicant regularly
perform rites and indicate the extent of his territorial ju-
risdiction;
(g) In case the applicant is the head/bishop/president/
founder of the religion or religious sect, an endorsement
APPENDIX 4 325
or recommendation from the Board of Trustees/Directors

or Church Council;
(h) In case there are no Board of Director/Trustees, the head/
bishop/founder/president of the religion or religious sect
shall submit a sworn statement duly notarized;
(i) In case the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country, he
shall submit his Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR)
or Immigration Certificate of Registration (ICR) issued by
the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID);
(j) Sworn statement containing brief history of the religion/
religious sect and the list of 200 bona fide active members
stating therein their complete address and signed by the
members;
(k) A certified Certificate of Registration, Articles of
Incorporations and by-laws, and update General
Information Sheet (G.I.S) issued by the Security Exchange
Commission (SEC);
(l) Certified True Copy of Certificate of Ordination issued by
their respective church;
(m) Payment of registration fee
For tribal Heads/Chieftain, the requirements are:
(a) Accomplished application form (OCRG-SO Form No. 1) in
triplicate copies, signed, subscribed and sworn to before
documentary stamp;
(b) Two by two colored ID pictures with white background
and with signatures at the back taken not less than a
month a ago from the date of application. Pictures should
not be computer generated to preserve its authenticity. In
case the person is using glasses, is should be removed to
have a clear image of the person;
(c) Certified True Copy of Certificate of Live Birth;
(d) Certification from the National Commission for Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) certifying that the applicant is authorized
to solemnized marriage;
(e) Payment of registration fee
IN THE PHILIPPINES
How much is the registration fee? Pursuant to Executive Order

No. 197 issued by the President Joseph Estrada on January 13, 2000
and implemented on April 4, 2000, the registration fees are follows:
P 500.00 for each registration and issuance of CRASM
P 100.00 for each certified transcript from the registration
of solemnizing officers
P 100.00 for each duplicate or subsequent copy of
CRASM
P 100.00 for each certification issued pertaining to
solemnizing officer
Take note that all fees accruing from the application for
registration of the authority to solemnize marriage of the SOs shall
be payable to NSO.
What form shall be used in applying for the registration of the
authority to solemnize marriage?
The form to be used is the modified version of the OCRG-
SO Form No. 1. It is to be accomplished in triplicate and shall be
subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer
oath. This form is available in any NSO PO and all items of
information shall be filled up correctly by the applicant. The items
of information are:
Item No. 1 — Full name of the applicant
Item No. 2 — Citizenship/ICR/ACR No./Address of the
applicant
Item No. 3 — Date and place of birth of the applicant
Item No. 4 — Name of the religion/religious sect where
the applicant SO is a member
Item No. 5 — Title or Position of the Solemnizing Officer/
Title, name and position of the Appointing Officer
Item No. 6 — A solemn promise of the SO to perform
marriages according to their religious rites and services
Item No. 7 — Exact territorial jurisdiction of the SO
Item No. 8 — Complete/full address where the church,
temple or chapel is situated
APPENDIX 4 327
Item No. 9 — Request of the SO for the issuance of his/her

certificate of authority to solemnize marriage
Item No. 10 — Signature of the applicant
It is also worthwhile to include in these new registration
procedures the grounds for cancellation of the Certificate of Regis-
tration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM). Each SO shall
see to it that they are aware of these grounds. For the information
of everyone, the Civil Registrar General through the Regional
Directors (RDs) shall cancel the CRASM issued to any SO based on
the following grounds:
(a) When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize
marriage is made by bishop or head of religion or religious
sect of which the SO is a member
(b) When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize
marriage is made by the SO himself
(c) When before the expiry date of his authorization, the SO
which he represented at the time of registration
(d) When the SO has been convicted by final judgment of any
crime
(e) When the SO retires from his function as a priest or
incapacitated to discharge the function or his religion or
religious sect
(f) When the SO willfully violates the provisions of the
existing laws as when he officiates marriage where no one
of the contracting parties is a member of his religion or
religious sect
(g) When he officiates marriage outside his territorial
jurisdiction
(h) When he fails or refuses to exhibit his authority to
solemnize marriage when it is demand from him by the
contracting parties, their parents or guardian
(i) When he officiates marriage where the contracting parties
do not have a valid marriage license is required and such
fact is known to him
IN THE PHILIPPINES
(j) When he fails or refuses to indicate on the marriage

authority to solemnize marriage
(k) In case of foreigner, when his visa expires before the
expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage
(l) Allowing proxy marriages which is a kind of marriage
arrangement (which is not being tolerated) where on
of the parties to a marriage is represented merely by
someone else who may be a delegated or a friend of one of
the contracting parties
(m) Non-appearance or proxy SO where one SO is represented
by somebody else who performs the marriage for and in
behalf of the SO
(n) Physical incapacity of the SO which substantially affects
his performance to solemnize marriage, such as blindness,
etc.
(o) Marriages contracted with expired marriage licensed
(p) Other acts in contravention with law
Lastly, I would like also to include in this paper the duties
and responsibilities of the Solemnizing Officers, as provided by
Administrative Order No. 2 series of 2005. These are:
(a) Registers his authority to solemnize marriage at the NSO,
if applicable;
(b) Ensure that the requirements for the solemnization of
marriage under the laws are complied with;
(c) Performs religious services except those SOs who
solemnized marriage inherent to their functions, customs
and traditions are provided by law;
(d) Solemnize marriages within the territorial jurisdiction;
(e) Ensure the accuracy and completeness of entries in the
Certificate of Marriage;
(f) Submits the Certificate of Marriage to C/MCR for
(g) Files, keeps and preserves Certificate of Marriage;
APPENDIX 4 329
(h) Compiles with other requirements as maybe prescribe by

the CRG
MARRIAGE REGISTRATION: ISSUES AND CONCERNS
By
Lourdes J. Hufana
I. Introduction
This paper aims to present the problems that the office
encounters in the processing of the marriage documents
that we received from the various civil registry offices in the
country. However, before we do that let me first give you a brief
background on how the NSO became the central depository of
all registrable documents including the marriage documents.
Please allow me to present to you the important uses of the
marriage documents in order that you will understand better
why we need these problems that we are going to discuss this
afternoon.
The National Statistics Office (NSO) is the agency
mandated by law to carry out the civil registration functions in
the Philippines.
The Administrator of the NSO, concurrently the Civil
Registrar General (CRG), is vested with authority to issue
rules and regulations in carrying out the purposes of the Civil
Registry Law (Act No. 3753). Section 2 of the said Act provides
among others that “The Director of the National Library shall
be the Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions
of this Act”. Thus, the system is said to be centralized because all
rules and regulations pertaining to civil registration emanates
from the CRG.
When Commonwealth Act No. 591 (CA 591) was enacted
on August 19, 1940, the civil registration function of the
National Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census
and Statistics (now NSO).
The NSO is also mandated to generate general purpose
statistics. One of the statistics we generate is the vital statistics
which are obtained from the civil registry documents.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Importance and Uses

Beyond the existence of a valid marriage is the process of
registration. A marriage certificate best evidences the validity
of the marriage between a man and a woman and clothes such
union with the legal precepts of the law.
Marriage certificate proves the occurrence of the event.
The entries in the marriage certificate are essential not merely
to prove relation of the parties to their children but also to
establish the right of the said children to their inheritance or
their legitimes. This is notwithstanding the fact if they are
legitimate or illegitimate.
Other use of the marriage records include proof of right
to issuance of benefits, pensions, for obtaining passports,
tax deduction, provisions and allocation of specific types of
government housing and numerous other facilities that relate
to a married man and his wife, including claims to a change of
nationality on the basis of marriage.
Some Statistics
Preliminary results of the Decentralized Vital Statistics
System (DVSS) showed 593,553 marriages that occurred in
2003. The highest recorded occurrence of marriage took place
in May with a total of 67,851. August has the least number of
recorded marriage occurrences with 32,031.
Among the regions, National Capital Region (NCR) got
the highest recorded occurrence of marriage which is 100,665.
The region with the lowest recorded occurrence of marriage is
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with 1,001
recorded marriages.
About 235,351 marriages, the highest so far, occurred to
women between the ages 20 to 24 years. On the other hand, the
highest number of marriages occurred to males between the
ages of 25 to 29 years old with 191,627.
Marriages performed under the civil rites are 244,890.
For marriages performed under religious ceremonies, 220,393
are recorded solemnized under the Roman Catholic Church.
APPENDIX 4 331
II. Common Errors

We now go to the primary concern of this paper which is to
present the problems encountered by the office in the marriage
documents submitted to us. These are the following:
A. Marriage Exempt from License Requirement

Under the law, there are two types of marriages. One is
the ordinary marriage which requires the marriage license and
the other is the marriage of exceptional character which does
not require a marriage license.
Following are the marriages which are exempted from
the license requirement:
a. Either or both of the contracting parties are at the point
of death (articulo mortis);
b. If the residence of either party is so located that there is
no means of transportation to enable such party to appear
personally before the local civil registrar;
c. Parties who have been living together as husband and
wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment
to marry each other; and
d. Marriage among Muslims or among members of the
ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly
without the necessity of marriage license, provided they
are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or
practices.
If no information about the marriage license is indicated
in the certificate, such as the license number and date and
place of the issuance, the oath of the solemnizing officer at the
back of the form must be executed by the solemnizing officer.
If no information pertaining to the marriage license
requirement was indicated in the marriage certificate nor the
affidavit at the back of the marriage certificate was executed by
the SO, submission of supplemental report is not the remedy
as mentioned in Rule 11 of AO 1, Series of 1993. It states that
“A supplemental report using appropriate form (Certificate
of Live Birth, Certificate of Death, Certificate of Fetal Death
or Certificate of Marriage) may be filed to supply information
inadvertently omitted when the document was registered.
However, the “Medical Certificate” in the Certificate of Death
IN THE PHILIPPINES
and Certificate of Fetal Death and all applicable certifications

contained in the Certificate of Marriage should be accomplished
correctly and completely before registration. Hence, no
supplemental report having reference to the mentioned certifi-
cates is acceptable.
If there is some doubt cast upon the validity of the
marriage license because of the absence of the information on
the marriage license we leave it to the user of the document to
ask for proof or evidence as to the marriage validity.
B. Wrong Place of Registration
The place of occurrence is the place of registration. This is

to ensure an effective and orderly system of civil registration.
Without such rule, our system of civil registration would be
chaotic because the place of registration would be primarily
dependent on the discretion or convenience of the interested
party.
There are many cases of marriage registrations where
the place of registration is not the place where the marriage
took place. NSO has issued Memorandum Circular No. 91-6
where it says that, the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of the place
where the marriage is wrongfully recorded shall negotiate with
the LCR where the marriage occurred for the physical transfer
of the marriage certificate. In this case, the document to be
transferred and the registry book where it is recorded shall
have the remark “Transferred to the LCR of ____________ on
(state the date) in accordance with Circular No. 91-6”.
The C/MCR where the marriage was registered may
reconstruct the document by getting the information from the
Register of Marriage, or by preparing a certified transcription
from the register, if the original document is unavailable and
shall transfer the same to the place where the marriage took
place. The transcription should bear the remark or annotation
that the document is transferred pursuant to Circular No. 91-
6.
C. Double Registration
There is double registration when the marriage of a man

and a woman is registered twice. In cases where two marriage
APPENDIX 4 333
registrations of the same parties are recorded in our office,

we consider the first marriage as the valid one. When an
interested party requests for a copy of the marriage record, the
first registration shall be the one to be issued.
D. Multiple Marriages
The office has encountered several cases of multiple

marriages of a person either to the same person or to another
person. An example of the first is when a man and a woman
contracted marriage twice, one under the civil rites and the
other under the church rites. What is considered valid in the
example given is the first marriage. So if the first marriage is
the civil marriage, then the church marriage becomes invalid
and should not be registered. When an interested party requests
for a copy of the record of the said marriage, we will issue the
first marriage.
For marriages occurring to a person with different party/
ies, the office will issue copies of the marriage certificates after
marriage validation.
E. Wrong Form Used
Under Rule 43 of Administrative Order # 1, Series of

1993, it shall be the duty of the person concerned to accomplish
and send four (4) copies of the Certificate of Marriage to the
civil registrar for registration. After the registration, the civil
registrar shall distribute copies of the document within 5 days
from receipt thereof as follows: first, to the contracting parties;
second, to the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG);
third, for filing of the said office; and fourth, to the solemnizing
officer.
We have encountered cases where the document forwarded
to our office is not the copy for OCRG. In this case, we notify
the concerned city/municipal civil registrar (C/MCR) that the
document that has been forwarded is not the correct form and
request that an endorsement of said document be made. The
C/MCR shall prepare the certified true copy of the marriage
certificate using the standard copy for OCRG form. After this
the C/MCR shall submit the CTC to our office through the
Provincial Office (PO). The PO shall accept the CTC in standard
IN THE PHILIPPINES
form for OCRG. The CTC shall be filed on top of the original
copy of the marriage certificate.
F. Entries in Colored Ink
In the scanning of documents for conversion to digital

format, it has been observed that those that were written using
colored ink other than black resulted to blurred and illegible
images. Documents with blurred and illegible images are
excluded in the indexing and uploading stages. This explains
the situation where the NSO issues negative certifications from
the database even if the paper documents are on file.
In view of this and to ensure better archiving system
of quality documents, please be informed that effective
immediately black ribbon shall be used in filling-up all civil
registry documents, whether timely or late registered. Thus,
general instruction 2.1 of the Instructions Manual: Civil
Registry Forms (Accomplishments and Coding) issued in 1993,
to wit:
In every case of delayed registration of birth, death,
marriage and other registrable documents, the entry in the
civil registry book and the registry number transcribed on
the certificate of vital event shall be written on the Remarks/
Annotation portion of the certificate and the “Remarks” portion
of the registry book.
Is partially superseded only as to the entries in the
certificate of vital event is concerned.
G. Incomplete/Wrong Entries
The marriage form must be completely and correctly

filled up. This is to avoid waste of time and money in correcting
inconsistent and wrong entries and also of correcting forms
with incomplete entries.
We see marriage documents submitted to us with some
entries either omitted or erroneously entered. The advice we
give to the parties in cases like this is to file a supplemental
report to supply the entries which were inadvertently omitted.
For wrong entries, the remedy is to file a petition under R.A.
9048 to correct clerical errors or in court for correction of entries
beyond the scope of R.A. 9048.
APPENDIX 4 335
In some cases, one of the contracting parties place the

entries in the wrong portion of the marriage certificate. For
example, the husband fills up the right portion of the document
which is allotted for the wife. For these cases, the remedy is to
file a petition under R.A. 9048 to correct clerical errors.
H. No Registry Number
The registry number is assigned to every document to

indicate that such has passed registration in the local registry
office. It is also necessary for identification of such document.
The absence of a registry number in the marriage certificate
puts doubt on the validity of the said document and oftentimes
agencies where it is submitted reject such document.
To resolve this, we inform the C/MCR of the problem. If
the LCRO copy has a registry number, he should prepare a
certified true copy of the document and submit the same to
NSO. NSO will transcribe the registry number on the original
copy of the marriage certificate.
I. Same Registry Number Assigned to Different Marriages
The registry number is a unique number assigned to a

civil registry document. Hence no two documents shall have
the same registry number.
The remedy is this happens is to notify the C/MCR so that
he can make the necessary correction in the documents. NSO
will make the correction to its own copy upon receipt of the
correction made by the C/MCR.
J. Signatures of Solemnizing Officers/Contracting Parties
The signatures of the solemnizing officers/groom and the

bride in the marriage certificate presume that the essential
requisites for contracting a valid marriage had been complied
with. There are instances where the marriage certificate does
contain these signatures. Some institutions do not accept a
marriage certificate without the signature of the solemnizing
officer or both or either of the contracting parties. Absence
IN THE PHILIPPINES
of the corresponding signatures of these parties creates a

suspicion that the document is spurious hence; its validity is
put to question.
In this kind of situation, where the marriage certificate
does not contain the signature/s of the solemnizing officer or
the contracting party/ies, the party/ies is/are requested to visit
the civil registry office (CRO) or the NSO if residing within
reasonable distance to affix the signature/s on the document.
For some other instances, the C/MCR is requested to
forward a copy of the document bearing the signature/s of the
party/ies through endorsement.
K. Date of Signing Inconsistent with Date of Marriage
Under the Family Code, the parties must appear before

the Solemnizing Officer and personally declare that they take
each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than
two witnesses (Art. 3, Par. 3, Family Code of the Philippines).
In consideration to the provision of this law is the signing by
the parties of their marriage certificate. So it is important to
note that the date of signing of the marriage certificate should
be done after the marriage ceremony.
In some cases, our office encountered discrepancies as to
the date of the signing of the marriage certificate with the date
of marriage. These discrepancies oftentimes create confusion
as which would be done first, the celebration of marriage or the
signing.
No corrections shall be done by the LCRO in its file copies.
In case the client wants the entries to be changed or corrected,
the client shall file a petition under R.A. 9048. We shall accept
the document filed with our office.
L. Date of Registration versus Date of Event
We observed that there are marriage certificates where the

date of the registration is earlier than the date of marriage.
To correct the wrong entry in this case the party/ies must
file a petition for correction of entries under R.A. 9048.
APPENDIX 4 337
III. Conclusion
Marriage as defined in our introduction is a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and
an inviolable institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law.
The validity of the marriage does not solely depend on the
substantive aspect of the law. Much emphasis should be given
to the certificate where the evidence of marriage is recorded.
As marriage enjoys the presumption of permanency, nothing
more can establish said permanency but the record where it is
filed.
We may overlook the seriousness of filling-up of the
marriage certificate but what we do not know is that it is the
first defense against fraud, much less the validity. It is also one
of the sources of the rights of an individual.
We believe that as officers of the government, we are
mandated by law to safeguard the validity and integrity of
these documents.
Thank you and mabuhay.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS PERTAINING TO MARRIAGE

REGISTRATION
WILMA P. BAYAS
City Civil Registrar
Tagaytay City
A pleasant good afternoon to my co-participants, the

Solemnizing Officers composed of the Honorable Mayors, Honorable
Judges, priests, pastors and imams, Regional Directors and
Provincial Statistics Officers of the National Statistics Office on this
4th National Convention of Solemnizing Officers which is being held
here in Bacolod City Convention Center.
I am especially honored and grateful for the invitation given to
me by Ms. Carmelita N. Ericta, Administrator and Civil Registrar
General of the National Statistics Office and I consider it a privilege
to be accorded an opportunity to speak and share with you my
IN THE PHILIPPINES
experiences as City Civil Registrar of Tagaytay and to discuss some

issues and concerns pertaining to marriage registration.
To those participants who attended the 3rd National Convention
of Solemnizing Officers in Tagaytay International Convention Center
last August 5-7, 2003, you are already familiar with my place of duty
and destination.
When you happened to stay in Tagaytay, you don’t need to
hang portraits on your walls. Just open your window and you will
see beauty which no artist’s masterpiece could equal. It is known
for its lovely vista and panoramic view of Taal Volcano and Lake,
a wholesome tourists and family destination, Conference Center of
the Philippines, a meditation city, a seat of learning and play, a
homing pigeon and a City of Character.
In Tagaytay, we have an OCRG Extension Office — an off-
line census serbilis sub-outlet where our office receive and manage
applications for certifications and copies of civil registry documents
using BREQS.
Personally, I would say that I am blessed and lucky that the
City Mayors I worked with from 1992 up to present respect and
upheld marriage with sanctity and legality. Allow me to call our
work together as “Herculean task.” Alone and separate, we will
only fail, but together and with the participation of all, we produces
result and succeed. I never experienced circumstances leading to
void marriages like the following:
TYPES OF VOID MARRIAGES
1. ABSENCE OF FORMAL REQUISITES

A. Marriages Without a Marriage License
In this case, a ceremony is being held first before securing
a marriage license. A marriage license is a formal requirement
and if the marriage license was issued after the marriage
ceremony, the marriage is void (Sy vs. CA, G.R. No. 127263,
April 12, 2000).
B. Marriages Without a Marriage Ceremony
The law requires that a ceremony must be held to formalize
the marriage. The substance of the ceremony is more important
than the form. What the law requires is that the contracting
APPENDIX 4 339
parties must appear personally before the solemnizing officer

and declare that they take each other as husband and wife in
the presence of at least two witnesses.
So it is not proper and legal that the contracting parties
and witnesses just sign in the presence of Mayor’s Secretary,
Civil Registrar or other person authorized by the Solemnizing
Officer on his behalf during the ceremony.
C. Marriage By Proxy
It is not allowed in the Philippines because personal
appearance is mandatory as required by law under Article 6 of
the Family Code. The parties are required to declare that they
take each other as husband and wife, in the presence of the
solemnizing officer and at least two witnesses.
There are practices that one of the contracting parties is
in abroad when the marriage ceremony is held. It is not legally
possible hence the marriage cannot be entered into through
proxy or representative because the consent must be personally
and solemnly manifested.
I think this practice is being tolerated because of the
effect if one party is not asked. If the solemnizing officer after
hearing the wife says she was willing to take the groom as
her husband, forgot to ask the groom on the same matter, the
marriage would be valid, just the same, so long as the groom
also signed in the marriage certificate. (Kargonills vs. Familiar,
C.A., 7175, 1 0.G. 345)
So it is presumed that the groom is present during the
celebration of the marriage.
D. Marriages Officiated By A Person Without Any
Legal Authority To Solemnize Marriages
The person who is officiating the marriage must possess
the legal authority to solemnize marriage. So the Civil Registrar,
Mayor’s Secretary, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Counselors
and other person authorized by the Solemnizing Officer to act on
his behalf are not legally authorized to perform marriages.
I think the reason why solemnizing officers delegated this
matter is because the law provides an exception to this harsh
rule. To validate the marriage, only one party is required to
believe in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal
IN THE PHILIPPINES
authority to perform marriage. This exception can be highly

detrimental to anyone who falls prey to a scheme devise by
philanders to set up unsuspecting females into thinking that
they are entering into a valid marriage by getting a pretender
to solemnize marriage without having any legal authority.
Being stack in a marriage with someone who was just playing
games at your expense by putting up a person who did not have
the power to solemnize marriages is like falling into the abyss.
The tragedy is that the law considers this marriage a perfectly
valid one which cannot be annulled. Fraud cannot stand as a
ground to nullify your marriage because this is not one of the
frauds listed under the restrictive enumeration of Article 46 of
the Family Code. The presence of the good faith ingredient may
work against giving the parties a remedy to have the marriage
declared void.
2. ABSENCE OF ESSENTIAL REQUISITES

Marriages in which the contracting parties lack
the legal capacity to contract marriage (below 18 years
of age)
Legal capacity to enter into a marriage refers to age of the
parties at the time of the celebration of their marriages. For
some individuals, “age does not matter as long as matter does
not age.” Age does matter in law.
It does not matter if you are male or female anymore, the
new rules is that you have to be at least 18 years old in the
Philippines to enter into a valid marriage. If either the man
or the woman is below 18 years old, the marriage is void. The
marriage is still void even if the parents or the guardians of
both parties gave their consent to the marriage.
There are practices that to circumvent the law party
concerned declared his age older than his present age or a
marriage ceremony is still held even there is no license to the
effect.
3. MARRIAGES THAT ARE INCESTUOUS AND THOSE THAT
ARE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
The term “incest” refers to sexual relations with a close
relative. Most cultures have established taboos — against it
because it is considered an aberration of nature. Even if the
APPENDIX 4 341
incest taboo is a “cultural universal”, it is widely known that

different national cultures and legal systems define “incest” in
varying degrees, especially when it comes to the distinctions
between two kinds of first cousins: cross cousins and parallel
cousins. The children of two brothers or two sisters are parallel
cousins. The children of a brother or a sister are cross cousins.
Your mother’s sister’s children and your father’s brother’s
children are parallel cousins. Your father’s sister’s children
and your mother’s brother’s children are your cross cousins.
Thus, sex with cross cousins is proper but sex with parallel
cousins is considered incestuous.
The law steps in what medicine has already confirmed.
The horror of inbreeding is depicted by the abnormal offspring
from incestuous unions. Biological degeneration follows
systematic inbreeding. It is not advisable to marry someone who
is a close relative because the offspring that may be produced
from that union will predictably have numerous birth defects
and abnormalities. Philippine law safeguards the health and
welfare of the population by prohibiting marriages between
“close relatives”.
There are only two types of marriages that are expressly
labeled as incestuous and therefore void from the beginning:
a) Marriage between ascendants and descendants of any
degree
b) Marriage between brothers and sisters whether full or
half blood.
In these two types of incestuous unions, the law prohibits
marriages within the so-called “Levitical degrees.” Thus, a
man should not marry his mother, daughter, sister, aunt or
grandchild. (Aquino, Civil Code of the Philippines and Family
Code, 1990) Legitimacy or illegitimacy of the relationship
between the parties is immaterial. Either way the marriages
are still void. The degree of relationship between ascendants
and descendants is also immaterial. Incest is a form of a deviant
behavior and is punishable under Philippine Law. Incestuous
marriages are said to degrade social institutions, contradict
human nature and offend decency, moral and family values.
Article 38 of the Family Code enumerates the marriages
that are void from the very beginning “for reasons of public
IN THE PHILIPPINES
policy.” Public policy is defined as community common sense

and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the
state to matters of public morals, health, safety, welfare and
the like.
Marriages that are void from the beginning “for reasons
of public policy” are as follows:
a.) Marriages between collateral blood relative within the
fourth civil degree (first cousins) whether legitimate or
illegitimate
b.) Marriages between stepparents and stepchildren
c.) Marriages between parent-in law and children-in law
d.) Marriages between the adopting parent and the adopted
child
e.) Marriages between the surviving spouse of the adopting
parent and the adopted child
f.) Marriages between the surviving spouse of the adopted
child and the adopter
g.) Marriages between the adopted child and a legitimate
child of the adopter
h.) Marriages between the adopted children of the same
adopter
i.) Marriages between parties where one, with the intention
to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse or
his or her own spouse.
Filipino customs and traditions as well as universal
standards of morality and decency were considered when
these types of marriages were classified as “void from the
very beginning.” The ultra-conservative approach in the
classification of these nine marriages as void marriages has
amplified the “donts” in Philippine Civil law. There are simply
too many marriages that are void under Philippine Law that
you must take more than a cursory look at the level of your
relationship with your future spouse before taking the dive.
Paradoxically, a stepbrother and stepsister can both
enter into a valid marriage under Philippine Law. Marriages
between a brother-in-law and a sister-in-law as well as
APPENDIX 4 343
marriages between an adopted child and an illegitimate child

of the adopter and marriages between an adopted child of the
wife and the separate adopted child of the husband are valid
under Philippine Law. Following the same reasoning use to
invalidate other marriages “by reasons of public policy”, it is
surprising to note that there are legal impediments to these
last four types of marriages.
4. MARRIAGES THAT ARE BIGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS

Under Philippine Law, a bigamous marriage is void.
Bigamy is a serious crime punishable under the law. It is
committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent
marriage.
1.) before the marriage has been legally dissolved, either by
death, annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or
2.) before the absent spouse has been judicially declared
presumptively dead.
If you contract a marriage knowing that the requirements
of the law have not been met and the marriage is in disregard
of a legal impediment, you may have committed the public
crime of bigamy.
Whether our City Mayor and Parish Priests in our City
are in doubt of one of the contracting parties’ status because
of age or of a hearsay, our office is being called to assist them.
Our office assisted them by requiring the contracting parties
to request to the National Statistics Office a Certificate of No
Marriage Record.
But behind this, it is a common reality that attempting
to prove the existence and authenticity of marriage records to
shed light on the legal status of a previous marriage can break
the camel’s back. You must resolve at least two issues:
1. Was the prior marriage properly contracted?
2. Was it properly terminated or dissolved?
Lack of computerization and an obsolete (disorganized)
filing system and mysterious calamities such as fire, flood,
termites and rat infestation tend to augment the chances that
these marriage records are irretrievably lost.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
5. MARRIAGES THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH RECORD-

ING REQUIREMENTS
Failure to record or register the judgment of annulment
or judicial declaration nullifying the marriage, the petition
and distribution of the spouses’ properties and the delivery of
the children’s presumptive legitime will spell down and gloom
to the subsequent marriage. The law makes the subsequent
marriage “null and void” of the recording requirements in the
appropriate civil registry and registry of property are not met.
The registration of the judgment of annulment or declaration of
nullity of marriage with the proper civil registry will affect and
bind third parties. Recording the partition and distribution of
the spouses’ properties as well as the delivery of the children’s
presumptive legitimate with the proper registry of property
will resolve the ownership interest of these items and will put
to rest all further claims against properties from creditors and
other third parties.
If you got married again with full knowledge of the fact that
there was a failure to comply with the recording requirements
of the law, you may incur criminal liability for bigamy.
6. MARRIAGE DESPITE IMPEDIMENT
The finding of the local civil registrar that an impediment
exists is noted on the application for marriage license and not
on the license itself. Since the application may not be attached
to the license when it is issued (not required by law), it is possi-
ble that the person solemnizing the marriage may not become
aware of the impediment and solemnize the marriage to which
there is an impediment. There will be no criminal liability of
the solemnizing officer, but the marriage would be void.
7. EFFECT OF LAPSE PERIOD
The marriage license is automatically cancelled after
the 120-day period following its date. A marriage solemnized
after the period is marriage without a marriage license. The
automatic cancellation of the license is not a mere irregularity
or defect, the license is non-existent. The marriage is void ab
initio.
I have encountered this case when I checked the date of the
issuance of license to the date of the ceremony. I immediately
called the attention of the solemnizing officer and another
APPENDIX 4 345
ceremony was done and a different certificate was registered

in my office.
In Tagaytay City, residents who want to get or apply for
a marriage license must comply with the following additional
requirements before they secure their marriage license:
1. to plant two trees in the city’s parks or designated areas
as planned by the City Planning and Development Office
and
2. to attend Character Seminar
This ordinance of the City may look absurd to the
outsiders but you can see that this is anchored by a concerned
environmentalist who is concerned with the future of the place.
The City Mayor’s critics were howling fowl and they said what
has a marriage to do with planting of trees in Tagaytay? In fact,
there is a human right case involving this unusual requirement.
But if you look closely, this ordinance will assure that Tagaytay
will not deteriorate as a wasteland but as a nature and forest
city many years from now and with good supply of potable
water. Knowing that trees breathe life to the environment, the
ordinance demands on us to be vigilant and innovative with
the maintenance of ecological balance and regreening efforts in
Tagaytay City.
Being the first local government unit in the entire
Philippines to adopt character development for the people
and the second international city to be a member of the
International Association of Character Cities all over the world,
a Character Seminar was made an additional requirement for
those applying for a marriage license.
The seminar aimed to promote and strengthen families
which shall be the anchors of our nation towards spiritual,
moral, economic and social growth. Being an invaluable
institution, families can make, empower and break a nation.
A Certificate of Character Seminar is being given after
attending the seminar.
In our acceptance of Certificate of Marriage for registra-
tion, we ensure that the following reportings are observed:
1. Number of Copies
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The certificate should be submitted in four

copies to be distributed as follows: original to either
of the contracting parties; duplicate and triplicate
to be retained to the office; quadruplicate, to the
solemnizing officer.
2. Reglementary Period
Ordinary marriage has a reglementary period
of 15 days while marriage except from a marriage
license requirement has 30 days. This is the often
mistakes of solemnizing officers thinking that the
reglementary period for marriage registration is 30
days.
3. Form is Properly and Completely Filled Up and
Entries are Correct
For marriage certificates, the solemnizing of-
ficer has the corresponding duty in making an ac-
curate and systematic family civil register by seeing
to it that all marriage certificates are correctly and
properly filled up. All entries must be true and cor-
rect prior to the submission of marriage certificates
for registration.
Whenever I ask a solemnizing officer or person authorized
to report event of marriage in the office why the filling up of
name of mother of the contracting parties is not the maiden
name, the answer is because he just copy what is written in
the license. So I advised him to fill up the maiden name of the
mother of contracting parties. Before I accept the certificate, I
obliged them to read properly the items typed in the document
to avoid any clerical errors.
Common errors made in the filling up or typing of items
in the Certificate of Marriage are:
1. “Jr, III or Sr” is mistyped on Last Name instead of
First Name
2. Citizenship of Foreign Contracting Party
3. Discrepancy on age of bride/groom
When checked against date of marriage, the age is
lower or higher than the present age.
APPENDIX 4 347
4. No signatures of one contracting party and

solemnizing officer
5. No entry on place of issue, date and number of
license
6. Names are twice typed leaving a shadowy image and
are difficult to read
7. Carbon Paper no longer imprints black prints but
only shadow
8. Interchanged entry of bride and groom
9. Surname of the Mother
10. Birthdate is typed “4-9-2005” instead of 4 September
2005
11. Failure to Sign or Issue Certificate
4. Proper Attachments Are Submitted

1. Marriages Exempt From the License Require-
ment
a. Article 27
Affidavit executed before the Local Civil
Registrar, or any other person legally authorized
to administer oaths that the marriage was
performed in articulo mortis.
b. Article 34
Affidavit of contracting parties before any
person authorized by law to administer oaths
that they are leaving together for at least five
years and without any legal impediment to
marry each other and the solemnizing officer
oath that he ascertained the qualifications
of the contracting parties and found no legal
impediment to the marriage.
c. Article 8
Affidavit of the Contracting Parties
requesting the solemnizing officer in writing
that they be allowed to hold their marriage at a
house or place designated by them.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Article 8. The marriage shall be solemnized

publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open
court, in the church, chapel or temple or in
the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-
consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere,
except in cases of marriages contracted at the
point of death or in remote places in accordance
with Article 29 of this code, or where both of
the parties request the solemnizing officer in
writing in which case the marriage may be
solemnized at a house or a place designated by
them in a sworn statement to that effect.
5. Use of Black Ink In Filling Up and Affixing Signa-
tures in the Certificate of Marriage
To ensure better archiving system of quality
documents, we see to it that black ink or ribbon shall
be used in filling up the marriage certificate whether
timely or late registered and also in the affixing
signatures of contracting parties, solemnizing officer
and witnesses in the Certificate of Marriage.
This system is in consonance with NSO Memo
dated March 4, 2004.
6. Authority of the Solemnizing Officer
A xeroxed copy of the Certificate of Authority to
Solemnize Marriage is being required for submission.
We ensure that the solemnizing officers have not
expired their licenses and the indication of their
license in the Certificate of Marriage.
The standing rule is that the solemnizing officer
must indicate his name and title in the Certificate of
Marriage, the expiry date and registry number of his
authority to solemnize marriage.
We also ensure that the solemnizing officer
acts within the limits of such authority. There are
instances that the solemnizing officer officiated
marriage even both or one of the parties to the
marriage do not belong to his sect or church.
Another, the solemnizing officer performs
marriage not in the aspect of his jurisdiction. There
APPENDIX 4 349
are some churches, sects or religions that limit

the jurisdiction of their solemnizing officers to a
particular province or region and some anywhere
in the Philippines. In such case, the concerned
solemnizing officer must be reminded of such
limitation because the validity of the marriage may
be questioned.
7. Non Registration of Religious Ratification of a Valid
Marriage
The office does not accept for registration
religious ratification of a valid marriage. The
marriage begins with the civil ceremony before the
Judge or Mayor. It is the marriage that is recorded
in the Office of the Civil Registrar. The certificates
signed by the parties in the church wedding are
kept only in the church files and by the parties for
sentimental or religious not legal reason.
If the marriage was already solemnized for the first time in
a church, to which one party belongs, with all the requirements
of law, including a marriage license, a subsequent wedding in
another church of the other spouse will be merely a religious
ceremony. This is so also with respect to so-called silver or
golden weddings.
In application for marriage license, I had this experience
with a Greek who wanted that he be married immediately for
he never practiced waiting. In Greece, being the next highest
military official in rank, he can command his soldier to shoot
himself in front of him and the soldier will oblige. When he
secured and submitted a copy of his documents, attended
seminars as required by our office, he said that this is the first
time he did that and for that he will never forget me. When
they got married, I was requested to attend and everytime
they visited Tagaytay, he always drop by the office to greet me.
Later, he decided to buy a vacation house and lot in Tagaytay
and considers Tagaytay City his second home.
Another unforgettable experience I had is that with an
applicant, formerly a Filipino married to a Filipina in the
Philippines. He later filed for a divorce in U.S.A. Then he
later applied for a marriage license in Tagaytay City to marry
a Filipina residing in Tagaytay City. I did not accept the
application and stick to the Supreme Court ruling that a foreign
IN THE PHILIPPINES
divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the

effectivity of the New Civil Code (R.A. 386) is not entitled to
recognition as valid in the Philippines. It is clear that the valid
marriage contracted to his Filipina wife remained subsisting
and undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the
decree of absolute divorce he obtained in U.S.A.
As a general rule, foreign divorce obtained by a Filipino
citizen will be considered void and are not recognized under
Philippine Law. This is in consequence of the absence of any
law in the Philippine recognizing divorces. Under Article 15 of
the Civil Code, all questions relating to marriage and divorce or
legal separation and family relations are governed exclusively
by the law of the Philippines when Filipinos are involved. Since
a marriage contracted in the Philippines cannot be dissolved,
except by death, there being no divorce in the Philippines, a
divorce obtained by a Filipino abroad is void in the Philippines.
If a subsequent marriage is then contracted with another
person by the Filipino divorcee, that marriage is absolutely
void because the first marriage is still considered as subsisting
under our law.
The second paragraph of Article 15 inserted by amendment
by Executive Order 227 after the issuance of the Family Code
creates an exception to the rules. In case the parties to the
marriage are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, if the foreigner
obtains a valid foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have
the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. But if it is the
Filipino citizen who secures the divorce, the divorce will not be
recognized in the Philippines, and he cannot remarry under
our law.
This rule seems to place a Filipino citizen on a plane of
inequality. There is reason for this however. Our law does not
allow the Filipino to seek a foreign divorce hence, if he obtains
one, it is not recognized in the Philippines. He is subject to the
Philippine law on status, wherever he goes.
In the conduct of civil marriages, the office assists the
City Mayor on the following activities:
1. Applying of couple for a marriage license
We accept the application for marriage license of
contracting parties if either or both habitually resides in
Tagaytay City.
APPENDIX 4 351
In cases where the marriage license was issued outside

Tagaytay, there are times the requirement as to place of
issuance is not complied with. We observed that an LCR issued
a license to contracting parties not residing in his place of
jurisdiction.
Since the solemnizing officer does not have to investigate
whether or not the license had been properly issued, we accept
the license provided all the other requisites are present. We
cannot do something about it since the law dictates for its
validity regardless of the place of issuance as long as there is a
license before the ceremony. (People v. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176)
But the law does not impose upon solemnizing marriages
the duty of investigating whether the license was issued by the
local civil registrar of the domicile of either party. It is sufficient
to know that the license was issued by a competent official and
it may be presumed from the issuance of said license that said
official has complied with his duty of ascertaining whether
the party who desires to get married resides habitually in his
municipality. The marriage under a license is not invalidated
by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained. The defect
or irregularity affects only a formal requirement.
2. Scheduling of Character Seminar, Seminar on
Family Planning and Marriage Counseling and Planting of
Trees.
3. Verifying the authenticity and veracity of documents
submitted by the couple.
If we are in doubt as to the status of either of the
contracting parties, we requested them to submit Certificate of
No Marriage Record issued by the National Statistics Office.
Likewise, if we are in doubt of the certificate of birth
submitted to the office, we require them to secure an NSO
copy. The parishes in Tagaytay City require the same because
of the fake documents submitted by other contracting parties
whether it is birth or baptismal certificates. I myself have seen
a fake document allegedly signed by the undersigned which is
quite similar with my signature specimen. I am just wondering
how where these people secure LCRs signature specimen.
4. Typewriting of Certificate of Marriage of Couple.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Before the contracting parties affix their signature in

the Application for Marriage License and after the marriage
ceremony where we give to them a copy of their marriage
certificate we let them read all items filled up and double-
checked information given. Our purpose is to avoid any clerical
errors.
The office sees to it that the certificate must be readable,
complete and provide the right information. Any misspelling,
misinformation, misalignment, missing information, common
mistakes, blurred entries and the like is known to contribute
to the quality of documents.
5. Preparation Marriage Rites of Couple
The couples to be married are given copy of the marriage
rites to be used during the ceremony.
6. Documenting the Marriage Ceremony.
The office is responsible for the documentation of the
marriage ceremony. We advised the couple to come back to
claim their pictures taken during ceremony.
In the marriage ceremony, the City Mayor let the couple
recite Marriage Vows or Pangakuan sa Pag-iisang Dibdib in
Tagaytay.
Here is the sample of Marriage Vows. We give this copy to
married couple and we advise them to laminate or keep it as a
remembrance of their lifetime commitment.
We also give the couple a Certificate of Character where
the couple pledge to enlive as a family 24 character qualities
imbibed by the citizens of Tagaytay.
7. Assistance in the Conduct of Civil and Church
Weddings
Every Monday and other days that the City Mayor will
solemnize marriage, the office assists in the conduct of civil
wedding.
The office also assists two parishes in Tagaytay City in
the conduct of church mass weddings. We assist them on the
following activity:
1. Typewriting of Certificate of Marriage
APPENDIX 4 353
2. Assistance in the conduct of marriage ceremony

3. Free registration of births of couples’ children
I hope that the issues, experiences and concerns I talk
about today are of significant enough interest and usefulness
to all of you to warrant taking up some of this Convention’s
valuable time. These experiences bring me to understand and
adopt innovations and new procedures to improve marriage
registration system.
Together in partnership, we should have the social and
moral responsibility of fulfilling the roles bestowed upon us by
the State and by the church or religious sect in preserving the
inviolability of marriage, promoting and strengthening families
and in registering marriages.
The family which is the institution of marriage is the
basic building block of society. It is within which our dreams
and aspirations are conceived and love.
As Local Civil Registrars, we should strictly apply the
laws and rules of application of marriage license, marriage and
marriage registration procedures along with the solemnizing
officers to strengthen the preparatory procedures leading to
marriage rites and marriage registration.
The Solemnizing Officers should guard and promote
Filipino family by ensuring that the founding and launching of
families through marriage is carried on with utmost care and
integrity. A family is what the solemnizing officers help from
by binding together, the man and woman, through marriage.
We, in this endeavor of service are fully aware of the
sensitiveness, the magnitude and the responsibility of this
moral job. We need the heart, the soul and vigor of everyone
to ensure hands in carrying and working for the stability of
marriage, strengthening family life and promoting the rights
and interests of the children. There is a saying, like an orchestra
we need harmony to produce a pleasing symphony.
Coming together is a beginning, keeping together is
progress, and working together is success. Together, let’s make
things happen. Let us remember that each of us can make a
difference in the life of every Filipino.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
As William J. Bennet puts it, “most certification today

is pure credentialism. It must begin to reflect our demand
for professional excellence and better quality service, not our
appreciation of parchment.”
May we enjoy the blessings of good health so that we
can continue our work in leading our nation along the path of
righteousness and justice.
Thank you for this honor of being with you and for listening
to me so attentively. I hope I have shown you the social, moral
and legal significance of marriage and some innovative means
in response to procedures and requirements which should
go beyond our ministerial call of duty of solemnization and
registration.
Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat.
“Life is no brief candle for me. It is sort of splendid torch to which

I have got to hold on for a moment and I want to make it burn as
brightly before handling it on the future generation.”
CENOMAR: AS A REQUIREMENT FOR LEGITIMATION

AND MARRIAGE LICENSE
By
Atty. Maribeth C. Pilimpinas
What is CENOMAR
The CENOMAR is an abbreviation for Certificate of No
Marriage Record. Aside from birth, marriage and death certificates,
CENOMAR is one of the frequently requested documents from the
National Statistics Office – Office of the Civil Registrar General
(NSO-OCRG). In securing the CENOMAR, the applicant will be
able to find out whether a man or a woman has an existing record
of prior marriage which may establish that one is not capacitated to
contract a valid marriage or that the man or a woman suffers legal
impediment before or at the time of marriage.
Prior to computerization, the issuance of the CENOMAR is a
tedious task as verification is being done manually. The search is
made from the years 1973 and onwards from the series of indices
filed in big folders. As NSO geared towards modernization, the
APPENDIX 4 355
marriages were all entered in the database from the years 1945 and
onwards. Computerization made the verification and issuance of
CENOMAR fast and accurate.
The early users and requesters of CENOMAR are the foreign
embassies. The CENOMAR is one of the documents required to a
Filipino who is to marry a foreigner. This is the reason why at that
time the CENOMAR is sometimes referred to as a “Certification
of single status”. It is considered as “certification of legal capacity”
which is issued by embassies for purposes of marriage.
Foreign embassies needed assurance that there is no longer
impediment to marriage when the foreigner will eventually petition
the Filipino wife or husband. The US embassy in particular, relies
so much on CENOMAR to determine the veracity of the status
of a Filipino immigrant. There are cases of Filipinos who left the
Philippines for US declaring that they are single only to find out
later that they are married. The CENOMAR will reveal the true
status of the person who is married which may consequently lead to
the denial of the petition.
Other users of CENOMAR are the women or the parents who
wanted to be assured that the man who will marry their daughter
has not contracted prior marriage. The Regional Trial Courts
through subpoena also request NSO-OCRG for the verification of
records of one’s marriage. In one bigamy case, the court requested
for a verification of the marriage (CENOMAR) of a man, but to the
surprise of the complainant and the court, there exist not only two
but five (5) marriages contracted by the Respondent with different
women in different places and dates.
These are the early users of the CENOMAR and lately
it has become a compulsory requisite for legitimation process.
Some religious sectors also require contracting parties to secure
CENOMAR prior to marriage rites. It is likewise encouraged that
C/MCRs require CENOMAR prior to issuance of marriage license to
make sure that there is no legal impediment to marriage.
How to avail the CENOMAR

The CENOMAR can be requested from the NSO Serbilis Center
at East Avenue, Quezon City and at various NSO Serbilis Outlets all
over Metro Manila and some provinces. The fee for a CENOMAR is
P180 and it can be claimed after 10 working days. The Civil Registry
IN THE PHILIPPINES
System (CRS) database has enrolled entries for marriages from the
year 1945 up to the current month of 2005.
At NSO Serbilis Outlets, the CENOMAR can be applied by filling
up the green application form. The following basic informations are
needed:
a) First, middle and last name of the applicant has either no
existing record of marriage or that the date of marriage is
not known.
b) Complete name of the father and mother’s maiden name.
Note that the date of marriage is not needed in the application
for CENOMAR as it is presumed that the applicant has either
no existing record of marriage or that the date of marriage is not
known.
In case of common names, the names of the father or the mother
is important so that the verifier can finally determine that which
matches the information in the application form and that appearing
in the database. The result of the verification and requested
for CENOMAR can be issued using CRS Form No. 4 stating the
following:
To whom it may concern:
We certify that Corazon De Jesus Corpuz who is alleged to
have been born on August 28, 1980 in Surigao City to Anacleto
E. Corpuz and Leticia V. De Jesus, does not appear in our
National Indices of Marriage.
This certification is based on the records of 1945-2005
marriages enrolled as of June 2005.
Issued upon request of Corazon De Jesus Corpuz for
marriage purposes.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
At times, it may happen that the verification result of your

request for CENOMAR will yield a positive result, meaning, that the
applicant’s information reveals that there is an existing marriage
record that most likely matches the data in the National Indices
APPENDIX 4 357
of Marriage. In such case, the NSO-OCRG will issue a certification

using CRS Form No. 5 (Advisory on Marriage). The certification
states the following:
To whom it may concern:
Be advised that the search for the name Carmen Fuentes Roces
alleged to have been born on May 15, 1968 in Davao City, Davao del
Sur to Florendo T. Roces and Lolita P. Fuentes yielded One (1) most
likely match(es) in our National Indices of Marriage.
1. Date of Marriage: April 5, 1994
Place of Bride: Digos, Davao del Sur
Name of Bride/Groom: Carmen Fuentes Roces / Romeo
Rodriguez Salcedo.
This certification is based on the records of 1945-2005
Marriage enrolled in the database as of June 30, 2005.
Issued upon request of Romeo R. Salgado for general
purposes.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
Under such situation the applicant may likewise request for

the issuance of the marriage contract of the applicant by applying
the record in the marriage application form.
CENOMAR AS A REQUIREMENT FOR

LEGITIMATION
On April 8, 2005, the NSO-OCRG came up with a Memorandum

Circular, which requires CENOMAR as one of the documents to be
submitted in the legitimation of a child.
Legitimation is a remedy by means of which those who, in
fact were not born in wedlock and should therefore be considered
illegitimate are by fiction of law considered legitimate, it being
supposed that they were born when their parents were already
married. (1 Manresa 550, as cited in p. 201, Civil Law Reviewer, by
Desiderio P. Jurado)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Under the process of legitimation, the status of the child is

converted by operation of law from illegitimate to legitimate such
that the child can enjoy the rights and benefits of a legitimate child.
Articles 177 and 178 of the Family Code of the Philippines cover
the legitimation of illegitimate children and are below quoted as
follows:
“Article 177. Only children conceived outside of wedlock

of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were
not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be
solemnized.”
“Article 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent
valid marriage between the parents. The annulment of a
voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.”
The foregoing provisions contain the two requisites for
legitimation:
1. That the parents of an illegitimate child were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other at
the time of conception of the illegitimate child;
2. That the parents of the illegitimate child contracted a
subsequent valid marriage.
The foregoing requisites are compulsory and mandatory
requirements for legitimation as they are in fact related requirements.
The absence of one requisite will not make legitimation prosper.
In Legitimation process, the initial question that comes to
mind is, “Is there legal impediment for the parents to marry?” One
common impediment is the age of the parents. Those parents who
are below 18 years of age at the time of the conception of the child
cannot contract a valid marriage. And if the child was conceived
by the mother under 18 years of age this becomes an impediment
because the couple cannot contract valid marriage.
Another impediment is that of subsisting marriage of either of
the parents that was contracted prior to the subsequent marriage of
the parents of the illegitimate child. In case of divorce (abroad) or
annulment of prior marriage, these should take place prior to the
conception of the child, otherwise the impediment remains.
The parents of illegitimate children do not voluntarily reveal
the signs or existence of any legal impediment on their part for fear
that their illegitimate child cannot be legitimated. If impediments
APPENDIX 4 359
are apparent, the parents of the child are advised to adopt the child.
It is the remedy under the circumstances, although the parents feel
that it is ridiculous to adopt their own child. Oftentimes, they would
not want to adopt their own child for this may give wrong stigma to
the child.
The legitimation process will not prosper and becomes a
useless exercise of right, if it turned out later that one of the parents
of the illegitimate child was previously married. The CENOMAR
requirement will help to know the existence of impediment of the
parents avoiding future inconsistency in records of birth of the
child.
CENOMAR AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE
The marriage license is one of the formal requisites of a valid

marriage. As provided under paragraph (2) Article 3 of the Family
Code. Its absence will render the marriage null and void ab initio.
The marriage license can be applied at the Local Civil Registry
Office (LCRO), in the city or municipality where either party
habitually resides. (Article 9, Family Code of the Philippines)
The consular official at the Philippine Post shall issue marriage
license for Filipino Citizens. A sworn application for such license has
to be completely filled up with the following:
√ Full name of the contracting party
√ Place of Birth
√ Age and Date of Birth
√ Civil Status
√ If previously marriage, how, when and where the previous
marriage was dissolved or cancelled.
√ Present residence and citizenship
√ Degree of relationship of the contracting
√ Full name, residence and citizenship of the father
√ Full name, residence and citizenship of the mother
√ Full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian or
person having charge, in case the contracting party has
neither father or mother and is under age of twenty-one
years.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
The Local Civil Registrar (LCR) shall prepare a notice

containing full names and residence of the applicants for a marriage
license. It shall be posted for ten (10) consecutive days on a bulletin
board outside the office of the LCR. The notice shall request all
persons having knowledge of any impediment to marriage to advise
LCR.
The license can be used in any part of the Philippines for a
period of 120 days from date of issue.
For citizens of foreign countries, it shall be necessary for the
contracting parties to submit a “certificate of legal capacity” issued
by the respective diplomatic or consular officials.
While parties may declare themselves single and legally free to
contract marriage, the CENOMAR requirement gives an assurance
that indeed there is no legal impediment to marriage. The CENOMAR
will reveal if any one of the contracting parties had prior marriage.
This situation is true in particular, when one of the applicants for
marriage license is not very well known to the LCR or if he/she is
not habitually residing in the city or municipality. The request for
CENOMAR is made accessible through the Census Serbilis Center
at all NSO Regional and Provincial Offices.
The submission of CENOMAR is likewise strongly required by
some religious sectors.
The current practice of some religious sectors these days is to
require the bride and groom to submit CENOMAR prior marriage;
otherwise the church will not calendar the wedding ceremonies. This
practice appears orderly in the sense that aside from wedding have
no existing prior marriages.
The CENOMAR as a requirement for marriage has long been
practiced by foreign Embassies as the CENOMAR is equated to legal
capacity issued by some foreign embassies. This is one certification
recognized abroad such that before a marriage can take place
between a Filipino and a Foreigner, the CENOMAR from NSO is
required by the Embassy.
CENOMAR AND ITS EFFECTS

Consistency and correctness of civil register
In legitimation process, the Local Civil Registrar Office (LCRO)
has limited record to determine whether the parent/s of the child
APPENDIX 4 361
has prior marriage. It may happen that the legitimation of the child
was registered and subsequently annotated in the Certificate of Live
Birth (COLB) of the child. However, upon submission at the OCRG,
it was found that the father has prior marriage. There now appears
a conflicting record of status in the COLB of the child where at the
LCRO level the child is legitimated but at NSO-OCRG level the
child remained illegitimate.
Under this situation, the CENOMAR requirement at the LCRO
level will prevent the inconsistency in the civil registry record. The
NSO-OCRG has to preserve the integrity and harmony of the civil
registry documents. The conflict in the status of the child is likewise
avoided.
Stability of marriage and protection of child’s status

As family is the foundation of society, we must commit to the
stability of a valid and subsisting marriage by helping each party
to the marriage to start it right by knowing the true status of
the person he/she is marrying. The truth will avoid future family
problems, which may eventually cause separation of husband and
wife, a broken marriage.
The CENOMAR requirement is not a tedious process if we
are to consider that what is at stake in the future is stability of
marriage.
We are aware that a civil marriage contracted between
parties where one of the parties had subsisting prior marriage is a
bigamous, hence null and void. Later, if same marriage is nullified,
children born after the nullification are legitimate. There now arise
a disparity in the status of the children.
These are just some of the effects of the CENOMAR as a
requirements legitimation process and in the issuance of marriage
license. Now, at stake is the status of the child and the family and
the choice is left with you… take it and give them a better, brighter
future.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
ANSWERS TO MAIN ISSUES AND QUESTIONS DURING

OPEN FORUM RE THE 4th NATIONAL CONVENTION OF
SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS AT BACOLOD CONVENTION
PLAZA HOTEL, BACOLOD CITY ON AUGUST 9-11, 2005 (As
reprinted from the Daily Publication of Highlights during
the Convention)
Day One (August 9, 2005 Open Forum)
• The Philippine government cannot impose to the USA our
policies in the issuance since each state has its own laws
to follow.
• Solemnizing officers can only officiate marriage within
their area of jurisdiction. Acting mayor can officiate
marriage in the absence of appointed mayors provided it
is done only in the jurisdiction of the municipality.
• The CENOMAR requirement is encouraged but not
compulsory for legitimation and the issuance of marriage
license.
• Solemnizing officers can request for extension of his/her
territorial jurisdiction in case the minister is assigned to
other premises outside his jurisdiction. The OCRG will
issue such certificate.
• Solemnizing officers can request NSO Regional Directors
to conduct the required one-day orientation seminars for
the issuance/renewal of license to solemnize marriage.
• There is no educational requirement for the issuance of
the authority to solemnize marriage to any solemnizing
officer i.e. pastors, ministers, as long as the solemnizing
officer meets and complies with the other requisites of
Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 2005.
• It is of primary importance that the name and legitimation
of a child should be corrected in accordance with the law
from the very beginning to avoid future legal problem.
• NSO-OCRG Memorandum Circular was issued due to the
requests of MCRs to serve as the guideline on provisions
of Article 177 of the Family Code.
• Only the first marriage of a couple will be registered in
the NSO archives despite succeeding marriages of the
same couple.
APPENDIX 4 363
• Couples who lived together for five years can be married

even without marriage license provided they are of legal
age (18 years and above) when they started living in
together.
• CENOMAR has no prescription period. It depends upon
the purpose, usage and users.
Day two (August 10, 2005 Open Forum)

• P.D. 1083 is not against the provisions of the Family Code
and is only applicable to Muslims Filipinos.
• Marriage certificate can be issued to a man with multiple
marriages as long as it is part of the customs and practices
of his tribe.
• Another CRASM is required if a solemnizing officer
intends to solemnize marriage under tribal practices
other than his previous jurisdiction.
• An IP marriage can be dissolved provided it is under
customary laws but if married under AO 1 he cannot
dissolve the marriage under AO 3.
• Unregistered marriage is valid even after a long period of
time provided marriage contract is validly entered.
• A married Christian, converted to Islam and subsequently
remarried is still liable for bigamy because previous
marriage is not yet nullified under the Family Code.
• There is a conflict of interest when an MCR is also
authorized by “wali” to solemnize marriage.
• Documents without registration numbers are presumed
unregistered, however, if received by LCRO it is considered
registered.
• Foreign nationals marrying Filipinos should obtain their
legal capacity to get married from the consular offices in
the Philippines.
• There is no distinction between a true-blooded Muslim
and a convert.
• The registry number should be put in the marriage
document at the same time of the occurrence of the
event.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
• Religious solemnizing officers can counsel contracting

parties besides the DSWD.
• Place of occurrence should also be the place of
registration.
• The solemnizing officer is liable if proven that he has
knowledge that neither the contracting parties is a
member of the sect. As a result, the authority to solemnize
marriage will be revoked.
• Additional requirements to obtain marriage license like
tree-planting and character seminar certificates are not
grounds to suspend the application for the license.
• Only the first marriage between the same contracting
parties is valid despite subsequent marriages.
• Issuance of CRASM will be fully decentralized next year.
• Signing of unsigned marriage documents is allowed only
if it happened recently.
• NSO is on the process of loading the solemnizing officers’
directory to the NSO official website.
• Corrections in the certification portion of the civil registry
document (e.g. cause of death) are not resolved under R.A.
9048.
• A divorced decree is sufficient evidence for the LCR
to issue a marriage license to a Filipino and a foreign
national who is a divorcee.
• In area where there is no Shari’a court, registration
of a Muslim marriage can be done by a civil registrar
provided required forms under P.D. 1083 are properly
accomplished.
• Only one solemnizing officer should sign a marriage
contract.
Day Three (August 11, 2005 Open Forum)

• R.A. 9048 is administrative in nature for limited entries
because it doesn’t require court judgment.
• Judge should not entertain cases pertaining to R.A. 9048
unless there is a serious dispute on the matter.
APPENDIX 4 365
• Our status married or otherwise is conferred by law.

• There are two grounds governing the marriage between
Filipino and a foreigner, the Philippine laws and the laws
of the foreigner’s country.
• In the advent of cyber law a virtual office can be created.
PRIMARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS EXPERIENCED BY

CONCERNED AGENCIES IN DEALING MARRIAGE DOCU-
MENTS AS DISCUSSED BY DIFFERENT LECTURERS DUR-
ING THE 14th NATIONAL CONVENTION OF SOLEMNIZING
OFFICERS AT BACOLOD CITY ON AUGUST 9-11, 2005
A. Civil Registration Department Experience
* Marriage/s exempt from license requirement
* Wrong place of registration
* Double registration
* Wrong form used
* Entries in colored ink
* Incomplete/wrong entries
* Same registry number assigned to different marriages
* Signatures of solemnizing officers/contracting parties
* Date of signing/registration inconsistent with date of
marriage
B. City/Municipal Civil Registrar Experience
• Marriages with absence of formal requisites — those
without marriage ceremony, marriages by proxy and
those officiated by a person without any legal authority to
solemnize marriage.
• Marriages with absence of essential requisites-those
which have contracting parties below 18 years of age.
• Marriages that are incestuous and those that are against
public policy.
• Marriages that are bigamous and polygamous.
• Marriages that have not complied with recording
requirements.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
• Marriages despite impediment.

• Effect of lapse period — a marriage solemnized after the
120-day period following the issuance of the license is
marriage without a, thus it is considered void ab initio.
C. Solemnizing Officer Experience
• The need for educational and information campaigns on
the importance of marriage.
• Avoidance of having two solemnizing officers officiating
the marriage ceremony and both signing in the marriage
certificate.
• Women marrying foreign nationals should not opt for
quick marriages as these will lead to future problems.
• Ministers should also be given the privilege to officiate
mixed marriages like the mayors and judges.
• Attend seminars to be updated with the latest develop-
ments as well as share experiences to other solemnizing
officers.
PAPERS PRESENTED DURING THE 3rd NATIONAL CON-

VENTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS HELD AT TAGAY-
TAY CITY ON AUGUST 5-7, 2003
ISSUES AND CONCERNS ON MARRIAGE

REGISTRATION
by US Consul Barry Simmons
Magandang hapon to everyone. Let me add maraming

salamat for this invitation. I consider this a distinct honor and
privilege to be here with you. I know this is a very important
professional event for you every year and so I’d like to do what I
can to provide some remarks that may be of interest to you and
may be of help. As our host said this is not my first assignment
in the Philippines and in fact, I’ve been coming to the Philip-
pines for many, many years. The first year being 1964, before
any of you were born I suspect my father was in the military
and was assigned in Taipei, Taiwan. And to get to Taipei, Tai-
wan in 1964 you had to go to Clark Airbase and wait for a week
for the next flight so I’ve been coming to this country for many
APPENDIX 4 367
years. It seems good reason to come more often now for I’m
married to a Filipina. And for those of you who are from Cebu,
where my wife is from, I like to say jealousy as the province
of the most beautiful Filipinas come from. And everyone else
would hate me.
I have very brief remarks. One of the reasons is only two
people are authorized to speak in behalf of the Embassy. The
Ambassador, which I’m not, and the Public Affairs Spokesman,
which I’m not. And for me, I need to get remarks cleared in
advance. Anyone else who wants to speak and have their
remarks official, they have to have their remarks cleared
“verbatim” in advance, which is very difficult to do sometimes.
And so I’m actually glad that this has been changed to a
Question and Answer format for a panel. With just very brief
remarks in advance so to the extent it deviates from that is my
personal opinion.
I have two roles in the Embassy, one since I took over
the Fraud Prevention Unit is to investigate on allegations
of fraud with respect to visas, passports, consular reports of
birth abroad, things of nature. I also have the function as a
consular officer. I was in the immigrant visa section before
I came to the Fraud Unit and so I have two…. basically two
views of the issues you’re talking about today. Specifically
registration of marriage is just one of the registrations we’re
concerned with as Consular Officer in the Fraud Unit, not just
marriage documents but birth certificates, death certificates
and adoption decrees.
All the various legal documents you have that govern
family relationship and birth and death are of interest to us,
because of course, those documents are submitted in support of
visa applications and to the extent that we examine them for
legitimacy. We are relying very, very heavily, on you ladies and
gentlemen, to do your jobs very well.
I’m part of a multilateral committee at the Department of
Foreign Affairs, that is tasked with protecting the integrity of
the Philippine passport. I’m sure as you all know, as my wife
and I know, it hurts many Filipinos when they are traveling
internationally. They hold out their passport and various
immigration officers look at it with some doubt in their eyes.
And that’s where our committee is tasked at the DFA and I
IN THE PHILIPPINES
hope we are able to really put some vitality into the integrity
of the Philippine passport. Because it has been under assault
for many years as you know. Certainly I think that’s one of the
important things you do as solemnizing officers by demanding
very high standards when people apply for various documents
that in turn are used to get passports and visas.
By demanding such high standards you also help us to
protect the integrity of the Philippine passport. The two areas
that we really focus on with respect to marriage registration
here are: one, we conduct a lot of marriage indexing. Depending
on the circumstances of the applicant, we may send a request
that the NSO conduct a marriage index to determine whether
an applicant is married to someone else or to the same per-
son. Our latest statistics show us that about seven percent of
those marriage index come back as positive. They are married
to those who said they are not married or who have not been
married, or said that they had a prior terminated marriage.
And so I think that the glass is 93 percent full that 7 percent
empty.
Now, another issue about marriage registration documents.
It is carryover the birth certificates, death certificates and
petitions for adoptions, is we rely primarily on the Philippine
judicial system to make decisions about the legality of when
a marriage is a marriage and when an annulment is an
annulment. We don’t try to substitute our judgment.
As an attorney in the U.S., I’m not about to suggest I
know how much about Philippine law as Philippine attorneys
and Philippine judges. Our task is to make these decisions so
we rely on the decisions of our own officials and we follow those
in almost any case. And it’s a rare exception that we would not
accept.
If I am invited on a session on birth certificates, I really
have a whole lot more to say because that’s where the really
tough issues are with consul officers because so many birth
certificates in this country are late-registered. My personal
record for an applicant is 80 years late but usually that’s not
the one I’m concerned about. In many times, when an elderly
person being petitioned and the petition was filed many years
ago, there’s a nice paper trail showing that this person is who
this person claims to be.
APPENDIX 4 369
It’s the most recent petitions with late registrations that

do not make sense. You know somebody born in the 1980’s or
early 1990s and it is 10, 20 years late-registered, that does
not make sense. Somebody born in the 1930s obviously it
does. Either it wasn’t registered in many cases or that it was
burned in World War II. Sometimes the longer late registration
documents are easier to deal with as to consul officers but I
just mentioned those issues to give you an idea of the issues
were concerned with as consular officers at the US embassy
and if you have any specific questions, I’ll be glad to try and
address them in the question and answer session. Thank you
very much for your time.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS ON MARRIAGE REGISTRATION

by MCR Cynthia B. Soriano
A pleasant afternoon to everyone.

There’s a big concern nowadays because of same-sex
marriage. It was shown on television lately — siguro may
mga nakapanood sa inyo — that a ‘priest’ of a certain religious
denomination was solemnizing this sort of marriage. But we
all know that this is against public policy, against morals and
against the very purpose of marriage, which is procreation.
However, if the registration of such marriage was presented to
the civil registrar, we will register that marriage because our
duty is ministerial. Besides, registration, as we recall, does not,
in any way, affect the validity or the legality of the marriage.
It’s just documentation and recording. Registration is the best
evidence that such marriage was solemnized.
Pertaining to age, my fellow delegates, they must be
18 years old at that time of marriage. This is in the Family
Code. You know in the course in my research for the paper
I presented this afternoon, I came across a very interesting
article presented by the honorable Jaina Rasul during the
First National Convention of Solemnizing Officers. He made a
comparative analysis of the Family Code and the Muslim Code
of the Philippines. With regard to age, sabi n’ya sa Family Code,
18 years old. Pero sa Muslim Code 15 for male and 12 years old
for female, or even younger, basta nasa age of puberty na iyong
female.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
And so, sabi nya, in a case when a 15-year-old boy raped

a 13-year-old girl. The boy wanted to extinguish his criminal
liability by marrying the girl, which was allowed. But in that
case, he wanted to, but because of the age impediment, hindi
sila pwedeng pakasal legally, so nagpa-convert sa Islam and
then because nasa tamang edad na sila, they can now legally get
married. Ma-e-extinguish na rin iyong criminal liability noong
rapist, noong lalaki. Ang sabi ni Justice Rasul, the provisions
of Muslim Code provide a socio-legal remedy to some problems.
Iyon po ang opinion niya with regard sa situation na iyon.
Well, the issue with regard to the reckoning of the record
minimum age of 18 years, whether it is the date of marriage
or the date when the application for marriage license was filed
resolved in a 1991 opinion of the Secretary of Justice, to wit:
Sabi niya, “Certainly, it is the duty of the civil register
to determine from the applicant the record minimum age.
However, it is believed that the local civil registrar should not
refuse to issue a license for the reason alone that either or both
parties do not meet the requisite age at that date of filing of the
application for marriage license. As long as they will become
of age within the 120-day period of validity of the license, and
subject to the condition which should be advisedly be noted on
the license that the marriage shall not be celebrated until after
the party or parties shall have become of age.”
Simply put, my fellow delegates, ibig sabihin kami na
licensing officers (civil registrars) may accept application for
marriage license even when one or both of contracting parties
are 17 years old and 9 months for as long as within the validity
of the license magiging 18 years old na iyong one or both the
applicants, no problem about that.
But the issue now is, in preparing the marriage certificate,
the solemnizing officers must remember that the age of the
contracting parties to be indicated in the certificate of marriage
should be at the time of the marriage, and not at that time
of the filing of application for marriage license. For when the
solemnizing officers just copy the entries in the application for
marriage license in that particular case I cited, 17 years old and
9 months, pagkinopya iyon ng solemnizing officers, it would
then appear in the certificate of marriage that the contracting
party was still under aged at the time of marriage.
APPENDIX 4 371
Kaya ang caution ko sa mga solemnizing officers,

pagkokopyahin n’yo po ang ibang entries, we furnish also a copy
of the application of a marriage license. Pagkokopyahin n’yo po
ang ibang entries, okey po. Pero doon po sa age remember it
should be at that time of marriage, not at the time of filing the
application of marriage license.
With regard to relationship, I will confine my discussion
to legal capacity regarding confusion as to what is within the
fourth degree and what is not within. Kasi ang prohibition is
up to the forth civil degree, sa marriage.
I prepared here a diagram to educate you in determining
the degree of relationship. For example, A is the father of B
and C are the children, and so on. Ang pagbilang po ng degree
n’yan is start with A. This is the nephew or the niece. Bilang
hanggang C, balik sa A-1, balik sa A-2, baba sa B-3, so B’s
relationship is third degree.
I remember there was a question about this. I think this
morning or yesterday on the degree on relationship so iyong
B and A relationship is an uncle-nephew or auntie-nephew
relationship. That’s 3rd degree. Ang prohibition is remember
for the MCR’s siguro walang masyadong problema kasi we
were taught D and A 1st cousins hanggang d’yan ang legal
prohibition. That’s the 4th degree yan, kasi akala nong iba
hanggang fourth cousins. Kawawa naman iyong 2nd cousins,
3rd cousins. Hindi nila issue-han ng lisensya, under the law
they can legally get married. So, okay, D and G pamangkin mo
sa 1st cousin mo. Pwede na iyan. That’s already 5th degree na
yan kasi G to E is 1, to C is 2A, 3 to B, 4D. That’s 5th degree na
yan kasi G to E is 1, to C is 2A, 3 to B, 4 D. That’s 5th degree.
I hope this will aid you, the reason I included this is because
kahit yong mga solemnizing officers, there are instances when
the couple will go to you directly to get married, even yong ang
mga marriages with exceptional character, you will have to
determine the capacity of the contracting party. So you should
be able to know the degree, ‘yong legal capacity nila. I hope this
will help you.
The formal requisites of marriage na-discuss na rin natin ito.
On authority of solemnizing officers, some solemnizing officers
have expired licenses or have no license at all are indicated in
the certificate of marriage. Iyon ang mga natatanggap naming
IN THE PHILIPPINES
nire-rehistro. Also, the solemnizing officers should indicate

below their name and title, the expiry date and registry
number of their authority to solemnize marriage. Of course,
‘yong mga judges and mayors just their title and their name
are sufficient.
On valid marriage license, the effects of marriage
solemnized without a valid marriage license or before the
issuance of a valid marriage license. This issue, you know,
have far reaching repercussions which may be felt immediately
later. Let me underscore what I mean by way of this example.
Halimbawa, the husband and wife applied for marriage
license on August 1. All requirements were complied with
except the posting period. They were married, nangyayari ito
August 4 before the posting period was over. Pinabayaan na
ang marriage contract nila. They did not check their certificate
of marriage. After a couple of years or two, the wife gives birth
and placed in the child’s certificate of live birth that their date
of marriage is August 1, iyon ang alam nila. Only to find out
later that their date of marriage in their certificate of marriage,
siyempre ang inilagay nong nagkasal inadjust after the posting,
nilagay August 12 or at a later date, maraming problema na po
yon.
There are many repercussions already. In a case where
the husband is the foreigner and the wife applied for a marriage
license on August 1, all requirements were complied with
except the 10 days posting period. They were married August
5 before the posting was over. Husband, who is a foreigner, left
the country on August 7. In their certificate of marriage, the
couple was already out of the country. How can one get married
when he is not physically present?
So these are the concerns. Ito yong mga ginagawa ng
solemnizing officers na hindi nila unintended ang maraming
repercussions. In one Supreme Court decision, I cannot exactly
quote ‘yong decision na yon, a marriage which was declared
void for lack of marriage license at the time of marriage. Ito po
yong kaso, ang marriage certificate nila iyong original iyong
copy ng contracting parties, ang bakat ng makinilya noong date
of marriage at noong time of marriage, ang marriage license at
ang license number were different from the rest of the entries.
Iba po, bakat lang po nang makinilya ang pinag-uusapan
APPENDIX 4 373
natin pero seemingly walang problema. Hindi tama ‘yong mga

dates doon but pina-declare ‘yong marriage void from the very
beginning kasi ang contention ng interested party iyong nag-
file ng petition for declaration of nullity, if at that time of the
marriage there was already a valid marriage license issued.
There was no reason for whoever prepared the certificate
of marriage not to type entirely. Bakit iba-blanko pa nya iyon
kung meron nang license and it held water declared void from
the very beginning. Kaya iyong mga practice dyan bina-blanko
nila, kung wala pang lisensya saka na lang fi-fill up an. Ito
magkaiba-iba lang ang imprint ng typewriter napa-declared
void na from the very beginning because of the absence of
a valid marriage license at the time of solemnization of the
marriage.
Ordinary marriage, this was already discussed. The
reglementary period within 15 days following. Let me zero in
on the following solemnization of marriage. Some believe it is
30 days but as I’d said following the solemnization of marriage.
For marriage of exceptional character, it is 30 days following
the solemnization of marriage. Meaning, pagsinolemnize ng
August 1, the reglementary period starts on August 2 up to
16 for ordinary marriage, for August 2 up to August 31 for
marriage of exceptional character. Hindi nagsisimula doon sa
August 1 because of the word following, para malaman nyo na
within the reglementary period pa rin yong pagpaparehistro
nyo.
Now, I go to the number of copies to be accomplished kasi
ito ang mga nakikita naming sa mga documents sa nirehistro
namin. Sa distribution, 1st copy to the contracting parties, 2nd
copy to the OCRG, 3rd copy to their LCRO file, 4th copy to the
solemnizing officers. We refer to the 4th copy of the certificate
of marriage as original-original. Original-duplicate, original-
triplicate, original-quadruplicate. But you know, ang concern
natin in preparing the certificate of marriage, the OCRG copy
should always be the 2nd copy, pagpini-prepare natin yan,
2nd copy palagi. Because there are certificates submitted to
us for registration where the OCRG copy made as the original-
original, so in this particular case, hindi naming binibigay sa
contracting ties, nire-retain namin for submission to OCRG at
saka pag nagprepare kayo ng certificate of marriage minsan ang
saksakan ho yan, hindi pwedeng isa-isa. Minsan ang saksakan
IN THE PHILIPPINES
kasi risky ho ‘yan, mamaya tama yong 1st copy, yong 2nd
copy may error, kaya it should be may carbon. But minsanang
saksakan ho iyon pag-prepare ng certificate of marriage but
and also there are even instances where all copies are OCRG,
lahat ng kopya na sina-submit for registration OCRG lahat, ito
yong mga na no-note namin.
Marriage exempt from license requirements and I only
deal on Article 27, ito yong “articulo mortis” pero sometimes
“articulo rigor mortis” na e, patay na at saka kinakasal pa ‘di
ba?
Okay, there was one case under this article presented to
me for late registration and I’m certain there. There are others
all over which are similarly situated, the alleged husband died
January 3, 2003 na-register ‘yong death certificate n’ya timely
registered. The marriage in articulo mortis was allegedly
solemnized on January 3, 2003 and it was presented to me for
late registration by the solemnizing officer on May 22, 2003.
All requirements were complied with, but my attention was
caught by the fact that the affidavit of the solemnizing officer
was also subscribed on May 22, 2003. I’m not referring to the
affidavit of marriage for late registration. I’m referring to the
affidavit ‘supposed to be executed by the solemnizing officer
when he officiated the marriage in “articulo mortis”. Biro n’yo
kasabay noong affidavit for late registration e, but I registered
the marriage anyway. Ministerial tayo ika nga and we have no
investigative powers.
Sa Article 28, I need not deal on this, ito iyong remote
place. Ten years na akong civil registrar wala pa akong na-
rehistro kahit isa nito and I haven’t seen one in my record.
Sa Article 33 naman, let me quote a case which — ito ‘yong
tungkol sa ethnic marriage — which was raised by one of the
civil registrars during one of our conferences.
Husband and wife were married under Catholic rites.
Each one wanted an annulment but it was difficult, money-
wise. Hindi pa sigurado kung ia-approve, although it is granted
by the Court and what about Solicitor General. So they had
themselves converted into Islam. After which brings me back
to the paper presented by Justice Razul. Sabi niya in a live-in
partnership, in a non-Islamic society where the children are
born out of union, hindi equal sa sharing of inheritance but
APPENDIX 4 375
there is provision in the Muslim Law. The Muslim Code of

the Philippines provides a socio-legal remedy, sabi na naman
n’ya.
In an instance where the woman is sadly indulging
in moonlighting or extra-marital activities causing social
embarrassment and humiliation to the husband, the Civil
Law does not permit divorce in the Philippines. Here the
government is rendered helpless. The husband may further or
just remain quietly in a nonchalant attitude and pretend as
if nothing happened. So the Islamic and divorce comes in. it
must be remembered, however, that the plurality of marriage
and divorce in Islam is not common and widespread, but they
provide a socio-legal remedy.
In Article 34, yesterday it was discussed by Atty. Danny
Concepcion, if you were listening very well, it was not in the
paper I presented. I said in a circular issued by then CRG
Tomas Africa, even if, sa Article 34 ito ha, even if at the start
of the cohabitation of the contracting parties, there was legal
impediment as long as at the time of marriage the impediment
no longer exists, then the parties can get married under Article
34.
Well I said, to me, this, in essence, tolerates illicit
relationships at the start of cohabitation ideally, the date of
reckoning the start of the five-year cohabitation should be at
the time when impediment or impediments no longer exist. The
provision of the law was construed leniently on this matter and
so, but we’re glad because there’s now jurisprudence from the
Supreme Court that the counting of the five-year cohabitation
should start at a time when the impediment was no longer
existing and we are just waiting for the circular as promised by
Director Hufana.
Hinahanap na lang nila yong legal basis ng ating circular.
Let me point out, with what we are doing before in contrast to
this, it is interesting to point out that children who were born
to under aged parents cannot be legitimated because of the
presence of the impediments of age at the time of the conception
and the birth of the child so, in this instance, the law is non-
compassionate on the predicament of illegitimate children but
this is being remedied. There is bill now pending in Congress.
Well, forgive me for being frank or even blunt because I may
IN THE PHILIPPINES
not have statistics on its prevalence but I believe Article 34 is

an abused provision of marriage.
For convenience and facilitation, this is being availed of
without being mindful of the repercussions legal or otherwise.
As civil registrar and I’m sure others too, I receive subpoena and
subpoenas duces tecum in declaration of nullity of marriage,
bigamy and perjury cases for marriages under Article 34.
Minsan nga pupunta sa ’yo ngayon, sabi nila pakakasal na
sila, after two days sasabihin mo hindi pwede, mabibigla ka
na lang magre-present na lang ng certificate of marriage for
registration under Article 34. So, this is really an abused
Article in marriage.
As to the form, ito ang ating mga observations. In
preparing the certificate of marriage, you should avoid erasures
and changing of entries. Even this done prior to recording in
the civil registry. Kahit gagawin n’yo ito bago n’yo irehistro
sa amin because it stands to suffer, being dishonored by the
end-user anyway. May certificate of marriage pini-present sa
amin na may super-imposition, hindi namin alam kung saan
nakuha so, baka ma-dishonor din ng end-user so it’s a caution
to solemnizing officers to please try to avoid erasures and
changing of entries.
Well, in filling up the certificate of marriage, it should
be complete, consistent and correct. Na-discuss na rin ito ni
Ms. Espinoza, complete kasi pag may naiwanan kayo d’yan na
blanko papa-subject n’yo pa kung kailangan ng may-ari iyung
document. Ipa-subject n’yo pa sa supplemental report abala,
or if it is not consistent baka pagpepetitionin n’yo pa or it is
not correct. So you should fill it up completely, consistently
and correctly. Remember, doon po sa paglagay sa pangalan ng
nanay ng both parties, it should be maiden name of the mother
for the male and female. Gamitin n’yo po yong maiden name
kasi alam n’yo minsan iniiwasang ma-detect ‘yung degree of
relationship hindi na nilalagay ‘yong middle name ‘di ba, so,
pakilagay ‘yong maiden names of the mothers in the certificate
of marriage.
Also, avoid off-line entries and all copies should be
legible. Alam n’yo po pag off-line yong entries dinagdagan n’yo
po ang trabaho naming especially ‘yong sa OCRG copy ang
ginagawa namin, gumagawa kami uli ng certified true copy
APPENDIX 4 377
for submission to the OCRG kasi ‘yong mga may-ari rin ang
magsa-suffer kung hindi mabasa yon mga encoder or if na
submit ‘yon ng hindi legible, off-line ‘yong mga entries, pag
pagnag-request kayo direct to NSO pakukuhanin pa rin kayo,
papa-endorse pa uli kayo so avoid off-line entries and all copies
should be legible. For Ordinary Marriage, ang license number
ilagay n’yo po, date and place of its issue shall be indicated in
the appropriate space in the marriage contract. For marriages
exempt from license requirement, indicated ang basis whether
Articles 34, 33, 27 or 28. Mark the appropriate box as to
whether the contracting parties have or have not entered into a
married settlement prior to the marriage, kung may marriage
settlement sila enclose four copies of the marriage settlement
when registering. The married settlement we’re talking about
are the property relations, attached four copies of the married
settlement if they had entered.
Other issues and concerns ‘yong ibang sekta po nire-
require yong CENOMAR. Alam n’yo napakahirap po kung
nire-require natin ‘tong CENOMAR. But us, we cannot dictate
or different sects ‘yong mga requirement nila but we should
remember each religious sect has its own set of rules pertaining
to marriage, however, when they voluntarily register with the
OCRG they have impliedly and presumably admitted the duty
to carry out and observed strictly the provisions of the Family
Code pertaining to marriage. This is according to an excerpt
from the paper presented by Lt. Colonel Lalicon during the 1st
National Convention of Solemnizing Officers in his paper The
Linkages Between the Solemnizing Officers and the Office of
the Civil Registrar General.
Also there are religious sects that first ask for the
marriage license before they issue the marriage counseling
certificate. Caution ho, they should remember that the marriage
counseling certificate is a requirement in the application for
marriage license, hindi po ito requirement in the solemnization
of marriage. There are some solemnizing officers who officiate
marriage where the contracting members are not members
of their church. A priest who officiated a marriage without
authority to do so may be held liable under Article 352 for
performing an illegal ceremony and Article 177 of the Revised
Final Code for usurpation of authority but any irregularity in
the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage
IN THE PHILIPPINES
but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be

civilly, criminally or even administratively liable.
Last point, there are solemnizing officers who solemnized
marriage outside of their sala office for mayors, judge and
outside the church. In this instance there should be a letter
request from the contracting party also attached four copies
of the sworn letter request when you register the certificate of
marriage.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS ON MARRIAGE

REGISTRATION
by
Atty. Antonio Morales
Representative from Department of Foreign Affairs
Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. Thank you very much

for that kind introduction. I have a little correction to make I am
also currently the Director of the Authentication Division.
First of all, I’m honored to represent the Department of Foreign
Affairs in this important convention. As you may know the DFA has
manifold functions. It is reflected by the positions that I occupy. We
do foreign policy but we don’t just do foreign policy. Perhaps you
may know we the DFA, what comes to your mind. Ano ho ba ang
unang bagay na pumupunta sa isipan natin? Kapag narinig ang
DFA pasaporte po ho, pero passport is one aspect of the work we do.
Passporting is one aspect of the work we do.
We also do other consular matters apart from foreign policy.
And one of these matters is a matter similar to what local registrars
have been doing, which is registration. But our tasks is not only
limited to registration only. Now we also solemnize marriages. So
the function is two-fold.
I have a short presentation, if marriage is solemnized abroad
we are interested only to particular to marriages between Filipino
citizens and in a marriage wherein one of the contracting parties is
a citizen of the Philippines.
And what is the function of the Foreign Service of the DFA, the
Foreign Service post relative to marriages? As I mentioned in the
Philippines one of the tasks of the local civil registrar is separate
from the task of a solemnizing officer. It is not correct.
APPENDIX 4 379
In the past, in our embassies abroad, in the consulates and the

consular section of the Philippine Embassy abroad, the solemnization
of marriages, as well as the registration, is done by the same
authority. So we issue marriage licenses and we also solemnize
marriages. So it’s very clear these two functions are not just linked,
they are merged in the authority of the consular official.
Another task we do is to issue a Certificate of Legal Capacity
to Contract Marriage. In certain countries this is required. This is
required in certain countries. So when they come to us, we issue
them subject to compliance with requirements. A Certificate of
Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage. Now, what are the pertinent
department rules and regulations that we follow in discharging this
task? We have the 1995 reviewed regulations of the Department
of Foreign Affairs, particularly section 660 to 666, which more
or less reiterates the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family
Code. Briefly because you might have questions. I will discuss very
briefly what has been discussed by previous speakers. So if you have
questions we can go to the questions later.
According to the Family Code who can solemnize marriages?
Civil weddings? Those previously not covered in the previous
discussions but Consuls, Consul Generals and Vice Consuls
authorized under the law to solemnize marriages.
In my capacity, I serve as a Vice-Consul in the Philippine
Embassy in Ankara, Turkey. I solemnize marriages in Turkey. In my
term then in two years. But when I was assigned in the Philippine
Embassy in Rome, I solemnized two hundred weddings because
Italy is host to the largest concentration of Filipinos in the whole
of Europe. Malaki ho ang ating kumonidad sa Europa. In fact what
I cover is only the Consular section of the Philippine Embassy in
Southern and Central Italy. We also have a Consulate General in
Milan, which covers the Filipinos in Northern Italy.
So if you will see it’s really an important task of the Department
of Foreign Affairs. Before I came in, I had a talk with people from
NSO and we were talking of the additional function of the DFA.
As you may have read in the papers, the overseas Filipinos are not
entitled to vote, now they have the right to vote.
Starting August 1, all our embassies abroad are also doing work
as deputized agents of the Commission on Elections. And they are now
in the process of registering our countrymen abroad. Going back to
those who have the capacity to solemnize marriages. These consular
IN THE PHILIPPINES
officials under the Constitution are appointed by the President.

This is the Constitutional provision which states the President to
nominate, with the consent of the Commission of Appointments, and
to appoint the members of the Cabinet, Officers of the Armed Forces
from the rank of Colonel and up, etc. and consuls.
This is the provision that answers the question, can an
Ambassador solemnize a marriage? Because the Ambassador is
the head of the Embassy, the Embassy covers the consular section.
According to the DOJ opinion, the Ambassador may not solemnize
a marriage. Now apart from the appointment of the President,
consular officials are granted consular commission. This consular
commission is a piece of paper, which states that the President gives
you the authority to do consular work in a particular country with
your consular jurisdiction. And then in some case host government
issues an “exequator”. It is a recognition and acceptance of your
appointment by your government. Some countries don’t issue
this anymore. Suffice it to say no, these are the officers who are
authorized under the law to solemnize marriages similar to judges
and mayors. They do not require prior authority from the Office of
the Civil Registrar General.
Another interesting question is, can a consular official solemnize
a marriage? They can only solemnize marriages between Filipino
citizens. Can they solemnize marriages outside the Embassy or
Chancery or the Consulate? You have relatives abroad perhaps that
would be an interesting question. There is still no decided case to
my knowledge but we are solemnizing marriages on the principle
that laws relating to family rights, duties, status, conditions, shall
be binding on Filipino citizens living abroad for one and for another,
based on principle of extraterritoriality.
When you are within the Philippine embassy or the Filipino
Consulate General, it is as if you were in Philippine Territory. So
this act of marriage is like having marriage in the Philippines by
legal fiction.
Very briefly legal capacity of the contracting parties, the
consent……We have also the main requisites of marriages. This
marriage ceremony should place with the appearance of the
contracting parties. Ibig sabihin noon even if you’re in a country
abroad where proxy is allowed, but if you are there in the Philippine
Embassy and you are having your marriage solemnized, there the
proxy may not be allowed.
APPENDIX 4 381
Iyong question kanina, how many witnesses are allowed to

sign? Even abroad there are so many who want to put their names
as witnesses and sponsors but it was answered a while ago and we
put them in the back. In practice, the marriages I solemnized in
Rome, we let the witnesses sign at the back of the marriage contract
and I was happy to note that it is acceptable at this time.
And then going to the other aspect, some Filipinos abroad
would not want to marry in the Embassy or the Consulate, that
is their prerogative. So if they wish to marry before the authority
of the host country, we issue them what is required by law, which
is Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage. This is very similar to you
here at Civil Registrar’s if there’s a foreigner who wishes to contract
marriage here, he has to present a certificate of Legal Capacity to
Contract Marriage.
Very briefly, what are the documents we require in the
solemnization of marriage or in the issuance of the Certificate of
Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage? Who issues? It’s the Foreign
Service establishment, whether the consular section of the Embassy
or the Consulate General.
And what are the requirements? As I mentioned the Certificate
of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage, we require an authenticated
birth certificate. Authenticated, meaning, it should go through the
process. From the NSO to the authentication Office of Malacañang
and the Department of Foreign Affairs, we also have the authenticated
Certificate of No Marriage Record, which was discussed earlier.
Parental consent or advice when applicable. This is not a publication
notice. We post the notice on the Bulletin Board of the Embassy or
Consulate and since this Authenticated No Record of Marriage is no
assurance that the person has not contracted marriage.
We also require the person to execute an affidavit stating all
the qualifications and not the disqualifications in marriage. Kapag
nagsinungaling siya, doon syempre perjury iyon. That is a sworn
statement. And then after this requirement is met, we can issue,
either a Marriage License or a Certificate of Legal Capacity to
Contract Marriage, which we abbreviated as LCCM. That is for
single applicants.
For widows or widowers, syempre nag-a-apply rin minsan more
or less the same requirements. We require birth certificate with the
copy of the marriage contract with the deceased spouse and the
IN THE PHILIPPINES
authenticated death certificate of the deceased spouse. And there’s

also the publication of notice of marriage, as well as of the affidavit,
which is a standard requirement.
And those for divorced applicants under the Family Code, even
those Filipinos married to foreigners and whose marriages were
subsequently nullified, a subsequent decree of divorce is issued
by a foreign court. They can marry again if it is proven that the
divorce is obtained by the foreign spouse under the Family Code.
The authenticated divorce decree, alam niyo sa abroad, this is how
we get the authenticated divorce decree or decree or documents from
the local authorities.
The local authorities give the ministry of Foreign Affairs or
other central authority specimen signatures of their officials. And
these specimen signatures are kept in the Embassy. Only those
specimen signatures in the official transmission or those documents
are accepted by our Embassies or Consulates, and more or less
similar requirements for those. It is important to note under the
Family Code that only divorces of marriages between Filipino and
foreign spouse, that is obtained by the foreign spouse, that is only
divorce that is recognized under the Philippine Law. Alam niyo
naman ang reason because in fairness to the Filipino spouse. If a
foreign spouse obtains a divorce and can remarry it would not be fair
if the Filipino cannot remarry, its basically one of the innovations
under the Family Code.
Going on to the marriages solemnized by the Philippine
consular official, we have on a marriage contract. I don’t know
if this acceptable to the NSO, to the Civil Registrar General. We
issue marriage license thereafter we solemnize the marriage. And
thereafter we register the marriage immediately upon solemnization.
Hindi ho katulad dito iba-ibang opisina, iba-ibang tao, sa amin isa
na lang ang opisina. You give the marriage license, we solemnize the
marriage, we register the marriage.
So after we register the marriage we send copies… we give
copies to contracting parties, a copy for the solemnizing officer, a
copy on file in the embassy or consulate and copy which we transmit
with the attachments to the NSO, the office of the Civil Registrar
General. It goes directly via pouch to our office of Consular Affairs.
The consular office division who transmits all these documents to
the Office of the Civil Registrar General. When they transmit it, they
put in NSO security paper. So, hopefully if they are married abroad,
APPENDIX 4 383
they can no longer get a certificate of “No record” kasi kinasal na

ho.
As to marriages solemnized outside the Embassy, if we give
them a Certificate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage and they
marry before the appropriate authority in the host country under the
Family Code, these marriages are also valid. Marriages solemnized
outside the Philippines and valid there as such, shall also be valid
in the Philippines. The Family Code states the exceptions, of course,
for marriages which are bigamous, polygamous, incestuous wherein
the parties are less than 18 years of age, etc. so we try to verify
also the circumstances of the marriage, usually before they marry
outside the Embassy, they get the Certificate of Legal Capacity to
Contract Marriage.
And when we give this document, it’s only a matter of time
when we get their request of marriage if they married outside the
Embassy. Also as an added protection for our countrymen abroad,
we also request the spouse to send certificates that they are eligible
to marry from the local civil authority. Certain countries especially
in Italy the civil registrar will provide you with certificate of status,
civil status of the person, whether divorced, separated, widowed, or
never been married. When we get this report of marriage there is a
particular form because in some countries they only give us a form
which states that A was born on, and married B, who was born on
such and such, in such place, in such date.
So we have a particular form which they fill up and the
marriage contract or certificate issued by local authorities attached
and this be sent to the consular section of the Philippine Embassy
or the Consulate General, which transmits to the Consular Records
Division, Office of Consular Affairs, later transmits them to the Civil
Registrar General. This is more or less the flow of the documents,
the civil registry documents.
What are the documents we transmit, aside from those I
have mentioned earlier we have this dual function registration
and solemnization apart from other functions that we do. Like the
absentee voting that we are doing. We also transmit the report of
birth, the report of death, the report of divorce, reports of adoption,
to the Consular Records Division.
In Italy where I was assigned every week there are five reports
of birth being issued only in the Consular Section of the Philippine
Embassy in Rome. So kahit na hindi magpapasok ang Italian
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Embassy ng kababayan natin dadaming dadami kasi every week

may lima. If you will read ho an Italian newspaper, there’s this
Italian newspaper called “II Messagero”. There’s a portion on how
many persons are born and how many people died on the particular
day and you can see that births are three, deaths are 10 and luckily
there are Filipinos. Otherwise, iyong births siguro will even be less
or zero, the Filipinos in Italy are among the largest communities
but in terms of their fertility rates they are also among the highest.
We are giving the Italians a service addressing their demographic
problems.
In the Office of Consular Affairs Division, the Consular Records
Division, we have an assistance to the National Section and this
section files civil registry documents based on the date of filing at the
post, post meaning consulates or embassies. The Consular Records
Division transmits the documents to the NSO as I mentioned earlier
but this is another important thing, that the Consular Records
Division accepts late registration of births, marriage and deaths,
etc.
As mentioned earlier, the place of occurrence of the event
should be the place of registration. In certain cases some people
don’t register their marriages with the Embassy or Consulate and
then they go back to the Philippines or they don’t. When a Filipino
national dies abroad and they don’t repatriate the remains anymore,
they don’t have to deal with the Embassy. Sometimes they also
fail to file the report of death, which is the equivalent of a death
certificate. In such cases or when we issue a travel document to a
Filipino because they can go home to the Philippines.
With the travel document and then later on they did not file
the report of birth, when the child is already here he cannot go as
mentioned here to the local civil registrar and file a late registration
of birth. Baka may nangyari sa inyo, meron kayong kakilalang
ipinanganak sa ibang bansa by some chance nakauwi dito pero
hindi pala rehistrado, maaari ba siyang magrehistro sa inyo, alam
niyo naman ang kasagutan na di maari. In which case what should
the person do? If it is a marriage, he should file it with the Embassy
or Consulate having consular jurisdiction.
Alam n’yo there are only 81 foreign service posts throughout the
world. There are about 200 countries more or less and the members
of the United Nations are 191. But we have only 80 consulates and
embassies. We have presence only in 62 countries kasi iyong 81 na
APPENDIX 4 385
‘yan, 62 are embassies and the rest are consulates. But be that as
it may, we cover the whole world even Liberia and Borkina Paso in
Africa. Ang Embassy natin either in Nigeria or Pretoria, they cover
all these countries.
If anything happens to a Filipino there, it’s this Embassy or
that with responsibility that have the jurisdiction. And the same
goes with the registration, kung may nangyari sa Filipino may
namatay na Filipino sa Liberia, pwede hong I-report sa… I think its
covered by Abudia in Nigeria in West Africa.
And when we get the requirements for late registration or
report of marriage we have the photocopies of the passport. We
also require those to make sure they are Filipinos. As I mentioned
that earlier, the flow of documents you...If it’s late registration
what the post does hindi na kayo babalik sa Embassy you can go
to the DFA submit all the documents including the foreign civil
registry documents, consular records division and sent via pouch
to the Embassy or Consulate concerned. The embassy or consulate
concerned verifies with the local authority, and sends back to the
DFA and then back to the Office of the Civil Registrar.
Medyo circuitous because of the principle that the place of
registration is the place of occurrence of the event. And the processing
period takes quite some time because of the circuitous process but
that’s the process. Registry is filed in Manila.
On the processing period, the registry is filed in Manila. It
normally takes two to four months depending on the circumstances,
how fast the consulate verifies the civil registry records. To shorten
processing period, what the person can do is ask a relative who is
still abroad to file through the embassy or Consulates, this shortens
the period. And then when it is sent to the DFA, we send it to the
NSO to assist in getting the documents as quick as possible. There’s
a record locator they can present to the NSO for easy retrieval and
release of the document.
Thank you very much for your kind attention.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
RADIO-STYLE DISCUSSION WITH BROADCASTERS DAN-

IEL RAZON AND ATTY. DANNY CONCEPCION
Atty. Concepcion: Good afternoon, I understand that you are all
solemnizing officers. We shall focus on your
duties and obligations as solemnizing officers
and the consequence for failure to comply
with those duties and obligations. Now, we
shall be limiting our discussion to a very brief
exposition of what the law provides and we
shall entertain problems, which you may
have encountered solemnizing officers. Daniel
Razon will be conducting it in the way that
we conducted it on our former radio program
Usapang De Campanilla on DZMM.
Mr. Razon: Good afternoon, everyone. Since we do not
want our seminar to be classroom-type of
lecture, our Administrator decided to make
it as if you are listening to radio or watching
on TV. I am no longer connected with ABS-
CBN but now a host on Unang Hirit at GMA-
7. Atty. Danny Concepcion continues the
radio program Usapang de Campanilla, every
night from Mondays to Fridays, from 7:00 to
8:00 in the evening. My program starts early
in the morning. You will be our listeners
and callers, and you can ask legal opinion
on legal matters. As I understand most of
you are solemnizing officers and you may
be encountering problems in solemnization
or registration. So cambio todo na ho ako,
isipin ninyo na lang ho na nasa radyo kayo, at
tayo’y mag-uumpisa na ng ating talakayan…
Atty. Danny Concepcion, ano ho ba ang mga
obligasyon ng solemnizing officer at ano ang
pwede nilang kaharapin sa batas kung hindi
ito isasakatuparan?
Atty. Concepcion: Well, and unang-una niyo hong obligasyon as
solemnizing officer ay magreghistro sa Office
of the Civil Registrar General kung kayo ho
ay pari, ministro o hepe ng inyong religious
organization. Pero kung kayo naman ay juez
APPENDIX 4 387
o mayor, hindi niyo na po kinakailangan mag-

rehistro para magkaroon ng kapangyarihan
magkasal sapagkat ang inyong kapangyarihan
ay nakalagay na po sa batas.
Mr. Razon: ‘Yung vice-mayor po ba ay may kapangyarihan
magkasal?’
Atty. Concepcion: ‘Yung vice-mayor po ay walang kapangyarihan
magkasal maliban na lamang kung siya
dinesignate na acting mayor under Local
Government Code. Napagpasihayan na po ito
ng Korte Suprema, nakarating po sa Korte
Supreme ang isang usapin kung ang acting
mayor ba ay may kapangyarihan magkasal,
sapagkat ang acting mayor ho ay nagtataglay
ng lahat ng kapangyarihan ng isang mayor.
Mr. Razon: Baka may konsehal dito?
Atty. Concepcion: Ang konsehal ho ay walang kapangyarihan
magkasal. Kaya lang, in the City of Manila, I
was informed that many councilors solemnize
marriage. Pero noong kami ho ay nagtanong
kung bakit sila nagsosolemnize ng kasal,
lumalabas sa aming imbestigasyon na sila
pala ay rehistrado sa NSO bilang mga hepe
ng kanilang simbahan. ‘Yun naman pala.
Mr. Razon: Legal ba ‘yon?
Atty. Concepcion: Pero sila ay may kapangyarihan magkasal,
hindi dahil sila ay konsehal, sila ay may
kapangyarihan dahil sila ay authorized ng
kanilang simbahan at rehistrado ng Office of
the Civil Registrar General. ‘Yung juez at ang
mayor, saan pwede magkasal ito? Halimbawa,
mayor ako sa Calumpit, Bulacan, ako ba’y
pwedeng pumunta dito sa Tagaytay at mag-
officiate ng kasal?
Mr. Razon: Kung ang ating pong pagba-basehan ay ang
Local Government Code, hindi po nakalagay
doon sa Local Government Code ang
Kapangyarihan ng mayor na magkasal ay
limited lamang doon sa kanyang territorial
IN THE PHILIPPINES
jurisdiction. Hindi po maliwanag iyon sa

Local Government Code. Pero kung titigan
po natin yung kapangyarihan ng mayor ay
mahahantong lamang sa kanyang territorial
jurisdiction, pero ang magandang tanong dito
Ka Daniel. Halimbawa, nagkasal ang mayor
ng Tagaytay City ay nagkasal sa Maynila
ng mga taga-Tagaytay City, ang Kasal ba ay
valid?
Atty. Concepcion: Ano ho ang sagot diyan?
Mr. Razon: Aba e, malaking usapin iyan. Sa kaso ng
judge kung ang ating pag-uusapan ay judge,
meron kaso nilabas ang Korte Suprema. Ito
ay ang kaso ng Lumagtoy versus Navarro.
Meron isang judge sa Surigao na nagkasal sa
munisipyo outside the jurisdiction of his sala.
Ang sabi ng report, “The judge committed
a violation of the Family Code’’ kasi ang
nakalagay po sa Family Code ay “The authority
of the judge is within the jurisdiction of his
court.” Kaya the judge was penalized.
Kaya lang sinabi naman ng Korte
Suprema ni Justice Flerida Ruth Romero,
na maski pag nagkaroon ng kasalanan ‘yung
judge, iyon namang kasal na kanyang ginawa
ay may bias. Kasi iyon daw po ay isang
iregularidad lamang. Doon po sa kaso ng judge
ay sinabi na ang kanyang kapangyarihan,
under Article 7 number 1, in the Family Code
ay ‘within the court’s jurisdiction’, and yet
ang sinabi ng Korte Suprema, pagnagkasal
siya outside the court’s jurisdiction ay valid
din ang kasal. E siguro, we can apply the
same principle to the mayor, kasi sa kaso ng
mayor ay wala namang nakalagay sa Local
Government Code ay ‘within the territory of
his municipality.’ By valid reasoning, we can
apply ‘yung the same principle of Lumagtoy
versus Navarro to the mayor. The marriage is
still valid, pero po ‘yung mayor ay pwede pong
kasuhan.
APPENDIX 4 389
Atty. Concepcion: Bakit po siyang pwedeng kasuhan, Atty.

Danny Concepcion, considering the fact that
it is stated in the law na pwede lang siyang
magkasal within the area of jurisdiction? Ano
ang ikakaso sa kanya?
Mr. Razon: Sa Local Government Code. Pero sa Act 3613,
may nakalagay naman sa kanya na hindi siya
pwede magkasal outside his jurisdiction at
pag-ginawa mo ‘yun, you are violating the old
marriage law at maari kang kasuhan.
Atty. Concepcion: Pero siguro puntahan na natin ang mga
detalye lalo na iyung mga tungkol sa pastors,
sa ministers, sa mga pari at sa iba-iba pang
religious denominations na binibigay ng
karapatang magkasal iyung kanilang mga
miyembro at mga ministro nila, ano ba ang
requirements dito, Atty. Danny Concepcion?
Kinakailangan ba na halimbawa na ang
religious sect o religious organization ay
rehistrado sa Securities and Exchange
Commission before mabigyan sila ng
karapatan to solemnize marriage?
Mr. Razon: Kung ang ating pagbabasehan ay iyong
Family Code, wala pong nakalagay doon sa
Family Code na isang sekta ay kinakailangang
rehistrado na sect — walang nakalagay sa
batas. Pero maiintidihan ko kung ito ay
ire-require ng NSO sapagkat mahirap po
nating malaman kung ang isang sekta ay
talaga ngang existing. Baka mamaya, may
magsabi, Kaka, mukhang malaki ang pera
dito sa kasalan, sisingil tayo ng P 15,000 sa
kasal o tara magrehistro tayo ng dalawang-
daang miyembro at tayo ang magkakasal. So
kinakailangan naman po na may duty ang
NSO na siyasatin kung ito bang sektang ito
ay existing, kung ito ba talaga ay functioning
as a religious sect. Kasi kung hindi, iaa-allow
natin na ang unscrupulous individuals na
magkaroon ng authority para sila ay kumita,
which is not sound policy.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Atty. Concepcion: Ano ang basic na kailangan para ikaw ay

makapag-apply bilang isang solemnizing
officer?
Mr. Razon: Ang sasagot niyan ay si Maq. Maq, ano ba
daw ang kailangan para sila ay marehistro?
RD Manulon: ‘Yun pong puntos na ‘yan, Idi-discuss ng
ating pong Director ng CRD mamaya. ‘Yung
mga requirements of registration, sino ang
qualified at kung anu-ano pa mamaya.
Antayin po natin ang portion na iyon. We’ll
just concentrate on the Family Code.
Mr. Razon: Kung halimbawa, ang isang priest o ministro
ay walang authority to solemnize marriage,
ano ang maari niyang haharaping kaso o
problema? Halimbawa, lumapit lang ako sa
isang pari o ministro dahil sa paniniwala
kong siya ay rehistrado bilang solemnizing
officer at tapos ikinasal niya ako. Tapos, ayun
pala hindi siya rehistrado. E, ‘di lumalabas
din na walang bisa ang pagkakasal niya sa
akin at ano ang pwedeng maging problema
noong solemnizing officer?
Atty. Concepcion: ‘Yung taong magkakasal na wala naman
siyang kapangyarihan, sapagkat siya ay
hindi rehistrado with the Office of the Civil
Registrar General, siya po ay may kasong
criminal. Iyan po ay pinarurusahan under the
Old Marriage Law o ‘yung Act 3613, criminal
po ‘yan.
Papaano naman po ‘yung ikinasal niya,
may bisa ba ‘yung kasal? Nakalagay sa bagong
batas ngayon. Ang Family Code, nakalagay sa
Article 35 No. 2, kapag po ang isa o dalawang
ikinasal ay naniwalang ‘in good faith’ na may
kapangyarihan ang nagkasal sa kanila, hindi
po magiging invalid ang kasal nila. Kailan
po ba sila in good faith na maniwala na may
kapangyarihan nga magkasal?
Mr. Razon: Yes, kasi baka mamaya, halimbawa ang
pinuntahan ko ‘yung kabo sa kanto at ang
APPENDIX 4 391
paniwala ko ‘yung traffic officer na nandoon

ay may kapangyarihang magkasal. Dahil
ignorante ako sa batas, e akala ko ‘yung
konsehal ay pwedeng magkasal o kaya
naman pwede kong sabihin akala ko pwedeng
magkasal ito.
Atty. Concepcion: Halimbawa ay nagpakasal ka sa barangay
tanod. Kinasal ka noong barangay tanod. Ang
unang tanong, pwede bang kasuhan ‘yung
barangay tanod? Pwede. Illegal marriage po
ang classification niyan at kasong criminal
iyan. E, ‘yung kasal po ginanap ng barangay
tanod ay mabisa po ba ‘yan. Wala po.
Mr. Razon: Pero ‘in good faith’ naman po ako lumapit.
Akala ko ‘yung baragay tanod ay pwedeng
magkasal.
Atty. Concepcion: Kaya nga ang tanong ko sa iyo kanina, when
is somebody in ‘good faith’. Pero huwag po
nating kalilimutan na ‘yung Article 3 ng Civil
Code. Ang nakalagay sa Article 3 ng Civil
Code, ‘Ignorance of the law excuse no-one
from compliance therewith. Ngayon, hindi mo
maaring sabihin na hindi mo alam na walang
kapangyarihang (magkasal) ang barangay
tanod, sapagkat hindi nakalagay ang
barangay tanod bilang isa doon sa mga may
authority to solemnize marriage sa batas.
Mr. Razon: Sa madaling sabi, you cannot claim good
faith if you are violating a law. Pero kung
halimbawa, ang pinuntahan mo ay pari ng
iyong parokya. Ikinasal kayo ng pari at the
time na kinasal kayo noong pari. At noong
time na kayo’y kinasal, expired na pala ‘yung
kanyang permiso. Expired na pala ‘yung
komisyon. Is the priest liable for the crime?
Yes. E, halimbawa ‘yung marriage na kanyang
sinolimnize, is that valid? Yes, that is valid
because mistake of fact ang nangyari at hindi
mistake sa batas, dahil nakalagay naman
sa batas na yung pari isa sa authorized to
IN THE PHILIPPINES
solemnize marriage. Wala naman kayong duty

na tanungin ‘yung pari na kayo ba ay may
komisyon pakita niyo nga yung registration
niyo bago kayo magkasal. Wala naman
ganoon, e. That is a ‘mistake of fact’, and a
‘mistake of fact’ can excuse somebody from
compliance with law. Kayo po ‘yung Article
35 No. 2, doon lamang natin magagamit ‘yun
sa mga kasong iyong, magagamit ang Article
35 No. 5. Kasi kung hindi po ganoon ang ating
magiging interpretasyon, pwe-pwede na ang
mga magnobyo ay magpakasal sa barangay
tanod o sa piskal o sa principal ng eskwelahan
o kaya sa kani-kaninong tao o sa barangay
captain, we cannot believe that they were
authorized kasi wala sila sa batas.
Mr. Razon: All right, Atty. Danny Concepcion, tayo’y may
naka-stambay na katanungan. Go ahead po.
Question #1: Magandang hapon po, ako po ay galing ng
Antique. Ang aking pong katanungan ay
base sa isang kaalaman na ang solemnizing
officer na isang religious minister ay
nangangailangan na one of the parties na
ikakasal ay member ng kanyang simbahan.
Kung ito pong religious minister ay diniputize
ng isang mayor o ng City Hall at doon siya
nagso-solemnize ng marriages na ni isa doon
ay miembro ng kanyang simbahan, pero ni isa
doon sa kanyang ikinasal ay hindi miembro
ng kanyang simbahan at nandoon siya sa
munisipyo at hindi sa kanyang simbahan kasi
deputize na siya ng mayor o ninuman? ‘Yung
kasal po ba iyon ay valid po ba?
Atty. Concepcion: Ganito po ‘yan, ‘yung unang part ng kanyang
katanungan ay kung ‘yung daw pari ay
nagkasal outside sa kanyang parish o kaya
none of the contacting parties is a member of
the religious sect. Kasi po ang nakalagay sa
batas ‘yung solemnizing officer kapag siya po
ay pari, ministro o head ng kanyang religious
sect authorized to solemnize marriage, may
APPENDIX 4 393
kapangyarihan po siyang magkasal kapag ang

isa o pareho na magpapakasal ay miembro ng
kanyang sekta, nakalagay po ‘yan sa Article
7 no. 2. Kung alam ng pari na nagkasal na
‘yung dalawa kinasal niya ay hindi miyembro
ng kanyang sekta, siya po ay pwedeng
usigin ng criminal offense under Article
352 of the Revised Penal Code. Knowing
that requirements of the law have not been
complied with. Iyong kasal ba na kanyang
ginawa, iyon ba ay valid, sang-ayon sa ating
Family Code ang isang formal requisite ay
absent, ang marriage ay invalid.
Ngayon, ito ba ay absence of authority
of the solemnizing officer o ito ba’y iregu-
laridad lamang, kasi po kung ito ay isang
iregularidad lamang, hindi po mawawalan
ng bisa ang kasal. Assuming ito ay absence of
authority, pwede bang sabihin ng kasal that
they believed in good faith na may authority
‘yung nagkasal. Sa aking pong palagay, dahil
ang nagkasal ay pari, pwede pong isipin ng
dalawang nagpakasal na ang pari ay may
authority to solemnize the marriage. Applying
the Navarro vs. Lumagtoy case by analogy,
magiging iregularidad lamang ito, kaya po
‘yung kasal ay magiging valid. Madaming
mga teachers ng batas ang nagsasabi ng
ibang opinion, ngunit maliwanag naman ang
nakalagay sa batas na ‘yung authority ng pari
ay kung isa o ‘yung pareho na magpakasal ay
miyembro ng kanyang sekta. Sa madaling
sabi, kung wala siyang authority at ito ay
“matter of law”, kapag hindi talaga nasunod
iyon, sila ay ignorant of the law and they are
not excused then. They could not claim it to
be in good faith, kasi nakalagay naman sa
batas.
Bakit naman ‘yung sa judge, nakalagay
naman din naman sa authority ng judge is
‘within the court’s jurisdiction’ ‘yung authority
IN THE PHILIPPINES
ng judge. Bakit naman sinabi ng Korte

Suprema na ang kasal na isinagawa ng judge
sa labas na outside the territory of his court
is valid? By analogy, magagamit din natin
ang Navarro versus Lumagtoy and magiging
valid po ‘yung kasal. Pero may isa pa hong
isang susunod na principle sa batas. “In case
of doubt, we resolved all doubts in favor of the
validity of marriage.”
Mr. Razon: Bigyan ko lang po ng context ‘yung tinatanong
nating kasama, yung ministro nandoon daw
po sa opisina ng mayor at ‘yung mayor nag-
deputize sa ministro na magkasal, kaya
papaano ko sasabihin na naniwala ako e na
hindi naman siya ‘yung mayor at papaano
ko naman sasabihin na in good faith ako
na ang akala na mayroon siyang karapatan
magkasal, hindi naman siya ‘yung mayor
at sya ay dinesignate lang ng mayor na
magkasal?
Atty. Concepcion: Sa madaling sabi, magpapakasal sana sa
mayor, pero ‘yung mayor ay tumangging
ikasal sila at nagkasal sa kanila nay isang
ministro na i-dineputize ng mayor? Ganoon
din ang magiging sagot ko, sapagkat ang
nagkasal talaga sa kanila ay ministro. Kung
alam ng ministro na hindi niya miyembro
ang isa sa kinasal niya ay may krimen siyang
ginawa. Kung hindi niya alam na pareho pala
miyembro ng sekta niya nag kanyang kinasal,
pwede itong dipensa niya. Pero ‘yung kasal,
sa aking palagay, magiging valid ito.
Hindi po kasi kayo dapat nagkakasal
kung saan-saan lang. Nakalagay po sa
batas iyan, sa Act 3613 na kayo ay maari
lang magkasal doon sa lugar na dapat kayo
magkasal halimbawa sa kaso ng judge, doon
po sa inyong chambers in open session, doon
sa pari doon naman po sa simbahan na doon
po kayo naka-assign. Ngayon, para po kayo
makapagkasal sa ibang lugar, kinakailangan
APPENDIX 4 395
po kayong mag-comply sa tinatadhana ng

Family Code, mag-request kayo na ang kasal
ay ganapin sa ibang lugar.
Question #2: Ito po ay matagal ng katanungan, pero mas
maniwala po ako sa inyong kasagutan. About
Article 34, ‘yun po ang naging problema
ng isang minister, may baragay certificate
na, living as husband and wife without the
blessing of marriage, nagkataon baog iyung
isang party, hindi namin pwedeng irehistro?
Wala po nakalagay sa batas na kinakai-
langang magka-anak, wala pong nakalagay
doon sa Article 34. Tatandaan po ninyo para ang
kasal ay maging mabisa, kailangan ang kasal
ay mayroong valid marriage license. Kayo
pong nagkakasal, hindi po kayo inuubliga ng
batas na siyasatin kung ang lisensiya ay valid
o hindi. Wala po kayong obligasyon diyan.
Basta po may pinakita po sa inyong lisensiya
and on the basis of the license ay mukhang
genuine po ang lisensiya, mayroon po kayong
karapatan magkasal. Ngayon, whether or
not, the license, is in fact, not a valid license,
hindi niyo po iyun problema. Problema po
iyon ng mga ikinasal. Ngayon para po maging
valid ang kasal, kailangan may ebidensiya.
Ngayon, meron mga situations doon sa
pagpapakasal ng walang lisensiya — alam
na, alam niyo ‘yan – ang articulo mortis kung
saan nasa bingit ng kamatayan ang isa sa
magpapakasal; pangalawa, ang isa sa mga
partido ay nasa remote place na wala siyang
means of transportation para magpunta doon
sa civil registrar kung saan pwede siyang
mag-apply ng lisensiya; pangatlo, ‘yung mga
cultural communities, ano po; pang-apat, itong
marriage as a confirmation of a common-law
relationship. Ang kinakailangan lang pong
hanapin ng solemnizing officer, under Article
34, ay ‘yung kanilang affidavit — hindi po
kayo maghahanap ng anak!
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Wala pong nakalagay sa batas na dapat

hahanapan ng anak! Kaya lang, mayroon
din po kayong obligasyon na siyasatin kung
sila ba ay magkapatid. Tatanungin din ninyo
kung sila ba ay magkapatid, nagpapakasal
kayo dito? Pangalawa, tanungin ninyo kung
sila ay nasa tamang gulang. Baka naman nag-
papakasal sa inyo isang bente anyos at isang
kinse anyos? Magkakaroon po kayo ng liabil-
ity diyan. So, kinakailangan niyong tiyakin
na sila ay nasa edad at sila naman ay hindi
magkapatid? Magtatanong po kayo kung sila
ay pwede pang magkasal.
Affidavit lang ang kinakailangan nin-
yong hingiin. Ngayon sa affidavit, ano ang
inyong hahanapin? Una, na sila ay nagsa-
sama ng hindi bababa sa limang taon. Pero
meron pong desisyon ang Korte Suprema ito
pong nakaraang taon. Ang sabi ng Korte Su-
prema, ‘yung limang taon na pagsasama ay
kinakailangang ‘continuous’. Hindi pwedeng
nagsama ng dalawang taon, tapos nagsama
uli ng dalawang taon. Sabi po ng Korte Su-
prema, kailangan po na ‘yung limang taong
pagsasama ay ‘continuous’ o walang patid. At
pangalawa, doon po sa lima din pong taon na
sila’y nagsasama, dapat po wala ring impedi-
ment para sila ay magpakasal. Ano po ba ang
nangyari sa kaso? Meron pong isang lalaki
na mayroong asawang iba, naghiwalay sila.
So itong lalaki nakisama sa kanyang mis-
tress. Nagsama sila ng mistress ng labing-
limang taon. Noong ika-labing-pitong taon na
namatay ang kanyang asawa. After ang kan-
yang asawa, nagpakasal itong nagsasama na
walang lisensiya. But sila ay gumawa ng affi-
davit na sila ay nagsasama na higit sa limang
taon. Okay, because of the affidavit, ikinasal
sila ng solemnizing officer. Ang tanong: May
bisa po ba iyong kasal? Ang sabi ng Korte Su-
prema, walang bisa ang kasal, sapagkat sila
ay nagsama lang sila ng walang impediment
APPENDIX 4 397
to marry ng isang taon. Dapat limang taon na

wala silang impediment to marry.
Ay gayun din po, doon sa articulo mortis,
kapag po ang isa sa nagpakasal ay nagpanggap
lamang, hindi naman talaga siya nasa bingit
ng kamatayan, wala ring bisa ang kasal.
Question #3: Pari po ako ng Philippine Independent
Church sa Bacoor. Ang tanong ko lang ho ay
follow-up sa tanong tungkol sa jurisdiction ng
license namin. Since 1977, ang area ng license
ko po to solemnize marriage ay sa buong
Philippines. Napapansin ko po na sa ibang
kasamahang pari ang area sa kanilang license
ay nalilimitahan lang sa isang province. Say,
Ilonggo ako, iyung mga kasamahan kong pari,
‘yung kanilang mga licenses limited lang po
sa isang province. Ngayong nandito ako sa
Bacoor, Cavite, ganoon pa rin ang license ko,
whole Philippines pa rin, pero iyong ibang mga
pari naman na specific pa rin ang kanilang
license. Bakit po nagkaganoon lumalabas ang
discrepancies doon sa areas of jurisdiction?
Atty. Concepcion: Ang ibig niyo po bang sabihin binago na po
ng NSO ‘yung lisensiya na ibinibigay sa inyo?
Kasi ganito po ang aking pagkakaalam, ang
inyo pong authority ay nakatali sa regulasyon
ng inyong sekta. Kaya po kapag kayo’y nag-
aapply hinihingan po kayo ng authorization
mula sa hepe ng inyong sekta. Baka po kasi
nakalagay sa inyong simbahan ay nandoon
po lamang sa isang probinsiya. Kaya po doon
lamang ibabagay ng NSO ang lisensiyang
ibibigay sa inyo. Hindi naman kayang
palawakin ng NSO ang inyong kapangyarihan
kung sang-ayon sa regulasyon ng inyong
simbahan na doon lamang sa probinsiya kayo
may kapangyarihan.
Mr. Razon: Sundan ko lang po ng kapiraso, medyo
interesante po ‘yung tanong nila. Ang NSO
po ay nagbigay sa kanila ng lisensiya para
IN THE PHILIPPINES
sa buong Pilipinas ay pwede po silang

magkasal. Pero ang sinasabi niyo po Atty.
Danny Concepcion, ang sabi ng batas, ang
nagbibigay ng limit doon sa mga priests o
sa mga ministers ay kung saan lamang ang
nasasakupan nila ay pwede silang magkasal.
Will that mean na kapag nagkasal sila
outside of their jurisdiction because ‘yung
jurisdiction na iyun lamang ang binigay ng
simbahan nila? Ibig sabihin ba noon imbalido
‘yung kasal nagagawin nila kasi outside their
jurisdiction? At pwede ba silang kasuhan
doon sa ganoong punto dahil meron silang
lisensiya from NSO sa buong Pilipinas, while
it contradicts ‘yung authority.
Atty. Concepcion: Ang pagkakaintindi ko nagtatanong siya bakit
ang iba, buong Pilipinas ang lisensiya, ang
iba probinsiya lamang. Ang sabi nagkaroon
ng ganoong diperensiya dahil lang doon sa
authority ng simbahan. Sa madaling sabi ang
authority ng pari o ministro ay sang-ayon
doon sa regulasyon ng kanyang simbahan.
Kung ang regulasyon ng kanyang simbahan,
ang authority niya ay Cavite lamang, hindi
mag-iisyu ang NSO sa buong Pilipinas pero
kung ano lamang ang pinahihintulan.
Mr. Razon: Pero ang nangyari sa kanya, after na-isyuhan
ng NSO sa buong Pilipinas, inilagay lang siya
ng kanyang sekta sa parokya na kanyang
sinasakupan. So ano ang epekto sa kinasal?
Atty. Concepcion: Wala siyang liability kasi ay may license
magkasal sa buong Pilipinas. Pero internally,
maari siyang may liability kasi lumabag siya
sa regulasyon ng kanyang simbahan. Pero
kapag po ang ibinigay na authority ng NSO
ay sa inyong parokya, at kayo po ay nagkasal
labas sa inyong parokya, magkakaroon po
kayo ng liability under the law.
Mr. Razon: Ang mayor o judge ba ay kailangan pang
kumuha ng authority sa NSO to solemnize
marriage?
APPENDIX 4 399
Atty. Concepcion: Ang mga judge o mayor ay hindi na kailangang

kumuha ng authority pagkat ang kanila hong
authority ay nakatitik na sa batas.
Mr. Razon: Ito po ang isa, I have a friend. They got
married at the age of 15 (for the girl) and 16
(for the guy). Is the marriage valid especially
that the solemnizing officer did not sign the
marriage contract? And they want to annul
the marriage.
Atty. Concepcion: Ang marriage po na ito ay walang bisa
sapagkat ang nagpakasal ay wala sa edad.
Ang pagpapakasal po na ngayon ay labing-
walong taong gulang, maliban na lamang na
sila ay kinasal before the New Family Code.
Because the marrying age then for a woman
was 14 and the marrying age for a man was
16. Pero kung sila ay kinasal after the Family
Code, wala pong bisa ang kasal because one of
the parties was not of age.
Ngayon, kung ang marriage contract
po ba ay hindi napirmahan ng solemnizing
officer at ito ay hindi naitala sa civil registrar,
para mai-record, mayroong po bisa ang kasal?
May bisa po ang kasal provided sila ay may
marriage license. Kasi kung titigan niyo
po ang Family Code, the execution of the
marriage contract is not one of the requisites
for a valid marriage neither is the registration
with a civil registrar. Kasi the registration
of marriage may be done later, kaya po tayo
ay may tinatawag na delayed registration.
‘Yung pong marriage contract pwede pong
ma-execute later on. Ang importante po dito
nagkaroon sila ng valid marriage license
at the time they got married, they have
the capacity to contract the marriage at
the time it was solemnized. Lastly, wala
po silang impediment to marry each other.
Pagka po ‘yung tatlong ‘yun ay naandun
na: may authority ang solemnizing officer,
mayroon silang legal capacity at voluntary
IN THE PHILIPPINES
silang nagpapakasal, then the marriage is

valid, maski po walang marriage contract at
maski po walang registration with the civil
registrar.
Mr. Razon: Halimbawa po, papaano po naman na nauna
ang seremonya ng kasal tapos sumunod ang
lisensiya?
Atty. Concepcion: Para bang ang sinabi ay ganito… “Judge, ‘yung
lisensiya pino-process na ho sa civil registrar,
ay aaprubahan naman daw po iyon, pero
gusto na po naming makasal?” Ang marriage
ba daw ho ay may bisa. “Yung pong kasal ay
walang bisa, nagkaroon na po ng desisyon
ang Korte Suprema dito, na ang authority
po ng solemnizing officer ay nakatali po sa
marriage license. Kung wala pong iniharap sa
inyo na marriage license, wala rin po kayong
authority to solemnize the marriage. Hindi
po uubra ang ikakasal ninyo tapos isusunod
na lang ang marriage license. Invalid ho ang
kasal. At ang solemnizing officer nagagawa
po nito ay may kasong criminal. Violation po
iyan ng Revised Penal Code, Article 352.
Mr. Razon: Papaano naman po kung ang solemnizing
officer hindi pinipirmahan ang certificate, pero
kinonduct ko na ‘yung seremonya. Ngayon
lumabas na ‘yung marriage license, pero
ang niligay na date sa marriage contract ay
‘yung date na after na ma-issue ang marriage
license.
Atty. Concepcion: So ang nilagay niyang date of marriage ay
noong meron ng lisensiya? Well, wala rin
hong bisa ang kasal sapagkat the time na ang
ceremony ay naganap, wala pong marriage
license. Kaya lang lahat naman ng ginawa ng
judge at nai-record sa civil registrar’s office
ay lahat ay may presumption of regularity.
Sa madaling sabi, may presumption na valid
‘yung kasal. He who alleges that the marriage
was invalid has to prove it. Kinakailangan
APPENDIX 4 401
niyang mag-file ng kaso na patunayan na

despite nai-conduct ang kasal, hindi po
naganap ang kasalan na may valid marriage
license.
Mr. Razon: Halimbawa po 121 days na ang kanyang
marriage license, at doon sa ika-121 days
kinasal at inante-date para palabasin na
within 120 days?
Atty. Concepcion: Invalid pa rin ho ang kasal. Kaya lang may
presumption pa rin ho of regularity. Ngayon,
mapapatunayan natin na at that time of the
marriage ceremony took place na expired na
‘yung lisensiya, wala pong bisa ang kasal.
Nagkakaroon ho tayo ng presumption of
regularity the moment na ang lahat ng
dokumento appears to be in order ay na-
rehistro sa civil registrar’s office.
Mr. Razon: So Atty. Danny, hanggang walang kume-
kwestiyon diyan na ‘yan ay valid?
Atty. Conception: Oho.
Question #4: Gusto ko lang po ibalik ang question ko sa
Article 34, kasi sabi ninyo kanina within the
five years na nagli-live in ‘yung couple, dapat
wala pong impediment? Meron din pong
minimum requirement of age siguro doon,
Sir?
Atty. Concepcion: Tama po ‘yon sa madaling sabi, kung halim-
bawa, sila po ay nagsama noon ang babae
ay 15 anyos, tapos nagsama sila ng limang
taon at noong bente anyos na ‘yung babae,
nagpakasal sila ng walang marriage license.
‘Yung kasal po ay hindi valid kasi sila po ay
nagsama na kulang sa limang taon na walang
impediment for getting married.
Question # 5: Sir, kasi po dati, nagba-base po kami sa
opinion ng isang author, kasi sabi doon, ang
importanteng nakalagay doon ay walang legal
impediment at the time of marriage.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Atty. Concepcion: Ay hindi po, na-overturn na po iyan. Ang

desisyon ng Korte Suprema siguro noong taon
na nakalipas (Consuelo, Ynares, Santiago)…
Question #6: Paano po ‘yung mga nauna na?
Atty. Concepcion: Wala na po ‘yun kasi po ‘yung kaso ay
prospective in nature.
Question #7: Before that Supreme Court decision na sinabi
ninyo, kinasal sila under Article 34, kunwari
20 years old lang. Valid po ba ‘yon?
Atty. Concepcion: Ay hindi po valid ‘yun basta wala pong lima.
Kasi po ‘yung desisyon ng Korte Suprema
lumabas po last year. Sa madaling sabi, lahat
ng kasal na ganoon ang sitwasyon ay invalid.
Question # 8: E, kawawa naman po ‘yung mga kinasal
noon?
Atty. Concepcion: Ay, napaka-simple lang po ang gagawin nila
kung hindi magpakasal uli.
Question # 9: Doon po sa presumption of regularity, ‘yung
kinasal na at prinesent na for Registration
after the marriage license has been issued.
Ngayon, if you’re the City Civil Registrar and
you personally know that there was an ir-
regularity, kasi hawak mo pa ‘yung lisensiya
at hindi pa nare-release sa iyo ‘yung lisensiya
ay kino-conduct na ‘yung wedding. And after
the marriage license was issued, ito ay prine-
present sa’yo ang marriage contract for regis-
tration.
Atty. Concepcion: Hindi po ako sigurado sa regulasyon ngayon
ng NSO, pero po sa aking pagkakaalam noong
araw, the moment na may nai-present sa inyo
na mga dokumento, ministerial po ang duty
ninyo. Hindi po kayong makatutol. At bahala
na po ang mga partido, na-interesado dito na
mag-present sa husgado. Pero kung lahat ng
documentary requirements nahinihingi ng
regulasyon, nai-submit, ministerial na lang
po ang duty ninyo na i-rehistro ang kasal.
APPENDIX 4 403
RD Manulon: Is a minister liable for crime if he lends to

another minister?
Atty. Concepcion: Liable po sila. Sila ay co-principals to the
crime of performance of marriage without
authority.
RD Manulon: Kung dalawa po ang magkasal, ‘yung isa
walang license, okey po ‘ba ‘yon?
Atty. Concepcion: Basta po ‘yung isa ay may license, okay pa
rin ‘yon. Kasi kung lima po ‘yung kasal, isa
lamang talaga solemnizing officer diyan napi-
pirma sa report sa civil registrar.
RD Manulon: Expired na ‘yung license to solemnize marriage
ng isang priest pero siya ay nagkasal pa rin
subalit hindi pa rin siya ang pumipirma sa
marriage contract, ibang pari ang nag-sign
ng certificate of marriage, anong parusa ang
ipapataw sa dalawang paring ito?
Atty. Concepcion: Pareho po sila ng criminal liability. Yung isa po
ay ‘falsification of documents’, pinipirmahan
‘yung kasal na hindi naman niya kinasal, at
‘yung isa naman ay nagkakasal na walang
authority. Kaya po parehas silang may
criminal liability. Pero ‘yung kasal po ay
valid, kasi may karapatang maniwala in good
faith na meron siyang authority magkasal.
Mr. Razon: Papaano kung dinesignate Atty. Danny, let’s
say ako ‘yung pari at ako ‘yung may authority
to solemnize marriage at hindi pa expired
‘yung sa kasama kong pari.
Atty. Concepcion: E, ang sa akin, kasi bakit siya pa pumirma?
Kasi sa falsification, pinalabas mong nangyari
ang ‘di naman nangyari. Hindi naman ikaw
ang nagkasal, ikaw ang pumirma. Falsification
of publication documents ‘yan at the moment
na fi-nile mo ‘yan sa civil registrar’s office ‘yan.
Dapat hindi na lang nagkasal silang dalawa.
Question # 10: Isa po itong problema ng nangyari sa anak ng
taga-NSO. ‘Yung anak niya pinanganak ng
IN THE PHILIPPINES
January 19, 1977 so nag-asawa ‘yung bata,

pregnant na iyung mapapangasawa niya,
kinasal siya noong September 20, 1994. So
ang edad niya ay 17 years old. ‘Yung ginawa
ng pari ng simbahan inadjust ang edad niya
sa marriage contract para maging 1978,
pinatanda ang edad ng lalaki. Ngayon kukuha
siya ng passport hindi siya makakuha. ‘Yung
asawang babae nanganak ng January 12,
1995 dahil ‘yung kanyang birth certificate
na nakuha sa NSO napatunayan na siya ay
disisyete ng nagpakasal.
Atty. Concepcion: Sa passport po kasi, ang hahanapin ng
Department of Foreign Affairs ay ang birth
certificate. Ayun, I presume na noong siya
ay nag-apply ng license, finalsifika na lang
‘yung birth certificate. Ini-snowpake ‘yung
kanilang edad at pinatanda. Noong siya ay
nagpakasal, ang kanilang sinubmit sa civil
registrar na birth certificate ay falsifikado
para palabasin na siya ay pinatanda, pero
‘yung birth certificate na tunay ay bata pa siya.
Ngayon, nag-apply pa siya ng passport, hindi
po siya makakalusot sapagkat ang hihingiin
sa kanya under the Passport Law ay NSO-
certified copy ng kanyang birth certificate.
Ito po ang gagawin niyan para kumuha ng
passport. Ngayon, dahil ang kanyang status
ay married, hinihingian po siya ng kanyang
marriage contract. Makaka-diskubre po kayo
na mayroong discrepancy sa kanyang birth
certificate at doon sa kanyang edad sa marriage
contract. Doon po sa Department of Affairs,
hindi po siya mai-isyuhan ng passport, dahil
may discrepancy po ang kanyang edad. Una,
kinakailangan po na siya gumawa ng affidavit
tungkol sa falsification. Gagawa siya ng
affidavit tungkol sa falsification. Pinapayagan
po kayo ng Department of Foreign Affairs
na isyuhan kayo ng temporary passport on
the strength of that affidavit, pero meron
pong risk because you will be confressing to
APPENDIX 4 405
the crime of falsification and you will not be

allowed to renew your passport until you have
corrected the marriage contract. You have
to go to court to correct the error, because
it is not clerical but intentionally done. And
therefore, you have to go to court in order to
correct the marriage contract to replace your
true date of birth. But again, there’s a risk
because when you go to court you will have
to confess to the crime of falsification. Pero
may lusot pa rin ‘yan, hindi ko po alam kung
sino ang nag-falsify kasi hindi naman ako ang
nag-apply ng marriage license.
Mr. Razon: Pero hindi ba lalabas, Atty. Danny, na hindi
valid ang kasal na iyon?
Atty. Concepcion: Talaga namang hindi valid ang kasal, pero
wala naman siyang interes na ipa-declare
invalid ang kasal. Kasi ang prublema lang
naman niya ay ‘yung passport. Kaya ayoko
munang pakialaman ang kasal.
Question # 11: Hindi lang po ‘yon. Sa birth certificate ng apo,
naka-appear din doon na 17 years old ang
tatay.
Atty. Concepcion: Tama po ‘yung sabi ni kaka, hindi po valid
ang kasal kasi 17 anyos lang ‘yung bata.
Pero ho may presumption of regularity dito
at hangga’t hindi nagpa-file ng kaso ang
mag-asawa para kwestiyonin ang validity
ng kasal, hindi po madedeklara na invalid
ang kasal. ‘Yun namang bata ay illegitimate
po ‘yung bata dahil walang bisa ang kasal
dahil sa Aricle 165 ng Family Code. Ngayon,
kung ang status niya ho ay illegitimate, may
presumption of regularity din ho iyon. Sa
madaling sabi, halimbawa sa mga dumating
na panahon, may naghabol, halimbawa ‘yung
kapatid naghabol sa mana. Saka na natin
prublemahin kasi passport lang naman ang
prublema niya e.
Question # 12: Paano po ‘ yung birth certificate ng bata?
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Atty. Concepcion: Naka-rehistro na po siya at legitimate ang

nakalagay. Ang maging prublema na lang ho
diyan kapag ang mag-asawa ay nagpakasal
uli later, dahil nga alam nilang walang bisa
ang kanilang kasal. ‘Yung pong bata naman
ay legitimate, because at the time the child
was born, ay 17 years old ang tatay. E
papaano ‘yung sa kanyang birth certificate
ay legitimate lang ang nakalagay. Ngayon,
kung gusto niyong pagawang illegitimate ang
bata. Pumunta ho kayo sa court, kasi under
Republic Act 9048, this doest not involve a
clerical error but the status of a child. Pupunta
kayo sa Court para i-correct ang status of a
child. Under existing law po kasi ang bata po
na maaring pwedeng legitimated ay iyung
lamang mga bata pinagbuntis at pinanganak
after the marriage was officiated. Sa kaso po
nila, hindi po sila maaring magpakasal na
may bisa, dahil 17 po ‘yung lalaki, kaya hindi
po siya legitimated.
Question # 13: The contracting parties are of minor ages, but
the license was issued due to some influence
of the MCR, the Solemnizing Officer officiated
because the license is there. Although the SO
thought that the parties are minors, so is the
SO liable for officiating the marriage?
Atty. Concepcion: Oho, kung meron pong personal knowledge
na talagang menor de edad ang nagpapakasal
maski meron hong lisensiya, liable ho siya ay
for Article 352 of the Revised Family Code.
Question # 14: It was solemnized already, so the solemnizing
officer must wait for right time and the right
age?
Atty. Concepcion: Halimbawa ay maghihintay siya ng isang
taon saka niya ire-rehistro ang kasal, paso na
po ang lisensiya ng kasal. Invalid na rin ho
‘yung kasal. Kasi 120 days lang ang license,
eh. Kung maghahantay sila ng isang taon,
paso na ang license.
APPENDIX 4 407
Question # 15: Nag-issue ang civil registrar ng license sa isang

couple. May date of birth at age equivalent
na nakalagay sa babae. Ang age niya ay
18, so no question pwede silang isyuhan ng
marriage license. The marriage license was
released, so pinasa sa pari. Pagkatapos na
kinasal sa pari, pero ang inilagay na age doon
sa babae ay 17 dahil ayun ang equivalent
ng year sa birthdate ng lalaki. Ang ginawa
ng civil registrar hindi niya ini-release ang
marriage contract because ‘believing in good
faith’ na hindi dapat ikasal because it’s below
the marrying age of the couple. What are
the liabilities of the persons concerned: the
solemnizing officer and the civil registrar?
Atty. Concepcion: Maliwanag ba doon sa lisensiya na menor
de edad ang babae? Kasi po ganito ‘yan, ang
solemnizing officer, kung hindi niya kilala
ng personal ‘yun babae at kung menor de
edad ito, dahil ang titingnan lang naman
niya ‘yung lisensiya. For all we know, baka
naman may typographical error sa pagta-type
ng date of birth fact. Pero ang talagang may
obligasyong siyasatin kung may capacity to
marry ang mga taong naga-apply ng lisensiya
ay ang civil registrar.
Question # 16: Pero Sir, sa marriage contract lang clear na
inilagay ng solemnizing officer ang age ng
babae ay 17.
Atty. Concepcion: Kaya nga lang nilagay na 17, sa palagay ko
kasi kwinenta niya sa date of birth ng babae.
Hindi niya talaga kakilala. Baka nagprepare
ng marriage contract ay ‘yung sekretarya
niya na hindi alam na ang marrying age pa
rin ay 18. For all we know, noong prinepare
ang marriage contract, nagkaroon lang ng
typographical error doon sa marriage license.
Samakatwid may lusot ang solemnizing
officer diyan. Pero ‘yung civil registrar who
will refuse to record all those documents
required under the rules and regulations to be
IN THE PHILIPPINES
submitted, dahil sa tingin niya 17 ang babae,

pwede siyang kasuhan ng administrative
doon. Kasi ministerial lang duty when all the
documents were presented.
Mr. Razon: Oo nga tapos lalabas doon ay kokontrahin nila
‘yung sarili nila, kasi nag-iissue ng license
tapos ngayon ayaw nilang i-rehistro?
Atty. Concepcion: Hindi naman. Minsan kasi nagi-issue ng
license, iba kung saan sila nagpapakasal.
Halimbawa, ako’y kumuha ng lisensiya sa
Cavite pero magpapakasal sa Pampanga.
So, ang kasal ko na-record sa Pampanga,
so pwedeng habulin ang civil registrar ng
Pampanga.
Question # 17: Kung ang isang babae, 17 years old, at ‘yung
lalaki 21 years old, sila ay nagpakasal? Paano
magiging mabisa ang kasal?
Atty. Concepcion: Magpapakasal sila ulit. That’s the only
solution. Mag a-apply po sila ng marriage
license pero kung nagsasama na po sila ng
limang taon na walang impediment. Mag
a-affidavit na lang sila at magpakasal muli.
Mr. Razon: Meron pong tanong dito, a Christian married
under the Civil Code, then decided to convert
to Islam belief, and then married another
woman who was converted to Islam, too.
The question is it legal to marry again when
converted, when he was married before? Is it
allowed to convert into Islam just to marry
again?
RD Manulon: My answer is from the point of view of the
Presidential Decree 1083. Mayroong doctrine
na decision ng Supreme Court ang answer
ay hindi pu-pwede, kapag married ka under
Civil Code and then magpa-convert ka, tapos
mag-aasawa ka ulit. Hindi pu-pwede under
the existing jurisprudence and from the point
of view of PD 1083. However, from the point
of view of Islamic Law, walang prohibition,
APPENDIX 4 409
because the moment you convert yourself,

nandodoon na ‘yung rights and privileges,
na pwede mong i-enjoy as a Muslim. So sa
pag-aasawa, sa pagdivorce, lahat-lahat naka-
attach doon. As to the question, pwede bang
magpaconvert para lang mag-asawa, mahirap
po ma-measure ‘yung condition ng tao, kung
ano ba talaga ‘yung intention niya kung bakit
gusto niyang mag-paconvert. Hindi natin
mame-measure ‘yon. But we agree na we
have observed nowadays na ang conversion to
Islam ay may kulay, sort of for convenience.
We are trying at the OCRG to work into some
revisions and reforms kung papaano natin
ma-safeguard and civil registry documents
with regard to the conversion of events or
acts within the coverage of the Muslim Civil
Registration System.
Mr. Razon: Although we want to stay a little longer, kami
ay pansamantalang mamaaalam sa inyo.
Open Forum During the 3rd National Convention of Solemnizing
Officers held at Tagaytay City on August 5-7, 2003
OPEN FORUM AFTER MS. RONAIDA JAVALUYA’S PRE-

SENTATION
Question # 1: May I request for the addresses where I can

find the family library for the residents of
Tayabas, Quezon and Sto. Tomas, Batangas.
Ms. Javaluyas: We have a Lipa Center I do not have the
address memorized. There you can call me,
I have a calling card for everybody who is
interested.
Question # 2: Is not discouraging when you find out that
your roots are not good roots?
Ms. Javaluyas: kahit ano po pa ‘yung naging kahapon ng ating
mga ninuno, may utang po tayo sa kanila. ’Di
po natin kayang babayaran whatever anong
life man nilang pinagdaanan. It is something
but iyong past na iyun connected po tayo,
IN THE PHILIPPINES
bonded po tayo doon. Maraming nangyari

na pinalitan po nila iyung kanilang family
name dahil mayroon pong ‘di magandang
pangyayari. Still, we could not deny that
we come from that lineage. I mean you can
nurture those roots and cultivate them in
better ground. Then, you have a good cause to
do that.
Question #3: I find it quite difficult to trace my lineage on
my own because I will start with the parents
of my mother, whose names I don’t remember
anymore.
Ms. Javaluyas: Yes, meron po kaming masugid na researcher.
I don’t know if you watched the episode on
Brigada Siete. Siya po ay na-feature. Si Jose
Maniquis. Na-trace po niya ang kanyang
generation up to 17th generation. Retired na
po siya na teacher sa UP. So, regardless with
the age, you can do genealogy. In fact, marami
pong mga katulad natin na mature na, nagre-
research dahil nagiging hobby po nila, so it’s
a very nice hobby.
Question #4: There is an ethnic group po kasi na ang
ginagamit nila usually ay yong kanilang
pangalan not the surname. Like the Igorots.
So how could we trace ‘yong ating roots kung
ang ginagamit naman nila ay yong kanilang
first name not the surname?
Ms. Javaluyas: Just like the Chinese. Inu-una po nila yong
apelyido ng kanilang tatay. Ganoon din
po maging nanay parehong opposite sa
ating ginagawa. Nakita ko po iyong mga,
sa mga Igorot doon sa Bontoc, Province like
Benguet. So mga first name lang talaga wala
siyang family name, first name lang. So ang
ginagawa po doon mayroon pong genealogy
ang mga taong yon, kabi-kabit po yong mga
genealogy nila. Nandodoon po sa microfilm, so
sila mismo noong mga taong na mga Ancient
Igorot, inuukit po nila yong kanilang mga
APPENDIX 4 411
ninuno. So every time napa-pass po yon sa

mga anak nila. Na-microfilm ‘yung mga family
tree ng iba’t ibang mga clan kasi parang tribe
sila, a group of tribes, tama ba iyon brother?
So tribe by tribe.
Question #5: I learned that my grandfather was an
illegitimate son of a person who was not
married. I also learned that grandfather
has brothers. I tried to trace the roots of my
grandfather but because of this illegitimacy
and because of the lost of records, I cannot see
from the records of origin of my grandfather,
where should I go?
Ms. Javaluyas: Meticulous po ‘yung iyong pagre-research,
kailangan may patience. Dahil Noong araw
kung hindi po sila ngayon ikinasal, let us say
that maybe after 10 years kinasal po sila.
Nagkaroon na po sila ng 6 o 8 anak. That’s
the time na sila po ay kinasal. So kung hindi
po tayo careful na illegitimate noon ang
mga anak, then later on they made up their
mind to be married. Meron pong marriage
certificates, so parang ano po ‘yon na, they
live in together then they found each other
ano tulad din ngayon history repeated itself
again ‘yung after how many years nagpakasal
po sila then. Then isa pong possibility, that’s
only possibility. By oral information mayroon
kang lolo, sino ba talaga ang ano. So meron
din, pangatlo, na may adopted parents at
either you look up to your adopted parents or
you go through sa inyong mga lolo at lola.
Question #6: Can I use the death certificate of the supposed
father of my grandfather?
Ms. Javaluyas: Yes, records of birth, marriage and death
certificates. All these records.
Question #7: So if I go directly to Family History Centers, I
can have direct information?
Ms. Javaluyas: Yes, but you will have to personally look up
through the microfilms. Babasahin po natin
IN THE PHILIPPINES
yong microfilms. Maghahanap po tayo. It is

research. Saan pong lugar ‘yong origin niyo?
(Reply: Mandaue). There is a center in Talisay
Cebu.
Question #8: I noticed that the system of establishing a
genealogy is biased in favor of males, biased
against females. It is the father and the
grandfather who are given emphasis. What
about females in the family?
Ms. Javaluyas: No, it’s the same, mother and the father, both
sides. The tree is one but it covers both the
father’s side and the mother’s side. Sorry, I did
not tell you are number one in your pedigree
and the imaginary line on the upper section is
your father’s side and down is your mother’s
side.
Question #9: Can the mother start this process of
establishing a pedigree?
Ms. Javaluyas: Yeah, it includes the mother. With the mother
and father.
Question #10: Good morning I’m Reverend Sablan from
United Methodist Church, is there a possibility
or even a study done that all persons with the
same family name are related to each other?
Ms. Javaluyas: I don’t think so. There are lots of Dela Cruz,
Santos, and Garcia, which are very Common
names. Hindi po sila related to each other.
Let us say, for example, in Batangas City na
Dela Cruz. Diyan 99 percent, they are related
to each other. Back in ancient time, ang Dela
Cruz po doon sa somewhere like in Laoag City,
iba din po silang grupo or clan, iba po din sila
ng family tree. So pero merong possibility na
‘yong taga-Laoag pumunta po ng Batangas.
Then other roots have been established and
they were mingled na po sa Batangas. It could
be, but it may also be different trees.
Question #11: Since we also consider the degree relationship
in marriage and in my knowledge only
APPENDIX 4 413
up to fourth degree is not allowed. So alin

pong generation ang papatak sa magiging
fifth degree relationship that we can allow
marriage in considering relationship. Kasi
ang atin pong alam ay ‘yong fourth degree
relationship sa pamilya hindi pwedeng maka-
sal hindi pwedeng mag-asawa. How do we
trace the generation that falls into fifth degree
relationship?
Ms. Javaluyas: So how we always start? You are the first
generation, then go step by step to Your
parents then step two, one step higher to your
grandparents and then great grandparents.
Parang step by step, parang ladder siya.
You cannot start kaagad. Tingnan po natin
‘yong ating seventh generation. Hindi po
natin magagawa ‘yan. So starting from your
step by step: parents, grandparents, great
grandparents, great great grandparents.
Suggestion #1: I’m just making a suggestion. NSO is the
government agency that has all the vast
resources for research. In the Philippines,
the Church of the Latter Day Saints is the
only group throughout the world now who is
concentrating on this Kind of research. Pero
parang mahihiya kasi ‘yong hindi member ng
inyong Church na magpunta sa church niyo
at hihingi lang doon ng information. Why not
mismong government through the NSO at
isali na nag serbisyong ito sa programa ng
NSO, magre-research na lang kami mismo sa
NSO? Kung puwedeng makipagtie-up na lang
‘yong inyong agency sa NSO?
Adm. Ericta: Ms. Javaluyas, nakikinig po ako, pag-usapan
po natin.
Ms. Javaluyas: Sige witness po natin andiyan si Ma’am
Ericta, we are affiliated with the NSO and
The Philippine Archives ang ibig sabihin
lahat po ng ginagawa dito ‘yong microfilms
ay available sa NSO, binibigyan po natin ng
IN THE PHILIPPINES
copy. Well, in fact meron pa kaming donation

aside sa mga church we facilitates na dino-
donate sa University of San Agustin in Iloilo
and as well as the University of Sto. Tomas in
Metro Manila.
So if you need it don’t hesitate, call us,
Yeah, the facilities are there okay, we are
connected with the government. Thank you.
OPEN FORUM AFTER MS. MARITES ESPINOZA’S PRESEN-

TATION
Question #1: Gusto ko lang malaman kung gaano katagal

ang processing na ginagawa after the
registration of the documents sa local civil
registrar? At gusto naming kumuha ng kopya
sa NSO sa main office mismo. Gaano katagal
bago kami makukuha ng authenticated copy
doon sa main office?
Ms. Espinoza: So sa processing after 10 days after each
reference period the LCR office submits the
document to the provincial office and then six
to eight weeks after the documents from the
provincial offices are submitted to the central
office.
Question #2: How about in Metro Manila? Let’s say in
Quezon City, nag submit ho halimbawa ako
ng papers ko sa Quezon City. How many
weeks bago ko mapuntahan National Office
para makakuha ng “authentication”?
Ms. Espinoza: Sir, sa Metro Manila, it is shorter because the
provincial office is near the Central Office. So
ten days after the reference period, naroon na
po ang documents. So dahil doon mas madali
for “authenticated” copies puwede nang
makuha agad doon.
Question #3: So we are requesting…?
Ms. Espinoza: NCR is processing the documents for that.
APPENDIX 4 415
Question #4: Yes, ma’am. Kasi we are requesting months

pa naming makukuha ang “Authentication”
sa National Statistics Office, which is very
near. So akala ko ganoon ang Law kaya po
naitanong ko ito. Isa pa ho, this is my follow-up
question iyong pong pagrehistro natin sa LCR
noong ating marriage contract kung minsan
nire-receive lang nila at ‘di nila nilalagyan
ng registry number. Okay sasabihin nila
babalikan uli. Pero pag binalikan mo meron
“fee” doon sa munisipyo for the research.
Ang nabasa ko dito the moment you pass
your document iyong registry number ay
dapat ilagay na nila para dala dala mo ’di na
babalikan.
Ms. Espinoza: So sa operative act, talagang ganoon. Five days
after submission, dapat may Registry number.
So I guess the LCR concerned shall be notified
on that because we are emphasizing that, to
implement the rule as prescribed. Now for
the LCR civil registry documents submitted
siguro iyong sinasabi ninyo, you’re requesting
for security paper, so always iyon. The Metro
Manila LCRs shall submit the documents ten
days after the reference period, otherwise,
hindi iyon nare-receive ng NSO wala kaming
maibibigay sa inyong certificates.
Question #5: Good morning, ma’am, is it imperative for a
solemnizing officers to use the forms that you
have just shown? Can a solemnizing officer
issue a modified or altered form?
Ms. Espinoza: Sir, sa law nakalagay doon prescribed forms.
Question #6: Who prescribed this form?
Ms. Espinoza: OCRG, Sir please take note…
Question #7: Under the law?
Ms. Espinoza: Yes, Sir.
Question #8: So that is the prescribed form. There are those
who have pre-nuptial agreements.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
In marriage, wherein there is no space for

that agreement and I don’t see also how it is
to be registered those pre-nuptial agreement
or rather the extrajudicial separation of
properties, for example, of the contracting
parties.
Ms. Espinoza: Siguro, Sir, hindi ninyo pa napupuna kung
ano talaga iyong marriage contract?
Take note that in the marriage contract, there
is a portion na merong “Pick Box” If they have
entered into a pre-nuptial agreement. So
meron pong “Pick Box” doon.
Question #9: So there is such an agreement, will it be
registered together with the marriage
certificate?
Ms. Espinoza: Yes.
Question #10: Precisely, they will be submitted together?
Ms. Espinoza: Yes.
Question #11: Puwede po ba na ang both parties, the bride
and the groom ay magpakasal sa ibang
province, although both parties are non-
resident in that place. But they have secured
their marriage license in their province?
Audience and RD Gulla: Yes.
Ms. Espinoza: I think the group says, puwede no, any part
in the Philippines naman iyon basta’t meron
marriage license within the prescribed
period.
Question # 12: For the solemnizing officers, are they required
to keep a copy? I know sa distribution of
copies, wala iyong solemnizing officer. Is it
really necessary? Okay lang na walang copy
ang solemnizing officer of the contract.
Ms. Espinoza: According to the distribution, kaya siya naging
apat, one copy is for the solemnizing officer.
There is some problem pagdating sa legal
document so you have to keep track. Mayroon
APPENDIX 4 417
RA 9048 na kung ano ang document, use

ng marriage certificate. So, it will be better
for you kung magkaroon ng file. Maybe it’s
needed today but in the future.
Question #13: Follow up lang. Is the responsibility of filing
the contract of the solemnizing officer or on
the contracting parties? Iyong pag-file, is it
the responsibility of the solemnizing officer or
the contracting parties?
Ms. Espinoza: According to the law, it is the duty of the
solemnizing officer. If the solemnizing officer
does not register it, iyong contracting parties.
If not the contracting parties the responsible
person iyong mga witness or whoever is the
responsible person.
Pero naka-lodge talaga is the very first
pag-file is the solemnizing officer.
Question #14: Should the parties be charged for the expenses
as far as the filing it, iyon ganoon lang?
Ms. Espinoza: So depende na iyon sa usapan ninyo.
Question #15: I mean basic expenses?
Ms. Espinoza: Basic… kasi kayo ang nakakaalam ng
marriage. Personally, nalalaman ninyo iyon
kasi kayo ang solemnizing officer so you have
to report that event. So ire-report ninyo talaga
siya.
Question #16: Okay.
RD Gulla: Dito po dito po sa right side.
Question #17: You have mentioned, Ma’am, a new CRIS
version. What then is the earlier version?
Ms. Espinoza: Sir, actually mayroon. The previous CRIS,
then it was updated into a second version?
But that is to include more data. Then the
third one, it should have included the ICD-
10.
Question #18: Version 2000?
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Ms. Espinoza: Yes, it’s just the ICD-10. If utilized today can
provide a tabulation, which will combine the
ICD-9 and ICD-10.
Question #19: For that purpose, Ma’am, do we need to buy a
new computer for that version?
Ms. Espinoza: For this version, hindi pa pero, we are
also considering iyon. CRIS 2K, which is
Windows-based and a more upgraded system
that is Windows-based. If CRIS 2K will be
implemented, kailangan ninyo talaga ng
bagong computer?
Question #20: Does the Windows 1998 conform with that
version?
Ms. Espinoza: Ang sabi ninyo, Windows 1998, iyong sabi
ninyo, this new version being considered is
Windows 2000.
Question #21: Is it available now, Ma’am?
Ms Espinoza: For now, hindi pa, Sir. Tsini- check kung ano
ang operation niya.
Question #22: Would it be for free?
Ms. Espinoza: No according to Director Hufana, there’s fee
for the implementation. So we will consider
that, we will inform kung ano ang napag-
agree-han.
Question #23: Yes, ah mungkahi lang po doon sa “FORMS”.
Una po doon sa Table 5. I’m aware that the
Philippines is a Roman Catholic-dominated
country. Puwede po bang mag-suggest din na
instead of other religious sects, puwede rin po
bang magkaroon din ng data how many were
done in mainly protestant churches.
Kasi sa aming churches, we also have
our statistics. Puwede ho bang, for example,
Baptist, UCP, Presbyterian, Methodist. Kung
wala ho eh, we’ll appreciate it very much if
you “encode” it. Instead of “other” religious
rites, pangalawa po ay ang sabi ang nagpe-
APPENDIX 4 419
prescribed ng FORM ay ang OCRG. Kasi po sa

mga lalawigan mahirap po bumili ng carbon
paper.
Puwede po ba ang FORM ay “self-carbon
na? Kaya po ang data na nakakarating kung
hindi malabo ay mali iyong placing noong
tables. Kung ito’y hindi dagdag sa pondo ng
pamahalaan maganda ho sana, “self-carbon”
na nga Forms, instead na gagamit kami ng
“carbon paper”. Ito’y para sa iba na…hindi
maka-afford ng “carbon paper”. Pangatlo
lang ho na observation, doon po sa “Space” ng
witnesses and sponsors napakaliit.
Nauuso ngayon ang kasalan na
dalawampung ninong, ninang, allowed ho ba
na sulatan ang likod ng “forms”. Sabi ng ilan
hindi, iba naman mag-attach ng papers, sabi
naman hindi pwedeng mag-attach I-type na
lang sa likod. Pag tina-type sa likod dapat
notarized pa. Ano po ba ang mabuti sa mga
kinakasal na dalawampu ang mga ninong at
ninang?
Ms. Espinoza: Iyong first question pa lang muna. About
the first question, on other religious rites to
segregate different religions, we will have to
think about it kasi the manual processing goes
down to the Office of the Civil Registrar. So
iyong manual na gagawin nila, we will have
amend so iyong data entry system to accept
other religious rites, iyong itemized religious
rites data.
We also have to consider na talagang
malaki ang number kaysa naman, we have
to present other religious rites na isa lang,
dalawa lang. We have to check on those
religions. So, basically, we’ll have to start
tabulating by religion of bride and groom.
Which of these have produced a large number,
higher number of statistics. So on the “FORM’,
si Mrs. Hufana na.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Dir. Hufana: Pursuant to the provision of the law, talagang

allowed lang ang two witnesses however,
iyong practice po natin na maraming sponsors.
S’yempre gusto rin naman nilang malagay ang
kanilang pangalan on the marriage contract,
so our instruction iyun nga po nailagay sila
sa available space. If you will notice we are
using already iyong special form, hindi po siya
standard iyong size, medyo malaki na siya
sa regular size ng paper. Kung papalakihin
pa natin iyun, iyon rin po ay isang pinag-
iisipan naming whether we will still provide
additional space for the other sponsors. So
iyon po for now we will just take note of your
suggestions.
Question #24: At this point, do you allow “attached paper”?
Dir. Hufana: No! We do not allow attachment po kasi
it might get lost or kaya po ang aming
instruction, put it on the side or at the back.
Question #25: No need to notarize the names at the back?
Dir. Hufana: Ah, hindi na po ah, kasi it’s still part of the
form.
Question #26: Doon po ba sa pag-a-apply ng marriage li-
cense, nalaman ba ng local civil registrar na
iyong mag-a-apply kung nagpakasal na sa
una o hindi?
Dir. Hufana: In the application, kasi, for the marriage
license nakalagay po doon the civil satus of the
bride and the groom. So nakalagay po doon,
halimbawa, nag-divorce or kaya annulled or
whatever the status of the bride or the groom.
So malalaman po natin kunwari widow or
widower na medyo meron tayong information
kung first marriage, second marriage and so
on.
Question #27: Kasi po, may kaso po kami, I belong to a
Born-Again Christian sect at meron pong
may nagpakasal sa amin iyong miyembro
ko po nagpakasal sa isang ano rin brother
APPENDIX 4 421
without knowing na ang pinakasalan niya ay

pangalawang marriage na niya.
Noong nalaman naming nagpunta po
kami sa “Census” at nadiskubre namin na
it’s true, so because of that failure on our side
medyo maingat na po kami because na destroy
ang aming miyembro. So maingat na po kami
before we conduct this…Iyong pagkasalan,
totoo iyon binigyan sila ng license. Nag-
iimbestiga kami because marami na po kami
nadiskubreng ganyan. In fact, meron kaming
ni reject kasi dahil sa ginawa naming iyon
nakita namin na nagsisinungaling ang isang
party. So humihingi lang ako ng paunawa sa
lahat ng nagso-solemnize, kung puwede ba
silang mag-imbestiga?
Dir. Hufana: Actually po, your part in performing the
marriage is the marriage license. As long
as there’s marriage license parang sinasabi
natin, puwedeng magpakasal itong tao na ito.
But, of course, on your part, puwede naman
ninyong tanggihan, kung ayaw ninyong ikasal
iyong contracting party.
Pero gusto po naming sabihin sa inyo
na ang pagsasagawa ng imbestigasyon ay
nakasalalay sa kamay ng mga civil registrar
dahil sila po ang responsible, if ever na-isyu-
han nila ng marriage license, ang isang tao na
kasal na pala.
Question #28: In fact po, kumukuha kami sa statistics ng
certificate of no marriage bago po….
Dir. Hufana: Sa National Statistics Office, puwede
po kayong mag-file ng tinatawag nating
“certificate of no marriage” record. Pero
hindi po iyon ibig sabihin na talagang hindi
kasal iyong isang tao, ang ibig sabihin lang
ay walang record of marriage ang National
Statistics Office. Posible po na iyong tao ay
may kasal na hindi lamang narehistro o
possible na may kasal na nakarehistro sa
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Local Civil Registrar pero wala lamang pong

marriage record sa National Statistics Office.
So hindi po siya dapat maging basehan sa
pagi-issue ng marriage license.
Question #29: Hindi po ang tinatanong ko po kung kapag
kami na ang naatasang magkasal doon sa
nag-aapply para magpakasal having their
marriage license. Kita namin na meron nag-
iinsist talaga at iyan po ay dumadaan po
kami sa counseling at meron din po kaming
personal investigation doon sa party lalo na
iyong isang party ‘di namin kasama doon sa
church ini-imbestigahan namin.
Bakit? Kasi nga ang theme natin
“Matatag na Pamilya” kung may lumusot doon
hindi na matatag ang pamilya dahil meron
nang ano iyon, problem so ang ginagawa
naming iyon nga before the marriage takes
place, we investigate both parties kung ito ay
talagang walang nag-take place na marriage.
Noon kasi kung meron sisihin kami ng mga
magulang noon. In fact, may mga magulang
na hindi nila alam na ang mga anak nila na
magpapakasal ay nakasal na sa una.
Dir. Hufana: Iyun pong whether ikakasal po ninyo iyong
mga parties na mayroon marriage license
or not I think nasa inyo po iyun ano. Siguro
karapatan ninyo rin po iyon na mag-
imbestiga, Kung gusto ninyo katulad nga
ng sinabi ko anyway naman, sa kasal wala
po kayong responsibilidad. Meron po kayong
responsibilidad kung ang kasal ay naganap ng
hindi nangangailangan ng marriage license
in which case kayo po ang responsible person
para I-ascertain kung qualified sila to get
married. So nasa sa iyo po iyon, if you want to
conduct an investigation. Puwede naman po.
Question #30: It has been noted that the duty to prepare the
marriage contract is the solemnizing officer.
In the case, solemnizing officer is a mayor,
who has the duty of preparing the marriage
APPENDIX 4 423
certificate? Is it the office of the mayor or the

office of the registrar?
Dir. Hufana: Iyon po kasing pag-a-accomplish na marriage
certificate ay puwede naman gawin ng kahit
na po sino kung, halimbawa po, kinasal siya
po sa mayor’s office, definitely dapat doon I-
prepare ang marriage certificate kasi ‘di ba
pagkatapos ng kasal merong pang pagpipirma
sa mga contracting parties ng mga witnesses
ng mayor. Dadalhin na lamang po sa office ng
civil registrar for registration.
Ang tingin namin nagkakaroon lamang
ng filling up of preparation of marriage
certificate sa Office of the Civil Registrar.
Kung ito ay late registration at walang
marriage certificate na na-fill-up-an before.
So ganun po, in all cases dapat sa opisina ng
mayor o kaya ng judges o kaya sa simbahan
ng solemnizing officer.
Question #31: In case, ginagawa ang marriage certificate
sa office ng MCR at pumalpak, sino ho ang
responsible doon?
Dir. Hufana: Actually, ang responsibility kung may mali
sa marriage contract nandoon sa nagprepare
‘di po ba. Kasi doon po sa ating marriage
contract, may nakalagay po na prepared by,
pero equally liable iyong informant. Iyong
contracting party dapat sila ang nakakaalam
kung tama o hindi ang information na
nakalagay sa marriage contract.
Question #32: Ang isang halimbawa ang certificate of
marriage ay na-submit na ng solemnizing
officer. Ngayon pagkatapos na itong mai-
submit sa LCR, napansin na may mali sa entry
pahihintulutan ba ng NSO ang solemnizing
officer na ma rectify ang error at kung ito’y
pahihintulutan, ano po ang pamamaraan ang
dapat gawin ng isang solemnizing officer.
Dir. Hufana: Ganito po iyan, dapat po ang maling intrada
sa marriage contract, nai-correct natin
IN THE PHILIPPINES
prior to registration so kung makikita po

ng civil registrar na may mali at hindi niya
pa narerehistro maari pa nating ibalik sa
simbahan o sa opisina ni mayor para po
maitama. Pero once na ito ay nai-rehistro na
nalagyan na ng registry number, napirmahan
ng civil registrar, hindi na po maaring
I-correct pa ng hindi dadaan sa korte o kaya
po sa civil registrar under RA 9048.
OPEN FORUM AFTER PRESENTATIONS OF ROUND TABLE

SPEAKERS
Mechanics: (Session Chair) We will adopt the guidelines

of the Round Table Forum. We will have a
one hour for the open forum. There are four
microphones to facilitate discussion. Please
wait to be recognized first and identify yourself
before throwing your question. Each person is
allowed only one follow-up question to give
others a chance to raise question. There are
also intervention sheets that were included in
the kits. You may write your questions and
submit them to the ushers and usherettes.
Please write also your name and the
person to whom you are addressing your
question. Some questions may not be answered
due to lack of time. Please submit your
questions and the secretariat will forward
them to the speaker who is concerned later.
We will start the ball rolling.
Question #1: My first question is addressed to Atty. Morales
and my second question is addressed to
anyone in the panel. First question, regarding
our Filipino clergy working overseas for some
religious organization that have international
work, are they granted authorization to
solemnize marriages by countries where they
are working? The second question is, are they
allowed to solemnize marriage our Filipinos
who will be requesting such?
APPENDIX 4 425
Atty. Morales: It depends on the country; there are different

laws in different countries. In my experience
during my assignment to the Philippine
Embassy and unfortunately not all Filipinos
priests in Rome could solemnize a valid
marriage because in certain cases they are not
registered with the civil authorities of Rome,
or similar to the system in the Philippines
in Rome or in general. They need to have
authority from what the called ‘commone” or
the municipal civil authority. If they have an
authority, then it is sufficient for the marriage
to be valid but what the Embassy or consulate,
and the other is a religious wedding, so there’s
no really conflict. They marry again but the
more legally binding and effective one is that
with the civil authority.
As to the second question, the solem-
nizing officer is specially a religious minister
who has dual responsibilities. They have civil
authorization to solemnize marriages and
they have their ecclesiastical guideline. Using
the ecclesiastical guidelines, there are cases
in which marriages cannot be solemnized
by ministers. For example, the couple has
violated certain immorality for fornication or
pre-marital sex. Some religious organizations
prohibit ministers to do the solemnization of
such marriages. Now, will the legal obliga-
tion, the authorization to solemnize marriage
be bypassed in this case or will he ecclesiasti-
cal guidelines supersede the legal responsibil-
ity of solemnizing the marriage?
Adm. Ericta: We have no jurisdiction over ecclesiastical
rules, we can only respond to legal aspects. In
this case we cannot talk about supersede or
not to supersede.
Question #2: I am Mr. Joel Carascal, municipal civil
registrar of Magallanes, municipal province
of Sorsogon, the question is addressed to Atty.
Morales.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Sir, sometime last year a client came to

my office requesting for a copy of marriage
contract, which was contracted in Contagura,
Nigeria. So when I went to Manila. I requested
for a copy and then it yielded a negative
result, when I went back to my province, my
municipality, I told my client that it yielded
a negative report so I asked the client. If
they had a certificate of marriage registered
in Philippines Embassy, she could not
remember, however, the passport had been
amended from single to married, and then to
the surname of the wife.
This time, the only copy that they have
in their possession is the amended passport
of the wife. But the certificate of marriage
since they are asking for is no longer in their
possession. I told her that it could be applied
for delayed registration. However, they don’t
have a copy anymore of the certificate of mar-
riage, so what is your suggestion which other
documents the couple could present, in other
to apply for the late registration of marriage,
which was solemnized in Contagura, Nige-
ria?
As I’ve mentioned earlier, we have
our post-deferent Consulate and Embassy.
Consular jurisdiction, but what you are
saying is an article case of Nigeria. We have
an Embassy, it used to be in Lagus, it’s now in
Abuja. What we do in the foreign service post
is only to register a civil act which is already
registered with the local civil registry? In that
case I cannot remember the town, but I guess
that in that town there is still a copy of the
marriage certificate in the local civil registry.
Unless, it was burnt or destroyed by some
reason or another.
Another possibility is first to ask from
the local civil registry authority, perhaps,
the consular records division to explain the
APPENDIX 4 427
situation in a sworn statement. What the

department can do is to ask the Embassy
of Abuja to check with the authorities in
that town? Because were not sure if the
marriage was still valid. There has to be
some verification, if we’ll have to verify in
the Embassy with the local civil registry
authority. Another option, with regards to the
passport, it is secondary. We cannot use the
amendment of the passport as Proof.
Atty. Morales: In certain cases I had handled during my
assignments, I usually ask for a copy of the
marriage contract and the presentation
of the original, which I attached in the
passport application. However, these are
not permanent records after five years, the
passport application; the entries are just
inputted in our electronic database. However,
the documents are disposed of in accordance
with regulations, shred iyong mga documents
na ‘yon, kaya chances are after five years. If it
happened in five years, it is extremely difficult
to locate the document.
So, the best thing this person can do is to
request our Embassy in Abuja to inquire with
the local civil registry in that town, or they
had relatives or acquaintances in Nigeria to
get from that town a copy of the document
where the marriage was solemnized.
Question #3: What we did, Sir, was to request the Embassy,
after what happened we requested the
Embassy of Nigeria? And we wrote the St.
Michael’s Parish in Contagura, Nigeria but
to no avail. If both options are not available,
then we cannot register a marriage with no
documentary evidence of the marriage.
Atty. Morales: How about the church, the church records wala
rin ho ba? Because it’s a question of evidence,
how can they provide that there was such a
marriage? We only to rely on documentary
evidences.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Question #4: I would just like to make a suggestion that I

made in private to the NSO-OCRG to produce a
Handbook for Solemnizing Officers that would
bring together all the legal, requirements and
legal issues that were discussed here for the
guidance of solemnizing officers, and or in
the future, before issuing an authority for
solemnizing officers.
My question is about woman who is
widowed with children who went to the States
to work there. After 20 and 30 years she was
quite successful and was able to buy lots in
California, then she went back here during
1990’s. She was about 73 years old and she
decided she wanted to get married, so she
found a lover, who is 32 years old.
So this brought quite a friction to the
family of the woman, so what she did was she
secretly went to the US Embassy because she
already acquired US citizenship? She went to
the US Embassy to get married there, so they
got married. Eventually, a year the family of
the lady accepted the man, or so we thought.
This young man and the woman lived together
for three years and after three years the lady
died.
Now after her burial, her family does not
want the widower, the young man, to have
any right to any property that the woman
had. They didn’t even want him to use the
service vehicle that they had been using. They
wanted the man to get out of the house that
they were occupying prior to death. The man,
because he is from Mindanao, has no relatives.
He lived in the church prior to the marriage.
He has nowhere to go. Now, my question is,
can the US Embassy be contacted in this case
for them to help assist the young man to have
a claim in maybe some of the property of the
woman?
APPENDIX 4 429
Mr. Simmons: First of all, I have no idea what jurisdiction

you are talking about. If it is Florida or
North Carolina, I could express opinion on
the law but (California) US government has
no authority to get involved in private legal
matters for one thing. I can’t tell you about
California law because I’m not a California
attorney.
Question #5: In case a solemnizing officer died and failed to
register some certificates of marriage within
the prescribed time, can his successor register
the same? If this is so, how?
L. Hufana: Yes.
Question #6: To Atty. Morales, because the question has
something to do with extraterritoriality, can
a solemnizing officer by invitation celebrate
a wedding of Filipinos abroad inside the
Philippine consulate?
Atty. Morales: It depends ho, what are the factors? For
Example, the contracting parties are not
residents of that country where the embassy
is located. They would not have a marriage
license. Their marriages cannot be solemnized.
To go around the local regulation, they would
ask the solemnizing officer, who is a head of
religious organization to solemnize it in the
embassy. The department regulation ho to my
knowledge does not allow the solemnization
of marriage in the Embassy, by one who has
no authority to do so.
Question #7: There is a passport law. Its not fool-proof, we
are still working on ensuring its integrity. In
any case, this question is about passports.
May client po ako nag-apply for passport and
he discovered na may double registration of
birth certificate. The first certificate of live
birth could need correction on the first name
of the late registration.
The lady came to my office with your note that
the first certificate could need correction and
IN THE PHILIPPINES
for late registration needed to cancel and

withdraw for cancellation. Is it possible just
to cancel the first registration and the second
one is to be used in securing passport?
Dir. Hufana: The answer ho clearly is no. Basically
passport applications, the entry there are
based in the certificate of live birth or the
marriage contract. If you had two certificates
of live birth then this gives rise to confusion
and what we do is what has been done by the
passport office is to request them to correct.
The first registration as an erroneous entry to
correct that entry perhaps under RA 9048 and
then to petition for cancellation of the second
one, that is also a liability if you go to court
as stated by Atty. Danny Concepcion but its
not just possible to cancel the 1st registration,
that is the answer.
Question #8: In securing a passport, is it always necessary
that there is an authenticated COLB or
marriage certificate in SECPA? If so, why?
Atty. Morales: SECPA means the security paper of the NSO,
in most cases we required the security paper
of the NSO because they had certain security
features, we had difficulty accepting ordinary
documents on ordinary papers because even
the one in security paper, there are those who
already try to falsify. So much more for those
in ordinary papers, this is part of our efforts to
ensure the integrity of Philippine passports.
Question #9: One of them, an individual has US immigrant
visa went to US return in the Philippines
doesn’t explain why, but stayed in the
Philippines for three years.
Mr. Simmons: Simple answer is, if you stay out in US for
more than a year you have to file a request to
return and get a form number but I’m sure,
remember she or he in an immigrant visa
section determines whether not or approved
that form and largely depends on why the
APPENDIX 4 431
person stays outside US for more than a

year.
Question #10: In order to avoid problems in reading entries
in the certificate of marriage like difficult
to read or some what blurred entries, can
NSO-OCRG produce a self-carbon marriage
certificates.
Adm. Ericta: The question is whether the NSO can have
a self-carbon certificate printed. Yes, it is
possible. The next question is whether we will
do it or not? We’ll have to see.
Question #11: Does the OCRG sell the marriage certificates
of the solemnizing officer of any religious
sects? Can the OCRG not just give it to us, as
solemnizing officer’s free of charge? Anyway,
tinutulungan naman po namin ang mga
mayors para mapadali ang kanilang trabaho
or ma-lessen ang kanilang trabaho.
Adm. Ericta: Yes, the certificates are being sold, P170.00
per pad. I didn’t get the rest of the question.
Question #12: This question I would like to raise to Ma’am
Ericta. I am Jaime Makayanan, a solemnizing
officer and I happened to be the secretary for
Personnel Administration in Reservation
Army. I certify all renewal of application of
the solemnize and in our office I observe that
it takes about average of 2 months before the
papers are processed.
In fact, when I came in the office a year
ago, I discovered that’s normally average
length of time. When it was my turn I started
December and its now August, my license is
instill with me. I’ve read that processing will
take three days to two weeks if it is renewal.
Adm. Ericta: May I ask you a question. Did you ask whether
you have some lacking requirements, usually
that happens when some papers are lacking,
or we need other documents.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Question#12B: I have an assistant in the office and when I

came in everything seems to be in its place,
the system has been set-up. I only raised the
question when it was my turn, it took so long
and up to now I’m still waiting. We were told
by the office that we should follow it up and
we did it very religiously and consistently,
unfortunately there were changes I think in
the officers in charge, I haven’t gone to your
office yet and I had the opportunity to raise it
now.
Adm. Ericta: Could you leave me your calling card please
so that I will look for it. So right now hav-
ing two initiatives, I think this has been dis-
cussed: One, is the computerized databank of
solemnizing officers, the solemnizing officers
information system and we will put you in the
web. So, those who are registered solemnizing
officers will be listed on our web sites. Two,
we are decentralizing the renewal of the reg-
istration. What we’re doing is developing the
system so that You don’t have to go all the
way to Manila. If you coming from Mindanao
for example, you don’t have to go to Manila
but you can file your renewal in Mindanao,
from Manila come over to my office.
Question #13: This is just a request if Atty. Morales could
follow up the issue left by Mr. Simmons about
the couples who are divorced in States, what
is the stand of our government about those?
Atty. Morales: It depends, as I stated I’m not sure of the
Article, but the Civil Code provides that laws
relating to family status, rights, conditions,
duties are binding on citizens of the Philippines
even though they are living abroad, if they
contracted marriage in the Philippines and
they are still Filipino citizens even if they go
abroad later on and obtain the divorce, which
is valid in the place where they are currently
residing but still remain Filipino citizens.
The divorce has no legal force and effect in
APPENDIX 4 433
the Philippines, it’s a different case when a

divorce which is validly obtained abroad. It
can only be recognized in the Philippines, if
it is one marriage between Filipino national
and a foreign spouse. And two, if the divorce
is obtained by the foreign spouse. And three,
that after obtaining the divorce the foreign
spouse can remarry again. But if they are still
Filipino citizens whose divorce is obtained
abroad, the divorce will have no legal force and
effect insofar as the Philippines is concerned.
Question #14: My question is something on validation about
authority. For example, one of the family
members of an officiating person violated the
law of marriage especially the children, is his
or her authorization still valid?
Ms. Hufana: Yes, isa po ‘yon sa mga ground natin for
revocation or cancellation of the authority
kung meron pong mag re-report sa OCRG,
then we will conduct an investigation and if
proven na talagang may violation na ginawa
iyong Solemnizing Officer then we will cancel
the authority. Kung wala pong mag re-report
then we will not know that this solemnizing
officer is committing a violation.
Question #15: I have received and registered 15 copies
of marriage certificates where all the
contracting parties are Roman Catholic but
these marriages were solemnized by a certain
pastor of Jesus Christ All Powerful in the
Barangay Hall of a certain barangay in our
municipality. He violated Article 7 paragraph
2 of the Family Code.
Dir. Hufana: Also, one of the cause for revocation of
his authority is who will be responsible in
reporting this action? Anybody who knows
about the violation can report to the church or
to the OCRG about the violation. In the first
place, hindi naman po namin immediately
ika-cancel the authority but we will also
IN THE PHILIPPINES
conduct our own investigation. As I said, if

proven that there is really violation, then
we will cancel the authority. So, in this case
even if nakalagay po doon na talagang Roman
Catholic ‘yon ikinasal tapos ang nagkasal ay
pastor kailangan pa rin ang report.
Question #16: Among those solemnizing officers, if anyone
will solemnized same sex, what would be the
accountability since we know, it is against
public policy and against the purpose of
marriage.
MCR Soriano: Well, we know it is against the law. It’s against
morals, it’s against public policy, now because
he didn’t determine the legal capacity, it
is incumbent upon the SO to determine the
legal capacity of the contracting parties but
by doing so, officiating or solemnizing a same-
sex marriage he may be held liable.
Question #17: We should avoid this I think because, it might
be a precedent that the homosexual would be
willing to aspire marriage to a macho man.
MCR Soriano: Ang sabi ko nga, if they did officiate and then
they present it to us for registration, wala po
kaming magagawa kung di po ire-register.
Totally po naman ang sabi ko nga registration
has nothing to do with the legality or validity
of the marriage. In fact, maganda pa nga dahil
na document, nai-record at kung sino man
ang managot mayron tayong maipakitang
ibedensya sa maling ginawa because wala
pong effects sa legalidad o validad ng isang
kasal yong pagre-rehistro.
Question #18: Seven years na pong walang communication sa
unang kasal ang babae na sa pagka-alam n’ya
ang asawa niya ay patay na. Nagpakasal siya
sa ikalawang asawa na foreigner at nagkaroon
sila ng isang anak, possible po bang malagay
sa kanyang apelyido ng kanyang ikalawang
asawa ang bata, paano po ba mapapawalang
APPENDIX 4 435
bisa ang unang kasal ngayong patay na ito o

kung buhay man hindi na s’ya mahanap.
Adm. Ericta: Kung seven years na walang communication
ang pwedeng gawin ay pumunta sa Korte
at humingi ng declaration of presumption of
death. Kapag wala yoon at nagpakasal uli s’ya,
iyong pangalawang kasal n’ya ay bigamous
dahil wala pang declaration of presumption of
death so kung mayroon na iyon at nagpakasal
s’ya ulit maari nang gamitin nong anak n’ya
yong apelyido ng pangalawang asawa n’ya.
Ngayon kung biglang lumitaw uli yong
unang asawa, magkaroon ng declaration
of appearance at iyong pangalawang kasal
ay mawawalang bisa. So, hindi s’ya dapat
nagpakasal agad sa pangalawa hangga’t hindi
siya nakakuha ng declaration of presumption
of death.
Question #19: Why is it that our Marriage Law does not give
equal treatment to Muslims and Christians?
I thought Philippine laws apply to all citizens
of the Philippines. Why Muslims are allowed
to have four wives and are allowed to obtain a
divorce, while Christians are not?
MCR Soriano: Magkaka-iba tayo ng culture and traditions,
in fact, in fairness to the Muslims dapat
‘yon laws nila adopted to their customs and
traditions kaya magka-iba at saka we respect
their customs and tradition and their laws.
Itong why are they allowed four wives and
divorced while Christians are not. Well,
‘yon iyong naka-ugalian nila, ‘yon ang sabi
ng batas na basehan ng kanilang kultura at
‘yong mga marriage laws nila so we cannot do
anything about it.
Question #20: I am Judge Odilin Abutin of municipal trial
court of Catbalogan, Samar. Last July 28,
there was an American national who presented
himself for the purpose of getting married to
a Filipina woman in our municipality. It so
IN THE PHILIPPINES
happened that he presented only an affidavit

in lieu of the capacity to contract marriage. It
took a little time for me personally to convince
our local registrar that it may already suffice
because the problem with that affidavit is that,
it is not only affidavit but there was a footnote
below which serves as a sort of a disclaimer
saying that, “With respect to the correctness
or accuracy of the said form the US Embassy
does not claim any responsibility worse there
is a part in that affidavit which says this does
not serves US government certification that
the affiant, the American in that case has no
impediment to get married.”
This serves as a problem because, about
a month ago, a judge refuse to solemnize mar-
riage because he looked into the attachment of
that and was presented for purposes of issuing
the marriage license and he discovered that
this was the very same form — the affidavit in
lieu of the certificate to contract marriage.
Because correct me if I am wrong but to
my best recollection the US Embassy issues
not an affidavit but it’s a categorical certificate
of capacity to contract marriage. We know, of
course, for probative value purposes that of
course an affidavit is self survey. We want
a more categorical statement from the US
Embassy and second as I’ve said, with this
related question, will be addressed to anyone
in the panel?
Ms. Soriano: Yes, in my experience as civil registrar
and also probably to other registrars that
is sufficient. As the substitute for legal
capacity, because aside from that there is an
application for marriage license and member,
it is a sworn statement. Sworn statement nga,
‘pag sinabi diyan na divorced siya or single
siya doon, secured. It doesn’t impose much
problem kasi he will suffer the consequences
of his declaration or wrong fill-out. So, sa
APPENDIX 4 437
experience namin, wala naman problema.

Actually, it’s my first time to hear that pino-
prublema ng isang judge ‘yang affidavit of
legal capacity because that’s a requirement
for the issuance of the marriage license and
not as a requirement for the solemnization of
the marriage.
Atty. Morales: Napansin ko po kaninang umaga doon sa
statistics na ipinakita sa amin, na malaki ang
porsiento ng maaga nagpapakasal ay pinipili
pa rin ‘yong religious ceremony regardless of
confession. Kung ano nga, Christian o kung
ano pa mang pananampalaya at ngayon po
dito, napapansin ko rin na mas marami ang
mga solemnizing officers na galing din sa mga
religious confessions.
Noong ako po ay nasa Italy at kahit po
dito napapansin ko rin na marami sa mga
nagpapakasal na karamihan ay galing nga
sa mga may religious confessions, sila na may
mga contracting parties na nagpapakasal
sa civil, napapansin ko at nagtanong ako sa
ating Embassy sa Italy na bakit ganoon na
marami ang magpakasal sa civil muna tapos
sa churches nila, na ang sagot nila paniwala
nila na mas matibay ‘yong kasal sa civil na
hindi nila alam na ‘yong mga solemnizing
officers. Kung sila ay i-register as valid as,
doon sa civil, ngayon po ang akin pong doubts
ay kung meron bang certain vigilance ‘yong
mga nasa opisina ng civil registrar o kung
sino pa ang solemnizing officers doon sa
civil registrar na paalalahan sila na yong
pagpapakasal po sa simbahan nila ay kasing
tibay nong sa simbahan.
Kasi po pastor nagiging problema
naming itong sa Italy na ‘yong mga kapwa
natin Pilipino na nagpapakasal sa Embassy
ang susunod po n’yang pupuntahan Chinese
restaurant at pagkatapos, pagkaraan na
nang ilang linggo o buwan papakasal uli sa
IN THE PHILIPPINES
simbahan din, another handaan na naman at

ang problema pa yong tungkol sa pirmahan,
na parang sa amin. Halimbawa po sa Catholic
hindi lumalabas na parang convalidation
lamang ang nangyayari sa harap naming
samahan, supposed to be na kung sa simbahan
kaagad kinasal? Wala namang problema
dahil ipini-forward naman po ng church doon
sa registrar’s office.
Ms. Hufana: Ganito po kasi ‘yan. Kapag napansin ninyo
na maraming religious marriages as against
‘yong civil marriages, hindi naman po ibig
sabihin na para kasing ang sinabi nila na
‘di ba, nauuna ang civil marriages tapos
nagkakaroon ng religious marriage. Yet iyong
statistics natin marami pa rin ang religious
marriages, siguro gusto lang naming i-clarify
na yong una pong kasal. Iyon ang nare-
rehistro, so ang nakikita po natin in the
statistics is that there are many religious
marriages than civil marriages. Totoo po yon
na talagang maraming religious marriages
na nangyayari that is why ‘yung unang kasal,
ibig sabihin ‘di po ba, so ganoon po ang gusto
po nating emphasize here na kahit dalawang
beses nagpakasal iyong couple, the first
marriage is always the valid one.
Question #21: In relation to the procedure being complained
of by many marriages applicants, which in a
way adversely affects the smooth flow of civil
registrar’s transaction. This is in connection
to pre-marriages counseling committee,
which includes the DSWD officer regarding
the scheduling in conducting in pre-marriage
counseling.
In our municipality, it is done. Once
a week but they are proposing to have it at
least twice a week, instead of the once-a-
week schedule. Many of our clients complain
because that prolongs the processing of the
marriage license issuance. This pre-marriage
APPENDIX 4 439
counseling (PMC) certificate is on of the

requirements before we can start ten-day
posting because of the scheduling. There
are cases that even when the clients want to
comply, they are not entertained by the PMC
committee because of sudden call for other
official business.
Ang nalalaman ko there are some
LCRs that facilitate help to our clients,
napag-alaman ko sa ibang kliyente namin
na merong mga LCR na they just start the
counting even without the release of the PMC
certificate yet. Is it valid or justifiable to have
this scheduling?
Mrs. Hufana: As far as the PMC is concerned, we cannot
answer for them so siguro kayo ang dapat
makipag-usap sa kanila para maintindihan
nila ang problema.
Ms. Soriano: You know it’s not only the requirements for
marriage license, is not only the counseling
certificates. You should remember that. You
will only post the notice after the last or all
requirements are already completed. Kahit
nandiyan na iyong counseling certificate,
wala pa iyong advice or consent maybe, you
don’t post it. Hintayin muna makompleto ang
requirements and post, then comply with the
publication.
And remember there is a memo from
NSO, kasi sabi mo naaabala iyong clients.
Hindi ba ni-remind tayo that there is
difference between receipt and acceptance.
We can receive the application walang durate,
naka-fill-up na sila, kasi kulang pa iyong
requirements. It just means the physical
presentation of the application to you. But
at a time when all requirements are already
completed ‘yon na ‘yong date of acceptance ng
civil registrar, so ‘yon na ‘yong napirmahan
mo na yong durate ng PML.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Question #22: Through NSO-OCRG, how can we be help to

our clients lalo na doon sa munisipyo namin
na malayo, talagang far distant place, ang
mga ibang applicant for marriage hindi taga-
roon, ang napangasawa lang yong taga doon
sa aming munisipyo? They just come home
for the purpose of applying for marriage. How
can NSO-OCRG help our client na magkaroon
ng memorandum in relation that scheduling?
Mrs. Hufana: Siguro what the NSO can do is to coordinate
and talk to DSWD people and explain to them
yong necessity of the certificate of marriage
counseling para maisyuhan ng marriage
license.
Question #23: For the sake of uniformity of application,
in cases of the 90-days suspension of the
marriage license, when should we start
the counting of the 120 days validity of the
marriage license . Should it be after the 10
days posting or should it be after the 90-day
suspension, ‘yong 120 days na validity po ng
marriage license?
Ms. Soriano: For the information of everyone, that is also
a subject of debate sa conference namin sa
Civil Registrars’ Association of Pangasinan,
this about when the advice is not favorable
or when the advice is not secured. There is
an affidavit sworn in by the applicants of
marriage license.
Now, the laws say, we will suspend the
license for 90 days immediately after posting,
so the 10 days posting period, on an 11th day
bibilang ka nang 90 days noon na suspension.
Ang pinag dedebatihan ngayon, kung after
suspending the license the issuance, the
provisions of the laws say, you suspend the
issuance of the license and not the license, so
after 90 days issuance, ang pinag dedebatihan
ngayon, kung ang validity pa rin ba noong
license is still 120 days or may remaining
APPENDIX 4 441
na lang 30 days validity. Pero divided kami

doon.
Question #24: This is not a question but a mere a suggestion
later, this is very simple and addressed
to Mr. Simmons of the US Embassy. As
solemnizing officer, I come across several
foreigners including US citizens coming to
the Philippines to contract marriages with
our beautiful women.
When we did the other contracting party
arrive in the Philippines. Then I asked the
woman three days. The day before yesterday,
I told her where are you staying? For the
meantime ang sabi niya sa bahay po. Ngayon
sabi ko sa kanya, kelan s’ya aalis? Sabi nya
limang araw lang dito sa Pilipinas. Sabi ko sa
babae, tapos ka na? bakit, e kasi hindi pwede
dahil 10 o 15 days bago makuha ang lisensya
kahit hindi ka makasal ka ko. Now for this
reason, I suggest that any foreigner or US
citizen coming to the Philippines. For visitors’
visa will be given ten days period to protect
the integrity of our women, that’s all.
Atty. Morales: Salamat sa katanungan n’yo. The question
you referring to is only staying here for five
days kasi pwede naman po silang pumasok
dito na ang visa upon arrival for more than
21 days. Baka nagpapalusot lang ho ‘yon kaya
limang araw ang palaging sinasabi.
Question #25: First, how many couples marry in one place
in the same time, this refers to a mass
wedding?
Adm. Ericta: We don’t have no limit as long as the requisites
of marriage are allowed.
Question #26: How many and what are the major causes for
revocation of solemnizing officer’s license?
Adm. Ericta: Yes, but we don’t have the numbers here.
There in my office, if you’re interested, we can
provide it to you later on.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Question #27: Is Article 34 also valid among foreigners?

What is the opinion of the NSO regarding
this. Do we have the administrative order to
this effect?
Dir. Hufana: The answer is yes, there is already a DOJ
opinion on this, that even foreigners may
avail of marriages under Article 34 as long as
they can prove that they have stayed here in
the Philippines for that long — five years or
more.
OPEN FORUM AFTER DIR. HUFANA’S PRESENTATION
We have 30 minutes for the Open Forum. Please Observe the

rules strictly so that everyone will have an opportunity to ask.
Question #1: Can an LC solemnize marriage abroad,

if he is traveling on official time and that
both contracting parties come from his area
of jurisdiction or from his municipality?
(Addressed to Atty Concepcion:)
Atty. Concepcion: Question was skipped.
Question #2: To avoid conflicting views and thus, have a
standardized and uniform application of the
law, the place of registration must be the
place of occurrence of vital events, what is
really the proper place of registration of this
case for late registration of marriage, where
it occurred in a place which was formerly
a barrio of a municipality but presently
separated as another municipality? Will that
be represented as still within the jurisdiction
of the municipality first mentioned or with
the municipality where the actual vital event
took place?
Dir. Hufana: Ganito po ‘yan, kasi identified natin ‘yung
barangay where the marriage happened,
‘di ba? Even if ‘yung municipality na ‘yun
ay nag-split into two municipalities, saan
napunta na barangay where the marriage
APPENDIX 4 443
happened? Halimbawa, si Barangay A dati

nasa Municipality X, tapos na divide ang
Municipality X into Municipality X1 and
Municipality X2. Saan napunta ngayong
sa Barangay A. Kung si A naiwan kay
Municipality X1, the registration has to be
done sa Municipality X1.
Question #3: Ang question ko happened in our community.
Kasi po sa ARMM, kasal ng kasal pero walang
rehistro. Ano ang gagawin namin bilang
C/MCR para lahat ng tao doon ay makaka-
rehistro?
Dir Hufana: Maganda po ang kanilang katanungan at
maganda po ang kanilang intention, gusto po
nilang marehistro ang lahat ng kasal. So ang
sinasabi po natin, kung hindi pa po nare-re-
histro, we allow late registration. Paano na-
tin mapapalate registration ang ating mga
kababayan sa ARMM? ‘Yung mga civil regis-
trars po natin, they do conduct mobile regis-
tration. They do not require the C/MCR. Sila
na po ‘yung pumupunta doon sa mga baran-
gay para ma-rehistro ang mga kasal. So that’s
one. Another one is nakikipagtulungan na po
tayo with the barangay secretaries, with the
barangay chairman to record occurrences of
marriages in there are of jurisdiction. And
also, ang civil registrar kasama po ang local
government officials ay sama-samang nagsa-
sagawa ng info dissemination or educational
campaigns para maisa-hatid ang kahalaga-
han ng rehistro.
Question #4: Isa pang katanungan, we are in the ARMM,
usually the Muslim brothers and sisters in
ARMM, practice polygamy. Ang lalaking
Muslim pwedeng mag-asawa ng four at a time.
Ang tanong ko po, sa apat na asawa, who is
authorized to get the marriage contract.
Dir. Hufana: Ang Muslim men ay allowed to have four
wives. Ang lahat po ‘yun ay may kanya-kan-
IN THE PHILIPPINES
yang marriage certificates so kunwari ang

isang Muslim na lalaki, ‘yun una niyang
asawang babae may isang marriage contract.
“Yung pangalawa asawang babae may sarili
‘ding marriage contract. Iyung lalaki may
apat na marriage contract pero ‘yung babae
ay isa lang. So ganoon po. (Tatayo po si RD
Pilimpinas upang sagutin ang inyong iba
pang katanungan.)
Suggestion #1: This is about the issuance of the renewal of
marriage license. It seems that everything is
centralized in Manila. We have a resolution
for the OCRG requesting to decentralize
issuance of the renewal of marriage license.
Dir. Hufana: I have mentioned in my lecture that we
already have decentralized the processing of
the applications for renewal, which took effect
last January 2002. However, ang pinayagan
lang po natin na magprocess at magapprove
ay ang mga NSO Regional Directors. So
the applications will still be accepted sa
mga provincial offices for forwarding to the
Regional Offices for processing and approval.
We would like to inform you also that we have
developed a system, ‘yung pong tinatawag
natin na Solemnizing Officers Information
System o SOIS na napakadali ang pagpro-
process ng applications.
Question #5: The next question is actually a request to
the OCRG before the issuance of renewal
of marriage license. There should be a
requirement to attached, at least, copies of two
certificates of attendance in NSO seminars in
a year.
Dir. Hufana: We will take note of your suggestion.
Question #6: This is a question on registration. A couple
whose marriage was celebrated outside of
their municipality where the license was
issued. Is it proper for a local civil registrar to
refuse registration?
APPENDIX 4 445
Dir. Hufana: Okay, ganito po ‘yan. ‘Yun pong pagpa-file ng

marriage license is done sa civil registry office
where one of the contracting parties resides.
Halimbawa, ‘yung babae nakatira sa Caloocan
at ‘yung lalake nakatira sa Quezon City so
pwede silang mag-apply for a license either
sa Caloocan o sa Quezon City, pero the license
will be valid anywhere in the Philippines.
The marriage license will be valid for 120
days. So wala po akong nakikitang rason for
the local civil registrar to refuse registration
of marriage where the license was taken in
another municipality to the municipality
where the marriage was performed. Ngayon
po alam ninyo na hindi na dapat i-refuse.
Question #7: How can a solemnizing officer determine if a
marriage license is valid?
Dir. Hufana: Maganda po ‘yung tanong nila. You can verify
from civil registrar where the marriage license
was prepared.
Question #8: But the contracting parties just went to the
office of the solemnizing officer, bringing the
documents. Almost always, the marriage
licenses were issued in other towns.
In case where the marriage license will
not be valid, you will not incur any liability.
Kung sakali pong fake ‘yung marriage license
pero kayo po ‘yung nagkasal. Wala po kayong
kinalaman. You can verify from the civil
registrar whether they issued the license
through the license number. Halimbawa po,
‘yung civil registrar ng Tagaytay City, so you
can ask Wilma kung talaga pong inisyu niya
itong marriage license na ito to this person.
Question #9: Does NSO have a list of civil registrars in
different municipalities? And does the office
issue this list?
Dir. Hufana: Meron po, Sir. But what we have on file are
just the signatures appearing in the marriage
IN THE PHILIPPINES
license. It is only the civil registrar who can

validate the license.
Question #10: But how in the case where the marriage
license was issued by the subordinate of the
local civil registrar? And it turned out that it
was not a valid marriage license. That is why
the solemnizing officer refused to solemnize
the marriage because the license was not
valid? Is it also proper that the subordinate
issues the marriage license for the local civil
registrar?
Dir. Hufana: So you could ask for a copy of the marriage
license or a copy of the application of the
marriage license, just so you will be able to
know whether the marriage license attached
in the marriage certificate is valid or not.
Question #11: This is a question on delayed registration
of a vital event that took place outside the
Philippines. The document or the certificate
of marriage has already been destroyed,
however, the vital event took place in Nigeria,
they were not able to register the event with
the nearest Philippine Consulate. However,
the passport of the woman was amended.
But they don’t have a copy of the marriage
license anymore. Now they need a copy of the
marriage license. What are other documents
can they present to the Department of Foreign
Affairs for purposes of delayed registration of
the vital event that took place?
Dir. Hufana: Actually, I’d like to inform you that we will
have a representative from DFA tomorrow.
Pero pwede ko na ring sagutin. According to
DFA what they need really is the original copy
or a certified true copy which they will use as
basis na talagang may kasalang nangyari
doon sa lugar na ‘yon. Without the original
document, there will really be no basis kung
saan ‘yang sinasabi mo.
APPENDIX 4 447
Question #12: Nabanggit ni Atty. Danny po kanina na ang

Katoliko po ay hindi pwedeng kasalin ng
isang Kristiyano.
Dir. Hufana: Yes, Sir, kasi po pwede lamang magkasal
‘yung pari kung isa sa ikakasal ay miyembro
ng kanyang simbahan. Kunwari ‘yung
dalawang ikakasal, ‘yung isa Katoliko, ‘yung
isa Christian, tapos ‘yung kasal will happen
doon sa simbahan ng Christian. Kasi po kung
ganoon ang kaso, Sir, pwede po.
Question #13: In a marriage under articulo mortis, is there
a need to register the marriage contract consi-
dering that only one of the parties was able to
sign the contract.
Dir. Hufana: So ang ibig sabihin ba noon, pagkatapos ng
kasal, namatay na kaagad ‘yung isang party or
‘yung dying party could not sign the certificate.
Thumb mark na lang ‘yung ipalalagay natin
doon sa dying party, tutal may mga witnesses
naman na magpapatunay na bago matapos
ang kasal buhay pa ang dying party.
RD Manulon: Wala naming prublema doon kasi ang
marriage under articulo mortis meron siyang
affidavit o kahit na walang sign ‘yung namatay
at ang nakapirma lang ‘yung isang party at
witnesses.
Question #14: Where is the place of occurrence for a
marriage under articulo mortis and aboard
a ship solemnized by the ship captain that
left Manila and passed the territorial waters
of Cavite, passing Cebu and anchored in
Zamboanga?
Dir. Hufana: Ang sabi naman natin kasi ‘di ba, if the
place of marriage cannot be ascertained — in
this case, saan ba nag-officiate. The place
of marriage, therefore, becomes the name
of the vessel and the place of registration is
the destination. Usually naman po kasi, the
destination is the place of residence.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Question #15: Ito ho ay paglilinaw doon sa requirements na

kailangang may 200 bona fide members of the
religion (the mother church) and not the local
church. Kasi po I’m with the United Methodist
Church, which has existed for more than 100
years, ang ibig sabihin po ba ang local church
dapat ang may 200 members. Kapag po bawat
local church, eh di pong solemnizing officer
diyan and that will require a lot of pastors to
be checked.
Dir. Hufana: Kasi ganito po ‘yan, ito ho sinasabi natin na
may mother church at ang mga branches, ‘yung
local church. It has to be the local church that’s
why we consider the local church as separate
organization. Kasi na rin po kasi kaming
observation in our data file na dumadami ang
local sect at nag-mumushroom, ey ayun pala
konti lang ang kanilang miyembro.
Question #16: Isn’t enough that pag pinagsama-sama mo
‘yung congregation ay pwede ng i-validate ang
existence of the local church. Ang question lang
po kasi ay paano iba-validate na legitimate
ang existence of the local church.
Dir. Hufana: Siguro po pag-aaralan namin. Pero as a rule,
without 200 members, we will not consider
that the organization is a separate church or
religious sect. So hindi po namin na ia-allow
na mag-recommend kayo ng solemnizing
officer. Kasi kapag inallow naming nagiging
doubtful ang existence ng isang church.
Siguro we have to study and determine the
right number of members to consider local
sect a separate organization.
Question #17: I am asking this question so all of us present
will have the same understanding and
won’t have conflicting views that the place
of registration is the place of occurrence,
wherein the application of late registration
for marriage happened in a place where it is a
former barrio of a certain municipality, what
APPENDIX 4 449
will be the present registration of a former

barrio of a certain municipality but it is
presently a barrio of a new municipality? One
barrio was separated as a new municipality.
Dir. Hufana: Lagi tayong bumalik sa mother municipality,
because what we are registering are the facts
of marriage. Kunwari Barrio A was formerly
a part of Municipality X. In 1970 when the
marriage happened, Barrio A was formerly a
part of Municipality X but now in 1990, Barrio
X humihiwalay to form a new municipality.
But remember that the marriage happened in
1970, and in 1970 that Barrio A was part of
Municipality X, therefore the registration has
to be made in the previous municipality, in
Municipality X.
Question #18: Here comes a couple presenting an affidavit
of cohabitation. What should the solemnizing
officer do? Should the solemnizing officer
celebrate the marriage without question on
the basis of this affidavit shown?
Dir. Hufana: ‘Di ba po sa ating form, may nakalagay doon
that the solemnizing officer has to certain
that there is no impediment at the time
of cohabitation and they really have lived
together as husband and wife for the past five
years. ‘Yung affidavit na ‘yon will serve the
purpose of marriage license.
Question #19: What measures do we have so we could
ascertain that the couple is telling the truth
that they have cohabited for five years?
Dir. Hufana: One, you can ask for the birth certificate of
the children (if there are any). Na talagang
makikita mo na sinasabi nila na 1990
nagsama na sila, tapos magpapakasal sila ng
1995 o kaya 1996. Look for the birth certificate
of the children (if any), para mapatunayan na
nagsama sila.
Question #20: Suppose they have no children?
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Dir. Hufana: Doon po sa marriage form also meron po doon

portion na oath of solemnizing officer, ‘di ba?
Kaya po nakalagay po doon na they have
ascertained that they have lived together as
husband and wife. You can ask for witnesses.
You can ask for a certification from the
barangay chairman. Ito po ang pwede ninyong
gamitin.
Question #21: Meron pong live-in partner ang babaeng ka-
torse anyos, ‘yung lalaki mga 27 years old na
nung nagsama sila. Ngayon po after eight
years gusto na nilang magpakasal pero ‘yung
kanilang mga anak ni-rehistro na nila sa pan-
galan ng lalaki, although he is an illegitimate
son. Will the marriage of the couple legitimate
the son?
Dir. Hufana: Sir, ang sinasabi ninyo ‘yung tinatawag nating
legitimation. Kunwari po merong mag-asawa
na nagkaroon po ng mga anak but they were
not yet married at the time po na nagkaroon
sila ng anak and when the children were
registered. Kasi po, Sir, ganito po ‘yan lahat
na pinanganak na illegitimate after the 1988
Family Code, they cannot follow the surname
of the father. Pero ang mga illegitimate na
anak na pinanganak before the 1988 Family
Code can adopt the surname of the father.
So kaya po tinatanong natin kung kailan
po pinanganak ang illegitimate children.
Kung 1990 po sila nagkaroon na lang po ng
correction in the birth certificate, kasi after
na makasal ang kanilang mga magulang at
wala pong impediment sa pagpapakasal ng
kanilang magulang, pwede pong mangyari
ang legitimation in which case, madadala
ng mga bata ang apelyido ng kanilang tatay.
Pero prior to legitimation, kailangan pong
maitama ang kanilang birth certificate.
Question #22: Whenever a contracting party would apply for
marriage, we would require them baptismal
confirmation and marriage license in cases
APPENDIX 4 451
of late registration. But noong bata pa hindi

bininyagan at noong mag-aasawa na saka
magpapabinyag at magpaparehistro. In my
case, in our municipality, a civil registrar
will refuse a late registration because kulang
ang baptismal certificate. May rule nga ba na
nire-require ang party na magkaroon muna
ng baptismal bago i-rehistro kahit late. Kasi
hindi lahat ang nasa amin ay katoliko, meron
ho galing ibang sekta, which we cannot issue
a baptismal or any certificate.
Dir. Hufana: Sir, sa late registration po of birth, actually,
kailangan po natin ang accomplishment of
form and certificate of live birth and affidavit
at the back of the form, or it could be on a
separate sheet and supporting documents —
one of them is the birth certificate — to prove
that what are written in the birth form are
correct. Pwede hong hingin ang baptismal at
pwede rin hong hingiin ang other documents.
Kung nagtratrabaho na, pwede rin naming
certificate of employment.
Question #23: The date of authority of my solemnization
license is September 1, 2004. Why was I
given that expiration date when the supposed
expiration should be on December 31, 2004?
Dir. Hufana: Ang lahat ng binibigay naming authority to
solemnize marriage ay December 31. Pwede
pong pakibalik na lang sa amin para mai-
tama namin. (Session chair: Please approach
Mrs. Hufana whoever wrote the intervention
sheet.)
Question #24: The other one is, if the authority grants, to
City Civil Registrars under Opinion 26, Series
of 2001, DOJ, extends the administration of
oath in the application of solemnizing officers
for CRASM. Is the authority granted to MCR
and CCR?
Dir. Hufana: Kasi po ‘yung pag a-administer ng civil
registrars ng oath is only for registration
IN THE PHILIPPINES
purposes of vital events. Sorry, it does not

cover the oath of solemnizing officers.
Question #25: I was just recently appointed judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas. During
the lecture, there was a presentation on the
recognition of solemnizing officers. Now when I
got appointed in December, the first thing that
I did was to solemnize my brother’s marriage,
fortunately or unfortunately. Apparently, you
are just recognizing solemnizing officers of
churches and sects. Although in the operation
of law as a judge, I become a solemnizing
officer. My question is… is the NSO not
interested in determining in the listing of
solemnizing officers on the side of judges,
insofar as the database is concerned.
Dir. Hufana: Kasi nga po ang sabi ni Atty. Danny Concepcion
na ‘yung pong mga civil solemnizing officers
tapos religious solemnizing officers. Ang nire-
rehistro ng NSO ‘yung pong mga authority
ng religious solemnizing officers. Kasi po, per
law, kayo po ay authorized na. But we do have
a register of civil marriages. It is not that
NSO is interested (in maintaining a database
of nonreligious solemnizing officers), it is
because we are not authorized.
Question #26: This is a question of law. A solemnizing officer
can only solemnize marriage sa sekta po
ninyo. Otherwise, it will be a violation.
RD Manulon: We can note down your concern and this will
be added to the summary of all issues and
questions that we were unable to answer.
APPLICATION FOR A PHILIPPINE MARRIAGE LICENSE
Marriage License: a requirement for either a Civil or Church

wedding to be held in the Philippines. The Application Form for a
marriage license must be secured at the Local Civil Registrar from
the city, town or municipality where either the bride or the groom
APPENDIX 4 453
habitually resides. The personal appearance of those getting married

is required in applying for a marriage license.
Each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn
application for each license with the proper local civil registrar.
Philippine law prescribes a ten-day waiting period from the filing of
the Application to the issuance of the marriage license. The license is
valid for 120 days from date of issuance and may be used anywhere
in the Philippines.
At the time the contracting parties appear to file their
application for a Marriage License to the local civil registrar, he or
she must also submit the following supporting documents:
1. Birth Certificate — Certified True Copy required of each
the contracting parties with the respective registry number. This
document is issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO).
NOTE: NSO now provides a web service which accepts online
application for copies of birth and marriage certificates. It is called
the e-Census, a web facility aimed to provide Filipinos within and
outside the country an alternative means in applying for copies of
their civil registry documents. It also has a 24-7 hotline called the
NSO Helpline Plus with telephone no. (632)737.1111. You could also
reach them via email through: e-census,info@mail.census.gov.ph
2. Parents’ Consent (for 18-21 years old) or Parent’s Advice
(for 21-25 years old): Under Philippine law, the legal age for marriage
is 18. If the contracting parties are between the ages of 18 and 21,
they must present written consent to the marriage from their father,
mother or legal guardian. While any contracting party between the
age of 22 and 25 must present written parental advice, i.e., a written
indication that the parents are aware of the couple’s intent to marry.
Read Parental Consent vs. Parental Advice for a detailed discussion
on the difference between the two terms.
3. Certificate of Attendance in a pre-marital counseling and
family planning seminar conducted by the Division of Maternal and
Child Health at the Municipal/City Hall in the same municipality or
city where the contracting parties applied for the marriage license.
FOR FOREIGNERS: Philippine law requires a citizen or subject
of a foreign country to obtain a Certificate of Legal Capacity to
Contract Marriage. It is issued by the diplomatic or consular offices
of his or her country, prior to the issuance of a marriage license in
the Philippines. This serves as a clearance or permit from the consul
IN THE PHILIPPINES
as an actual proof of the subject’s civil status and his/her eligibility

for marriage.
http://www.weddingsatwork.com/laws cenomar.html
FOREIGNERS AND MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

NOTE: Please refer to the Family Code of the Philippines for
references to any of its article as mentioned in some items below.
There has been a lot of questions posed by foreigners on the
proper procedure in marrying a citizen of the Philippines. As a
result, we have gathered relevant information to guide those who
wish to tie the knot in our country.
First of all, foreigners who wish to marry in the Philippines
are required to obtain a certificate of legal capacity to marry issued
by diplomatic or consular representatives of their country. This is in
accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Family Code
of the Philippines, which states:
“When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens
of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a
marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certificate of
legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective
diplomatic or consular officials.’’
For example, a citizen of the United States wishing to marry
in the Philippines, must appear personally before a consular officer,
at the U.S. Embassy in Manila and procure a certificate of legal
capacity to marry. Once the certificate has been received, the
application for a marriage license can be made at the office of the
local Philippine Civil Registrar of the town or city where the Filipino
fiancée is a resident. The foreigner will need to present the certificate,
passport, and documentation regarding parental consent or advice
if applicable. There is also a need to present a divorce decree if the
foreigner has been previously married and a death certificate if a
widow or widower.
For the Filipino applicant the following shall be needed for
purposes of the marriage license application:
1. Birth Certificate of Baptismal Certificate. If widow or
widower Death Certificate of late spouse (certified true
copy).
2. Community Tax Certificate
APPENDIX 4 455
3. ID picture of both applicants

4. Certificate of Family Planning and Marriage Counseling
(the couple are required to attend a Counseling Seminar
before the certificate is issued).
Marriage applicants who are aged 18 to 21 must have parental

consent in writing, those aged 21 to 25 must have written parental
advice (a written indication that the parents are aware of the
couple’s intent to marry). There is a ten-day waiting period before
the marriage license is issued by the registrar’s office. This period
is prescribed by law to inform the public about the pending license
application and to give the local civil registrar an opportunity to
entertain any objections to the upcoming marriage.
The marriage license, once issued, is valid in any part of the
Philippines for 120 days. If it has not been used during this 120-day
period it will then automatically expire.
The marriage ceremony must be solemnized by an individual
with the legal authority to perform such a ceremony. Among these
are a priest, imam, or any incumbent member of the judiciary within
the court’s jurisdiction (See Article 7 of the Family Code of the
Philippines). Upon the completion of the ceremony all participants
(the presiding official, the witnesses, and the husband and wife)
must sign the marriage certificate.
Following the signing of the marriage certificate by all parties
involved, the marriage certificate must be sent to the city hall or the
municipality in which the Philippine national habitually resides. It
will then be registered by the local civil register. You can get certified
true copies of the marriage contract from the local civil registrar or
HOW TO GET MARRIED IN THE PHILIPPINES IF YOU ARE

A U.S. CITIZEN
The U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines, states that the
requirements for getting married in the Philippines, if you are a
U.S. Citizen, are as follows:
Affidavit of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage
Philippine law requires a citizen or subject of a foreign country
to obtain a Certificate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage, issued
IN THE PHILIPPINES
by the diplomatic or consular offices of his or her country, prior to

the issuance of a marriage license in the Philippines.
As American consular officers are specially prohibited
from certifying that any U.S. citizen has the capacity to marry,
the Philippine government has agreed to accept as substantial
compliance with the Philippine law, an Affidavit in Lieu of Legal
Capacity to Contract Marriage (“affidavit”). The Affidavit attests to
the absence of any legal impediment to the marriage and is sworn to
before an American consular officer. Therefore, U.S. citizens wishing
to marry in the Philippines must appear personally before a consular
officer, either at the U.S. Embassy in Manila or the U.S. consulate in
Cebu City and complete the Affidavit concerning their own capacity
to marry. There is a $10.00 service fee, subject to change, for the
notarial service.
At the time a U.S. citizen appears to execute the Affidavit, he
or she must present the following:
1. Proof of Citizenship
Examples of sufficient evidence of U.S. citizenship
are:
a. current registration as U.S. citizen at the Passport
and Citizenship Office of the Embassy or at the
Consulate
b. a U.S. passport
c. a birth certificate issued in the United States or a
record of birth abroad issued by a U.S. Embassy or
Consulate, together with identification bearing a
picture or a physical description or
d. a Certificate of Naturalization.
2. Evidence of Termination of Previous Marriage(s)
If the U.S. citizen has been previously married,
evidence of termination of the previous marriage, such as
a certified copy of the final decree of divorce or annulment,
or a certified copy of the death certificate of the deceased
spouse must be submitted.
3. Parents’ Consent or Advice
Under Philippine law, the legal age for marriage
is 18. If the contracting parties are between the ages
APPENDIX 4 457
of 18 and 21, they must present written consent to the

marriage from their father, mother or legal guardian.
Any contracting party between the age of 22 and 25 must
present written parental advice, i.e., a written indication
that the parents are aware of the couple’s intent to
marry.
4. Military Approval
An active member of the United States Armed Forces
wishing to execute the Affidavit must present a letter of
approval of the marriage from the appropriate military
authority. Military personnel NOT assigned in the
Philippines are also required to obtain their authorization
from their respective commanding officer. Military
members are encouraged to plan well in advance of the
intended wedding date and to discuss the requirements
with their own command personnel office.
Marriage Procedure
The procedure to marry in the Philippines is as follows:
1. Secure the Affidavit in lieu of Certificate of Legal
Capacity to Contract Marriage from the American Service
Branch of the U.S. Embassy in Manila or from the U.S.
consulate in Cebu City. If both the bride and the groom
are U.S. citizens, each one must obtain an Affidavit.
2. Apply for the marriage license at the Local Civil
Registrar from the municipality where either the bride or
the groom habitually resides. The documents necessary
for the marriage license are:
a. the Affidavit for the U.S. citizen bride or groom
b. the death certificate or divorce decree which shows
the termination of any previous marriage(s) of the
bride and/or the groom
c. the birth, baptismal or residency certificate for the
Filipino bride or groom, and
d. the parental consent or advice, if either party is
under age
e. Philippine law prescribes a ten-day waiting period
from the filing of the Application to the issuance of
IN THE PHILIPPINES
the marriage license. The license is valid for 120

days and maybe used anywhere in the Philippines.
f. Present the license to a person authorized to perform
marriage ceremonies, such as judge, justice of the
peace, priest or minister of religion.
3. Passport Amendment — a female U.S. citizen may have
her passport amended to indicate her married name. She
should bring her passport and a certified true copy of the
Marriage contract to the Passport 7 Citizenship Office
of the U.S. Embassy in Manila or the U.S. Consulate in
Cebu City. This amendment is not obligatory and there is
no fee for this service.
Entry of Alien Spouse into the United States

Marriage of a foreign national to a U.S. citizen does not
automatically confer United States citizenship upon the alien
spouse. He or she must be petitioned by the U.S. citizen spouse as
an immigrant to the United States. An alien spouse is almost never
eligible for a non-immigrant visitor visa to the United States. In
almost all cases, the existence of the marital relationship between
the U.S. citizen and the alien makes the alien spouse an intending
immigrant to the United States and, by definition, ineligible for a
temporary visa.
The procedure to obtain an immigrant visa for an alien spouse
is as follows:
1. File the Immigrant Visa Petition: The Petition Form
I-130 for an immigrant visa for an alien spouse should
be filed at the INS office nearest the Petitioner’s place of
residence. Only a U.S. citizen who is also a resident of the
Philippines may file the petition at the INS office at Room
1036 of the U.S. Embassy in Manila. All others MUST file
the petition at the INS office in the United States closest
to his or her residence.
When filing the petition, the following documents
must be submitted:
a. a certified copy of the marriage certificate
b. proof of U.S. citizenship
APPENDIX 4 459
c. a certified copy of evidence of termination of any

prior marriage(s) for either spouse, if applicable,
and
d. $75.00 or its equivalent in pesos, to cover the
statutory fee for filing the petition.
2. Obtain the Immigrant Visa: When the approved peti-
tion is received by the Immigrant Visa Branch of the Con-
sulate Section of the U.S. Embassy in Manila, it will no-
tify the foreign spouse and provide guidance concerning
the subsequent steps to be completed in order to obtain
a visa. The applicant must obtain a passport, birth cer-
tificate, marriage certificate, police certificate, affidavit of
support, photographs, and medical examination accord-
ing to specifications provided in the instructions. The visa
is good for four months from the date of issuance.
It can take anywhere from two to four months from
the date the petition is approved by INS to the date of the
issuance of the immigrant visa. If a field investigation is
required, the time period may be even longer. Therefore, a
U.S. citizen should not plan to take the alien spouse back
to the United States immediately following the marriage.
The non-resident US citizen spouse should be prepared
to leave the alien spouse behind to complete the required
documentation.
Because of the time involved in processing the peti-
tion and the application for an immigrant visa, those in-
dividuals living in the Philippines on assignment, either
government or private, are advised to initiate the required
documentation for their spouse’s and/or step-children’s
visa as far in advance of the anticipated rotation date as
possible.
Note: A separate visa petition must be filed by the U.S. citizen

spouse for each child of the alien spouse under the age of 18 at the
time of the marriage who wishes to immigrate to the United States.
Those children 18 years of age and older at the time of the marriage
must be petitioned by the alien spouse after he or she becomes legal
permanent resident in the United States. Under U.S. immigration
law, only step parent’s children under the age of 18 at the time of
their natural parent’s marriage to a U.S. citizen are considered a
“child” of the U.S. citizen for immigration purpose.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Fiancée Visa
It is possible to file a petition for an alien to enter the U.S. as
the fiancée of an American citizen. The procedure is similar to the
procedure for filing a petition and obtaining an immigrant visa for an
alien spouse although, fiancée petitions must be filed in the INS office
within the U.S. nearest to the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner
will be asked to submit evidence of his or her U.S. citizenship and
evidence that he or she has met the fiancée in person within the last
two (2) years. He or she may also be required to present evidence of
the bona fide of the relationship with the fiancée.
When approved, the petition will be forwarded to the Immigrant
Visa Branch of the U.S. Embassy in Manila. The Philippine fiancée
will subsequently be provided by the Embassy with instructions on
how to proceed with his or her fiancée visa application. Again, the
time period from the date the petition is approved by INS to the date
the visa is issued is approximately two to four months and can be
longer if a field investigation is required.
The fiancée visa grants the fiancée six months from the time of
issuance to enter the U.S. Upon entry, the fiancée has ninety days in
which to marry the petitioner. Once the marriage has taken place,
the alien spouse can apply to adjust status to that of legal permanent
resident at the INS office nearest to his or her place of residence.
Note: U.S. immigration law concerning the children of an alien
fiancée is not the same as that concerning the children of the alien
spouse. The U.S. citizen fiancée does NOT have to file a separate
petition for each of the alien fiancée’s unmarried children under 21
at the time the alien fiancée enters the U.S. The U.S. citizen only
needs to indicate the names and date of birth of the children in the
appropriate block on the petition for alien fiancée. The children will
automatically be included in the petition. Unmarried children over
the age 21 can be separately petitioned by the alien fiancée after he
or she has adjusted status in the U.S. to that of legal permanent
resident.
Source: http://www.bookhaus.com/filipino/married.html
461
Appendix 5
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE
Administrative Order No. 1

Series of 2007
Subject: IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

GOVERNING THE REGISTRATION OF THE AU-
THORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH
THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BISHOPS,
HEADS/FOUNDERS OF RELIGIONS AND RELI-
GIOUS SECTS, PRIESTS, IMAMS, RELIGIOUS
MINISTERS, TRIBAL HEADS/LEADERS/CHIEF-
TAINS, COMMUNITY ELDERS, AND OTHER DES-
IGNATED AUTHORITIES.
Pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines

which took effect on 3 August 1988, the following rules and
regulations governing the registration of authority to solemnize
marriage by bishops, heads/founders of religions and religious sects,
priests, imams and other religious ministers with the Office of the
Civil Registrar General (OCRG) are hereby promulgated for the
information, guidance and compliance of all concerned. This Rule
amends OCRG Administrative Order No.1, Series of 1988.
Pertinent provisions of marriage laws governing Muslim
Filipinos and Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples
(ICCs/IPs), under P.D. 1083 otherwise known as the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines and Republic Act 8371, otherwise
known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts of the Philippines,
respectively, are incorporated in these rules.
461
IN THE PHILIPPINES
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISION

The National Statistics Office (NSO) through the Civil
Registrar General (CRG) is the authority having technical control
and supervision on the civil registration in the Philippines.
The Administrator of the NSO, concurrently the CRG, is
vested with authority to issue rules and regulations in carrying out
the provisions of Act 3753 (entitled: “An Act to Establish a Civil
Register”) and other laws on civil registration including those on the
registration of the authority to solemnize marriages.
Prior to the enactment of Civil Registry Law on February 27,
1931, the system of civil registration was purely a local government
affair. Section 2 of said Act provides, among others that “The Director
of the National Library shall be the Civil Registrar General and
shall enforce the provisions of this Act. Thus, the system became
centralized because all rules and regulations pertaining to civil
registration emanates from the CRG”.
When Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted on August
19, 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library
was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now
NSO). Section 2 (f) of this law mandated the NSO to carry out and
administer the provisions of Act 3753.
On August 3, 1988, with the enactment of the Executive Order
No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, the
function of registering the authority of priests or ministers of any
church and religious sect to solemnize marriage is vested upon the
Office of the Civil Registrar General [Art. 7 (2)].
RULE 2. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Unless otherwise given another meaning elsewhere in these
rules, each of these terms shall mean and be understood in accordance
with the following working concepts and definitions:
2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG)
The head of the NSO which is the national agency
mandated to carry out and administer the provisions of Act
No. 3753 and other laws on civil registration.
2.2 Solemnizing Officer (SO)
An officer vested with the authority to solemnize or
officiate the marriage of a man and a woman in accordance with
APPENDIX 5 463
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1
law or with the rites, practices, and ceremonies as prescribed

or granted by their religion/religious sect or tribe or ethnic
aggrupation.
These include:
court’s jurisdiction; as provided in the Family Code
of the Philippines;
b. Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church
or religious sect duly authorized by his church or
religious sect and registered with the CRG, acting
within the limits of the written authority granted
him by his church or religious sect and provided that
at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the
solemnizing officer’s church or religious sect;
d. Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain
is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a
military operation, likewise in cases of marriage in
articulo mortis;
f. City or Municipal Mayors within their area of
jurisdiction under R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the
Local Government Code of the Philippines;
As provided in Article 18, Section 1, Chapter II Book
Two of Presidential Decree 1083:
j. proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be
wedded;
k. any person who is competent under Muslim Law
upon authority of the proper wali; or
l. judge of the Shari’a District Court of the Shari’a
Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge,
should the proper wali refuse without justifiable
reason, to authorize the solemnization.
As provided by OCRG Administrative Order
No. 3, Series of 2004, otherwise known as “Rules
IN THE PHILIPPINES
and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and

Events Concerning the Civil Status of Indigenous
Peoples”, marriages between members of ethnic cul-
tural communities or indigenous peoples may be sol-
emnized by:
m. community elders;
n. tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-
political structures certified by National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); or
o. authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the
tribal communities who perform and solemnize
marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions
and practices of the community.
2.3 City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR)
The head of the department/office in the Local
Government Unit mandated by law to carry out civil
registration functions.
2.4 NSO Regional Director (RD)
Head of the NSO Regional Office (RO) who assists
the CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the
region of jurisdiction.
2.5 NSO Provincial Statistics Officer (PSO)
Head of the NSO Provincial Office (PO) who assists
the CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the
province of jurisdiction.
2.6 Office of the Muslim Affairs (OMA)
An office created under the Office of the President
with a mandate to preserve and develop the culture,
traditions, institutions and well-being of Muslim Filipinos,
in conformity with the country’s laws and in consonance
with national unity and development. (Executive Order
No. 122-A)
2.7 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

(NCIP)
An office created under the Office of the President,
which is primarily responsible for the formulation and
APPENDIX 5 465
implementation of policies, plans and programs to recog-

nize, protect and promote the rights of Ethnic/Indigenous
Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples.
2.8 Marriage
A special contract of permanent union between a
man and a woman entered into in accordance with law
for the establishment of conjugal and family life (Article
1, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the
Philippines)
2.9 Essential Requisites of Marriage
Essential requisites refer to the substance of the
marriage that affect its intrinsic validity.
The essential requisites of marriage are:
a. legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be
a male and a female; and
b. their consent freely given in the presence of the
Solemnizing Officer. (Article 2, EO 209 otherwise
known as the Family Code of the Philippines)
2.10 Formal Requisites of Marriage
Formal requisites refer to the form of the marriage
that affect its extrinsic validity.
a. the authority of the Solemnizing Officer;
b. a valid marriage license except in cases of marriage
exempt from marriage license requirement;
c. 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
(Article 3, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family
Code of the Philippines)
2.11 Marriage License
Is an official document issued by the C/MCR that
gives authority to be married to each other in accordance
with law. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
2.12 Certificate of Marriage

The prescribed form used for the declaration of facts
and circumstances regarding the marriage of two persons
for purposes of registration. (Manual on Civil Registration,
1983)
2.13 Certificate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize
Marriage (CRASM)
A certificate issued to SO certifying the registration
of his authority to solemnize marriage after complying
with the requirements. This certificate indicates that
the SO is authorized to solemnize marriages under his
territorial jurisdiction within the period specified.
The CRASM shall be valid for a period of three years
and shall expire on the thirty-first day of December of
every third year, and shall be renewable within the last
quarter of the expiration year. The effectivity date of the
authority to solemnize marriage shall be indicated in the
CRASM.
2.14 Register of Solemnizing Officers
The registry book which contains the information
pertaining to the registration of SOs.
2.14 Territorial Jurisdiction
A well-defined but delimited area or place where a
SO can validly officiate a marriage. The area or place may
be the whole Philippines, or only part thereof, such as a
region, province, congressional district, or a diocese.
2.15 Place of Solemnization of Marriage
Place where marriage is solemnized publicly such
as in a church, chapel, temple, mosque, judge’s sala or
chamber, mayor’s office, office of the Consul-General,
consul or vice-consul, and not elsewhere unless with
prior written request from the contracting parties and
with prior written approval from the solemnizing officer,
which fact must be declared in a public instrument. (Art.
8, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the
Philippines)
APPENDIX 5 467
For Muslim marriages, it may be solemnized in any

mosque, at the Office of the Shari’a judge, at the Office of
the District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or
her wali, or any other suitable place agreed upon by the
parties. (Art. 19, Section 1, Chapter Two, Book Two of PD
1083).
For tribal marriages, it is any suitable place agreed
upon by the parties provided it is in accordance with their
customs, traditions and practices.
2.16 Church/Chapel/Temple/Mosque
Any building, either of strong or light materials
or combination of strong or light materials, which is
permanent in character, and is opened during convenient
hours of the day, and used actually and exclusively for
holding religious gatherings, rites and services, including
solemnization of marriage, and such building must be
under the possession and control of the religion or religious
sect of which the applicant is a member.
2.17 Religious Sect
A group of persons or organization professing a
common faith and set of beliefs, and governed or guided
by a common religious doctrine or creed.
2.18 Religion
A personal set or institutionalized system of religious
attitudes, beliefs and practices.
2.19 Religious Services
Gatherings periodically done in a fixed place for the
exercise of religious worship and manifestation of the
member’s faith.
2.20 Religion/Religious Sect Deemed Operating in the
Philippines
Philippines when a great number of Filipinos profess it,
and this fact appears clearly in the latest census records
of the Philippines. In the absence of census records, or
in case of doubt, the founder or head of the religion or
IN THE PHILIPPINES
religious sect shall declare in a public instrument the

following facts:
a. Brief history of the religion or religious sect;
b. That said religion or religious sect is duly incorporated
for the administration of its temporalities;
c. That the religion or religious sect has at least one
church, temple or chapel which is used actually
and exclusively for religious rites and worship in
the Philippines, and if more than one, the places
in the Philippines wherein these churches, temples
or chapels are respectively situated, and the name
of the priests, rabbis, imams or religious ministers
assigned to each; and
d. That the religion or religious sect has a congregation
of not less than two hundred bona fide active members
who must all be residents of the Philippines and who
attend the religious gatherings and services which
said religion or religious sect holds periodically in its
own church, temple or chapel
2.21 Religion/Religious Sect in Good Repute
A religion or religious sect is in good repute when
it holds religious services or gatherings periodically in a
fixed place devoted actually and exclusively for religious
rites and worship, complies with the requirements of the
marriage law and of these regulations, and that there is
nothing in its teachings, principles and practices that is
contrary to law, moral, good custom and public policy.
Unless and until otherwise shown, the religion or
religious sect appearing in the latest census records of
the Philippines, as being professed by a great number of
Filipinos, shall be presumed to be in good repute.
When the religion or religious sect does not appear
in the latest census records of the Philippines, or in case
of doubt, the question of its being in good repute may be
proven by means of a certification of the Mayor having
jurisdiction over the place where its church, temple or
chapel is situated, affirming the facts and circumstances
referred to in the first paragraph of this section.
APPENDIX 5 469
RULE 3. DUTIES OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

3.1. Keeps and maintains the national database of solemnizing
officers;
3.2. Issues instructions to the RDs and PSOs with reference to
the implementation of this Order;
3.3. Conducts a thorough investigation for all cases of
violations related to this Order;
3.4. Enforces and monitors the implementation of the Rules
and Regulations of this Order;
3.5. Consolidates the monthly reports/data files submitted by
the RDs;
3.6. Enforces penalty provisions as prescribed by law;
3.7. Prescribes fees for registration of SOs.
RULE 4. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOL-

EMNIZING OFFICER
4.1. Registers his authority to solemnize marriage at the NSO,
if applicable;
4.2. Displays in a conspicuous place, inside his/her office his/
her CRASM;
4.3. Ensures that the requirements for the solemnization of
marriage under the law are complied with;
4.4. Performs religious services except those SOs who
solemnize marriage inherent to their functions, customs
and traditions as provided by law;
4.5. Solemnizes marriages within the territorial jurisdiction;
4.6. Ensures the accuracy and completeness of entries in the
Certificate of Marriage;
4.7. Submits the Certificate of Marriage to C/MCR for
4.8. Files, keeps and preserves Certificate of Marriage;
4.9. Complies with other requirements as may be prescribed
by the CRG.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
RULE 5. DUTIES OF THE NSO REGIONAL DIRECTOR

5.1. Accepts, reviews and evaluates applications for
registration of authority to solemnize marriage from the
PSOs;
5.2. Records data pertaining to SOs;
5.3. Signs and issues the Certificate of Registration of
Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM);
5.4. Investigates applications which cannot be acted upon by
the PSOs when necessary;
5.5. Recommends to the CRG for resolution applications which
cannot be acted upon by the RD;
5.6. Files, keeps and preserves records of SOs;
5.7. Submits reports/updated data files to CRG on the tenth
day after the reference month;
5.8. Supervises and monitor the activities of all PSOs under
his jurisdiction relative to the implementation of this
Order;
5.9. Implements security measures to preserve the integrity
of the CRASM;
5.10. Performs other functions related to the implementation of
this Order.
RULE 6. DUTIES OF THE NSO PROVINCIAL STATISTICS

OFFICER
6.1. Ensures the availability of application forms (OCRG-SO
Form No.1);
6.2. Accepts duly accomplished application forms together
with the supporting documents as enumerated under Sec.
7.4 of Rule 7;
6.3. Checks the completeness and correctness of entries;
6.4. Evaluates the application and supporting documents;
6.5. In case of doubt, conducts investigation with respect to
the following:
a. Whether the applicant for registration is performing
APPENDIX 5 471
other religious rites and services and not merely

solemnizing marriage.
b. Whether or not the religious sect to which the
applicant is a member, has a church, temple or
chapel in the province where the religious rites and
services are periodically conducted.
c. Whether or not the religion or religious sect to which
the applicant is a member, has a congregation of at
least 200 bona fide active members.
6.6 Endorses application forms and all other required
documents to the Office of the Regional Director;
6.7 Submits reports of investigations conducted;
6.8 Accepts payments on prescribed fees and issues
corresponding official receipts;
6.9 Submits monthly financial report to the Accounting
Division;
6.10 Releases CRASM to the concerned SOs;
6.11 Performs other functions related to the implementation of
this Order.
RULE 7. REGISTRATION PROCEDURES

7.1 Who Shall Apply
The following shall apply for the registration of
authority to solemnize marriage:
a. Bishop
b. Founder of the religion/religious sect
c. Head of the religion/religious sect
d. Priest
e. Imam
f. Tribal Head/Chieftain
g. Other religious ministers/pastors
7.2 Where to Apply
All SOs enumerated under Rule 7.1 shall secure and
file their application forms for registration from the NSO
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Provincial Office of the province where the church, temple

or chapel is situated.
7.3 When to Apply
Applications for registration of authority to solemnize
marriage maybe filed anytime of the year. SOs whose
registration shall expire on the 31st of December of any
current year may submit their applications on or before
the 31st December but not earlier than the 1st of October
of that current year.
7.4 Requirements for Registration
The SOs whose religion or religious sect are deemed
operating in the Philippines and in good repute are
required to register their authority to solemnize marriage
with the CRG under Article 3 of the Family Code shall
comply with the following:
a. Accomplished application form (OCRG-SO Form
No. 1) in triplicate copies, subscribed and sworn to
before a person authorized to administer oath with
affixed documentary stamp;
background taken not more than a month ago from
the date of application. Pictures should not be
computer generated to preserve its quality. In cases
the person is using glasses, it should be removed
to have a clear image of the person. The back of
the ID picture should contain the signature of the
applicant;
c. A machine copy of appointment as priest, head,
founder, bishop, pastor and minister of the religion
or religious sect;
d. Proper endorsement/designation/recommendation
from the head of religion or religious sect to mention:
the full name, nationality, complete address, location
of the church, temple or mosque where the applicant
regularly perform rites and indicate the extent of his
territorial jurisdiction;
e. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar
conducted by NSO for SOs;
APPENDIX 5 473
f. Certified True Copy of Certificate of Live Birth;

g. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a
citizen of a foreign country;
h. Certified True Copy of Certificate of Ordination
issued by his/her respective church;
i. Payment of registration fee;
j. Certificate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations
and by-laws, and updated General Information
Sheet (G.I.S) certified by the Head of the religion or
religious sect.
For Heads/Bishops/Presidents/Founders, the following

requirements are required in addition to Requirements 7.4.a
to 7.4.i above:
a. Endorsement or recommendation from the Board of
Trustees/Directors or Church Council.
b. In case there are no Board of Trustees/Directors,
the head/bishop/president/founder of the religion/
religious sect shall submit a sworn statement duly
notarized.
c. Sworn statement containing brief history of the
religion/religious sect and the list of 200 bona fide
active members stating therein their complete
address and signed by the members.
d. A certified Certificate of Registration, Articles of
Incorporations and by-laws, and updated General
Information Sheet (G.I.S.) issued by the Security
Exchange Commission (SEC).
For Imams, the following requirements are required:
the date of application. Pictures should not be com-
IN THE PHILIPPINES
puter generated to preserve its quality. In cases the

person is using glasses, it should be removed to have
a clear image of the person. The back of the ID pic-
ture should contain the signature of the applicant;
c. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar
e. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a
citizen of a foreign country;
f. Certification from the Office of Muslim Affairs
(OMA) that the applicant is authorized to solemnize
marriage;
g. Payment of registration fee.
For Tribal Heads/Chieftains, the following requirements

are required:
the date of application. Pictures should not be
computer generated to preserve its quality. In cases
the person is using glasses, it should be removed
to have a clear image of the person. The back of
the ID picture should contain the signature of the
applicant;
c. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar
e. Certification from the National Commission on
Indigenous People (NCIP) that the applicant is
authorized to solemnize marriage;
f. Payment of registration fee.
APPENDIX 5 475
7.5 Fees
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 197 issued by
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada on January 13, 2000
and implemented on April 4, 2000, the SOs shall pay the
following fees:
to solemnize marriage ............. Php 500.00
of solemnizing officers ............. Php 100.00
marriage .................................. Php 100.00
solemnizing officers ................. Php 100.00
All fees accruing from the application for registration
of the authority to solemnize marriages of the SOs shall be
payable to the National Statistics Office.
RULE 8. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF CRASM

The CRG through the RDs shall cancel the CRASMs issued to
SOs based on the following grounds:
8.1 When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize
marriage is made by bishop or head of the religion or
religious sect of which the SO is a member;
8.2 When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize
marriage is made by the SO himself;
8.3 When before the expiry date of his authorization, the SO
which he represented at the time of registration;
8.4 When the SO has been convicted by final judgment of any
crime;
8.5 When the SO retires from his function as a priest or
incapacitated to discharge the function of his office;
8.6 When the SO willfully violates the provisions of the
existing laws as when he officiates marriage where no one
IN THE PHILIPPINES
of the contracting parties is a member of his religion or

religious sect;
8.7 When the SO officiates marriage outside his territorial
jurisdiction;
8.8 When the SO fails or refuses to exhibit his authority to
solemnize marriage when it is demanded from him by the
contracting parties, their parents or guardian;
8.9 When the SO officiates marriage where the contracting
parties do not have a valid marriage license when such
license is required and such fact is known to him;
8.10 When the SO officiates marriage with expired marriage
license;
8.11 When the SO fails or refuses to indicate on the marriage
authority to solemnize marriage;
8.12 In case of foreigner, when his visa/I-Card expires before
the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage;
8.13 When the SO allows proxy marriages which is a kind
of marriage arrangement where one of the parties to a
marriage is represented merely by someone else who
may be a delegate or a friend of one of the contracting
parties;
8.14 When the SO is represented by a proxy SO or somebody
else who performs the marriage for and in his behalf;
8.15 When the SO is physically incapacitated where his
performance to solemnize marriage is substantially
affected such as blindness, etc.;
8.16 When the SO does other acts in contravention with law.
RULE 9. PENALTY PROVISIONS

ACT 3613
Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of marriage. Any priest
or minister solemnizing marriage without being authorized by the
Civil Registrar General or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses
to exhibit his authorization in force when called upon to do so by
the parties or parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons having
APPENDIX 5 477
charge; and any bishop or officer, priest, or minister of any church,

religion or sect the regulations and practices whereof require
publications previous to the solemnization of a marriage in accordance
with section 10, who authorizes the immediate solemnization of a
marriage that is subsequently declared illegal; or any officer, priest
or minister solemnizing marriage in violation of the provisions of
this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment for
not less than one month nor more than two thousand pesos.
Section 40. Marriage in improper places. Any officer,
minister or priest solemnizing marriage in a place other than those
authorized by this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by a
fine of not less than twenty-five pesos nor more than three hundred
pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in
the discretion of the court.
Section 41. Failure to deliver marriage certificate. Any
officer, priest, or minister failing to deliver to either of the contracting
parties one of the copies of the marriage contract or to forward the
other copy to the authorities within the period fixed by law for said
purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one
month or by a fine of not more than three hundred pesos, or both in
the discretion of the court.
Section 42. Affidavit on marriage in articulo mortis. Any
officer, priest, or minister who, having solemnized a marriage in
articulo mortis, or any other marriage of an exceptional character,
shall fail to comply with the provisions of Chapter II of this Act (now
Chapter 2 Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment for not
less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fine of not less
than three hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos, or
both, in the discretion of the court.
Section 43. Unlawful signboards. Any person who, not being
authorized to solemnize marriage, shall publicly advertise himself,
by means of signs or placards placed on his residence or office or
through the newspapers, as authorized to solemnize marriage, shall
be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more
than two years, or by a fine of not less than fifty pesos not more than
two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Section 44. General penal clause. Any violation of any
provision of this Act (now Family Code) not specifically penalized,
or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos
IN THE PHILIPPINES

Section 45. Disqualification of priests and ministers. Any
priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church, sect,
or religion convicted of any of the provisions of this Act or of any
crime involving moral turpitude, shall, in addition to the penalties
incurred in each case, be disqualified to solemnize marriage for a
period of not less than six months nor more than six years at the
discretion of the court. (as amended by Act No. 4263)
REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony Priests
or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities
who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall
be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage
Law.
RULE 10. RETROACTIVITY CLAUSE

These rules shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the
Civil Code and other laws.
RULE 11. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
If any portion or provision of these rules is declared void or
unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall
not be affected by such declaration.
RULE 12. REPEALING CLAUSE
All circulars, memoranda, rules and regulations or issued by
the CRG or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of these
rules are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
RULE 13. DATE OF EFFECTIVITY
These rules shall take effect fifteen days after its publication in
the Official Gazette.
Done in the City of Manila, Philippines this ____day of ______,
2007.

479
Appendix 6
Attached 2x2 picture

With signature at the
back
OCRG-SO Form No. 1
Revised January 2007
(To be accomplished in triplicate)

(Fill out completely, accurately and legibly — Use ink or typewriter)

__________________
Date
The Civil Registrar General

Sta. Mesa, Manila
Sir/Madam:
I hereby declare
1. That my full name is ________________________________
(First) (Middle) (Last)
2. (For alien applicants) That I am a citizen of _____________

and my I-Card No. is ______________ and presently residing at _____
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
479
IN THE PHILIPPINES
3. That I was born on ______________________ at _________

(Month) (Day) (Year)
_____________________________________________________________;
(Municipality) (Province/City)
4. That I am a member of ______________________________;

(Name of Religion or religious sect)
5. That I am duly appointed as _________________________;

(Specify the title or position)
by ______________________________________________________;
(State the title, name and position of the appointing officer)
6. That in accordance with my appointment, a true copy of

which is hereto attached, I am authorized to perform religious rites
and services including solemnization of marriages in accordance
with my religion or religious sect upon the recommendation of _____
_____________________________________________________________;
(Head of the religion/religious sect)
7. That my jurisdiction for the purposes of solemnizing

marriages as authorized by my religion/religious sect (specify the
exact territorial jurisdiction) is ________________________________;
8. That my religion or religious sect operates in the
Philippines and as in good repute and I am assigned to its church,
temple or chapel situated in
_____________________________________________________________;
______________________________________________________________
9. That I have attended a:
Full course training on _____________________
Refresher course on ________________________

10. That I apply for registration as Solemnizing Officer in
accordance with Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines
Promulgated on August 3, 1998 and Administrative Order No.
1, Series of 2005 and request that an authorization to solemnize
marriage be issued to me.
_______________________________________________
(Signature Over Printed Name of the Applicant)
APPENDIX 6 481
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ day of _____

_____, in the city/municipality of ______________________, applicant
exhibiting his Community Tax Certificate No. ____________________
________ issued at _______________, on _________________________.
__________________________
Notary Public
Doc. No. ___________

Page No. ___________
Book No. ___________
Series of ___________
(Affix documentary stamp)
O.R. No. ___________

Date Paid __________
Amt. paid __________
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Appendix 7
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF APPLICATION FORM

(OCRG-SO FORM NO. 1)
For registration purposes, the application form is to be

accomplished in triplicate distributed as follows:
first copy — to the applicant
second copy — to the Regional Office
third copy — to the Provincial Office
The following are the specific instructions on how to fill up the
OCRG-SO No. 1:
Item No. 1 Full Name of the Applicant.

Enter the First Name, Middle Name and Last Name of
the applicant. Do not include here the title of the SO such as
Rev., Pastor, etc.
Do not include aliases or nicknames.
Item No. 2 Citizenship/I-Card No./Address of the Appli-

cant.
Enter the correct citizenship of the applicant.
Example: German
American
In case the applicant is a foreigner, indicate the I-Card
number.
Include also in this item the address where the SO
resides.
Enter the House/Building Number, Street Name, Name of
the Sitio/barangay, Name of the City/Municipality/ Province
482
APPENDIX 7 483
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF APPLICATION FORM
(OCRG-SO FORM NO. 1)
Item No. 3 Date and Place of Birth.

Enter the complete date when and the place (city/
municipality) where the SO was born.
Example: That I was born on May 25, 1965 at Dagupan City,
Pangasinan.
Item No. 4 Name of the Religion/Religious Sect.

Enter the exact name of the religion/religious sect where
the applicant SO is a member. Do not use abbreviations or
acronyms.
Example:
Roman Catholic Church
Iglesia ni Cristo
Item No. 5 Title or Position of the Solemnizing Officer/

Title, Name and Position of the Appointing Officer.
Title or Position — refers to the designation of the
applicant Solemnizing Officer/Appointing Officer such as
bishop, president, head, parish priest, pastor, minister, etc.
Enter the correct title or position of the Solemnizing
Officer.
Enter the title, name and position of the Appointing
Officer.
Item No. 6 Name of the Recommending Officer.

Enter the complete name of the recommending officer in
the space provided.
Item No. 7 Exact Territorial Jurisdiction Wherein the

Solemnizing Officer is Authorized to Solemnize Marriage.
Enter the exact territorial jurisdiction of the applicant SO
as recommended by the Appointing Officer.
Example: That my jurisdiction for purposes of solemnizing
marriages is whole Philippines.
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Item No. 8 Complete/full Address of the Church, Temple

or Chapel is Situated.
Enter the complete address where the church/temple/
chapel is situated.
Item No. 9 Confirmation from the Applicant SO if he has

Attended the SO Training, Whether Full Course or Refresher
Course Training.
Check the appropriate box corresponding to whether the
SO has attended full course or a refresher course/training.
For either choice, enter the date of attendance when the SO
attended the course/training.
Enter the date of attendance to the full course or refresher
course training.
Item No. 10 Intention of the Applicant that his/her

Request for an Authority to Solemnize Marriage be
Granted.
Item No. 11 Signature Over Printed Name of the
Applicant.
Affix the signature of the applicant on the space
provided.
OCRG-SO Form No. 1 is a sworn statement. Hence, it
should be subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized
to administer oath.
485
INDEX
Act No. 3613, 5, 15, 16

Act No. 3753, 2, 3, 80
Africa, Tomas P., 50, 56, 57, 64, 71
Bayaca, Gerardo P., 14
Capili, Severino G., 65
Cases cited:
Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 26
Arañes vs. Judge Occiano, 21
Bartolome vs. Bartolome, 123
Beso vs. Judge Daguman, 79
De Cardenas vs. Cardenas, 116
De Loria, et al. vs. Felix, 151, 161, 178
Jamias vs. Rodriguez, 11, 188
Jones vs. Hortiguela, 76
Leonor vs. Court of Appeals, 98
Madridejo vs. de Leon, 28
Martinez vs. Tan, 26
Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals, 67
Navarro vs. Judge Domagtoy, 20
Negre vs. Rivera, 26
Ninal, et al. vs. Badayog, 154
People vs. H. Janssen, 144
Pugeda vs. Trias, 177
Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Angelina Castro, 122, 131
Tomasa Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 157
United States vs. de los Reyes, 34
United States vs. Gaoiran, 124
United States vs. Memoracion, 176
United States vs. Peñalosa, 31
United States vs. San Juan, 29
Vergara vs. Pascua, 42
Villar v. Paraiso, 36
Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo, et al., 53
Certificate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage
(CRASM), 80, 180
485
IN THE PHILIPPINES
grounds for cancellation, 202

Circular No. 99-1, Office of the Civil Registrar General, 61
City/Municipal Civil Registrars, 59
power to administer oaths, 6
Civil Registrar General (CRG), 1, 3, 6, 11
duties of, 190
Code of Muslim Personal Laws, 46
Commonwealth Act No. 591, 2, 3
Consul general, 40, 41
Danger of death distinguished from point of death, 151
De los Reyes, Isabelo, 13, 14, 16
Director of Public Libraries, 5
Divorce obtained abroad by an alien from his or her Filipino spouse,
97
Doctrine of pari delicto, 44
DOJ Opinion allowing aliens to avail of Article 34 of Family Code,
149
DOJ Opinion No. 26, 7
Ericta, Carmelita N., 6, 45
Fake death certificate, 78
Family Code of the Philippines, 1, 2, 4
Fonacier, Santiago A., 14
Gonzalez, Raul M., 48
Jamias, Juan, 12, 13, 17
Kijano, Juan T., 12, 13
Legitimation under Article 177 of the Family Code, 71
Liwag, Ramon J., 52
Local civil registrar is not required to inquire into the authority of
the officer administering the oath, 59, 77
Marriage, 90
between Filipino citizens abroad, 40, 41
canonical, 91
characteristics as an institution, 94
classification, 91
counseling, 95
delayed registration, 108
effect if there is absence, defect or irregularity of any of the
essential or formal requisites, 126
essential requisites, 115
formal requisites, 121
forms, 91
Islamic marriage, 92
INDEX 487
proof of the existence, 174

proxy, 121
registration, 97
salient principles, 93
without marriage ceremony, 94
witnesses, 124
Marriage certificate, 159
availability or non-availability, 110
certificate of marriage among Muslims and its attachments,
179
marriage certificate for indigenous peoples (IPs), 180
number of copies, 179
reconstructing the certificate, 113
significance, 160
when to furnish the local civil registrar, 75
Marriage contract
availability or non-availability, 110
failure to register, 77
differentiated from ordinary contract, 93
Marriage in articulo mortis, 38, 150, 151, 153
Marriage license, 126
effect of lapse of period, 127
issuance despite knowledge of impediment, 137
issuance of marriage license capacitating a widow to remarry,
143
marriage exempted from license requirement, 138
marriage without license among indigenous peoples, 159
validity of marriage that took place before issuance of, 137
validity of marriage without license among Muslims, 158
where parties have lived together as husband and wife for at
least five years, 156
Marriage shall be solemnized publicly, 58
instances where public solemnization is not needed, 58
Military commander, 39
Muslim Code, 84
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), 88
National Statistics Office (NSO), 1
Navarro, Rodolfo G., 20
NSO Provincial Statistics Officer (PSO), 82
duties of, 194
NSO Regional Director, 80
duties of, 193
IN THE PHILIPPINES
OCRG’s memorandum to LCRs on nullity of marriage due to absence

of valid marriage license and lack of authority to solemnize
marriage, 57
Office of the Muslim Affairs (OMA), 83
Certificate of orientation on conversion to Islam, 88
Ombudsman case against LCR for refusing to issue marriage license
to applicants due to their failure to submit required family
planning certificate on time, 140
Opinion No. 25, Series of 1986, Office of the Civil Registrar General,
60
Orense, Marcelo M., 61
P.D. No. 1083, 46
Perez, Hernando B., 11
Persons authorized to solemnize marriage on indigenous people, 49
Philippine Independent Church, 16
Place of solemnization of marriage, 182
Instances where public solemnization not required, 184
under the Muslim Code, 183
Priest, 26
Problem on marriage performed by chieftain of indigenous people
without marriage licence, 53
Proper government office, 5
Rabbi, 27
Religion, 185
Religion/Religious sect deemed operating in the Philippines, 186
Religion/Religious sect in good refute, 188
Religious ratification, 154
Religious sect, 185
Religious services, 186
Republic Act No. 9048, 74
Ruiz, Leopoldo A., 12, 13, 17
Shari’a or Muslim Judges, 19
Solemnizing Officer (SO), 18
absence of authority, 55
authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal
communities, 49
city or municipal mayors, 41
community elders, 49
consul-general, consul or vice-consul, 40
duties and responsibilities, 54, 192
failure to send certificate to LCR’s office, 175
failure to sign or issue certificate, 175
INDEX 489
incumbent member of the judiciary, 19

judge of the Shari’a District Court, 44
military commander of a unit, 39
person who is competent under Muslim Law upon authority of
the proper wali, 44
priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church of religious sect,
26
proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be wedded,
44
registration procedure, 195
ship captain or airplane chief, 37
territorial jurisdiction of, 55
tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-political
structures, 49
Solemnizing officer who solemnizes marriage with expired license
liability of, 131
Solemnizing officer, need not investigate whether marriage license
issued by LCR is legal or not, 58
Soliman, Eduardo R., Jr., 74
Territorial jurisdiction, 182
Tion, Benjamin V., 70
Widow’s remarriage, 143
IN THE PHILIPPINES
491
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author is a pioneer of National

Statistics Office (NSO) field office and
has had many years of experiences
in dealing with Civil Registration.
He started as a Municipal Census
Officer, Provincial Statistics Officer and
promoted to Regional Administrator,
now Regional Director. With his
Leadership, NSO Region X has been a
consistent top performer/first placer in Dr. Salvador A. Aves
the NSO National Field Awards with
Civil Registration as one of the criteria since 1991 to the present.
Part of his laudable achievement is the Most Outstanding Fellow
Award in Public Administration in the 2002 search for Outstanding
Philippine-Japan Fellowship Association (PHILJAFA-JICA) and his
conferment with the Presidential/Lingkod Bayan, the highest award
given to government employees in 2003.
His active involvement in Civil Registration enabled him to
recognize the First Mindanao Convention for Civil Registration (1994)
and First National Convention of Solemnizing Officers (1998).He was
hired as one of the Consultants of the German Technological Agency
(GTZ) tasked for the establishment of Mobile Civil Registration in
Aceh Province of Indonesia. He was a recipient of KAPWA AWARD
(1993) which recognized his exemplary achievement for having
produced the first Video Tele Play titled “AT SILA’Y NAMULAT”
which featured issues and concerns in Civil Registration. Aside from
this, he also authored two books in Civil Registration. The latest
of which is the Primer on Civil Registration in the Philippines and
adjudged as the Best Selling Reference Book by Rex Book Store in
the year 2003.
His academic background include the following degrees:
Bachelor of Arts (AB)
Bachelor of Laws (Ll.B)
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology (Ph.D.)
He is a Career Executive Officer (CESO) Rank V and a part-
time Graduate School Professor at Capitol University, Cagayan de
Oro City.
He is married to Dr. Luvismin Sy-Aves with children Dr.
Derrold Marl, Salvador Jr., Jerrald White, Jerrick Red and Iolani
Mae. Daughters-in-Law, Dr. Janith Cabalang-Aves and Maureen
Chaves-Aves and Grandsons Joshua Marl C. Aves and Budz Louis
C. Aves.
493
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Atty. Anecito E. Tiempo, a former

priest of the Roman Catholic Church,
was born on April 28, 1964 at Labason,
Zamboanga del Norte to Dominador V.
Tiempo and Luisa A. Ebacitas. In 1977,
he graduated from Lawigan Elementary
School as first honors, and in 1981 he
finished his secondary education at
Ferrer High School, Labason, Zamboanga
del Norte as one of the beneficiaries of the
COCOFED Scholarship Program of the government.
After his secondary education, he entered the Cor Jesu
Seminary in Dipolog City to pursue studies for the priesthood, and
finished Bachelor of Arts major in Philosophy in 1985. He continued
his studies for the priesthood at the Regional Major Seminary of
Mindanao in Davao City, and was ordained priest on October 16,
1992.
From Priesthood, he joined NSO, Zamboanga del Norte as in-
charge of Civil Registration matters for a short stint and at the same
time studied law at the Andres Bonifacio College in Dipolog City
where he obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree in 2005. He took and
passed the Bar examination in 2005 and he was admitted to the Bar
on March 10, 2006. He is now connected with the Public Attorney’s
Office.
He is married to Philetta D. Aves of Katipunan, Zamboanga
del Norte.
Handbook
for
Solemnizing Officers
in the
Philippines
(Based on Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 2007)
with:
• Philippine Supreme Court Decisions
• Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinions and
• Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) Memo/Cir-
culars Concerning Duties and Functions of Local Civil
Registrars
by
SALVADOR A. AVES, A.B., MBA, Ll.B., Ph. D.

ANICETO E. TIEMPO, A.B., Ll.B.
Published & Distributed by
856 Nicanor Reyes, Sr. St.

Tel. Nos. 736-05-67 • 735-13-64
1977 C.M. Recto Avenue
Tel. Nos. 735-55-27 • 735-55-34
Manila, Philippines
www.rexinteractive.com
i
Philippine Copyright, 2007
by
SALVADOR A. AVES
ANICETO E. TIEMPO
ISBN 978-971-23-4678-1
No portion of this book may be copied or

reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes,
whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied
in different electronic devices or in any other form, for
distribution or sale, without the written permission
of any of the authors except brief passages in books,
articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other
official proceedings with proper citation.
Any copy of this book without the correspond-

ing number and the signature of any of the authors
on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate
source or is in possession of one who has no authority
to dispose of the same.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

BY THE AUTHORS
No. ____________
Printed by
84 P. Florentino St., Quezon City

Tel. Nos. 712-41-08 •ii712-41-01
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE
Manila
FOREWORD
The last decade and the turn of the century brought a wealth
of changes in the field of civil registration. In dealing with many
Solemnizing Officers and Local Civil Registrars, I found that one of
the biggest needs for a clear understanding of their responsibilities,
duties and functions aligned with the recently issued Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 2007, is a reference that can guide them in their
work, especially in matters concerning marriage.
It gives me great satisfaction to see a book that compiles illustra-
tive cases that can more or less answer your questions on marriage
and other marriage-related topics. Considering that this book is a
fruition of nearly four years of work, there is no doubt that it can
provide you, the readers, with guidance and at the same time situate
you within the wider perspective of these cases.
With this, we at the National Statistics Office hope that read-
ers will find this book useful in providing information and advancing
knowledge. I believe that anyone reading this book will be convinced of
the strength and resolve of the commitment of the authors to provide
a good reference that abounds with illustrative cases.
If you find the previous book, Primer on the Civil Registration
in the Philippines, enlightening and beneficial to our countrymen as
evidenced by being certified by REX Book Store, Inc. as the best
selling reference book, you will find this publication as comprehensive
and beneficial. For this reason, I highly recommend this book.
CARMELITA N. ERICTA
iii
iv
PREFACE
This handbook has been written over a period of nearly four years
of laborious research. It is an offering born out of my perception of
the needs of about 40,750 solemnizing officers and about 1,617 local
civil registrars throughout the country for an easy to comprehend
reference anchored on Memoranda/Circulars issued by OCRG, DOJ
Opinions and Supreme Court decisions. A distinct feature of this book
is the section that builds a remarkable follow-up of the pertinent rules
through some notes and illustrative cases and considerable text of
cited authorities.
Written for people who want to understand better the process
and for church leaders who must offer guidance, this book reflects
a concern on shedding important light on how to implement the ad-
ministrative order.
With the emergence of the Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
2007, the importance of this handbook gained more weight and rel-
evance to the day-to-day functions of the solemnizing officers and the
local civil registrars. Thus, this handbook has finally taken shape.
The Authors though, cannot just close the pages of this book,
without mentioning with sincere appreciation to the Honorable Car-
melita N. Ericta, NSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General,
who never fails to toss a challenge to NSO employees to continually
engage with stakeholders, to possibly come up with brighter ideas
for the good of civil registration. To Deputy Administrator Monina G.
Collado, Dir. Lourdes Hufana, Dir. Enrique Navarro, Atty. Maribeth
C. Pilimpinas, Ms. Editha Orcilla, Ms. Minette Esquivias, Ms. So-
corro Constantino and to all NSO Regional Directors and Provincial
Statistics Officers throught the country, our earnest gratefulness.
Likewise, our indelible gratitude goes to Frezier S. Binondo,
Yvonne R. Mabatam, Juliet Cordero, Rogelio Saraspe, Garry Obsioma
and to all regional and provincial staff of NSO Region 10.
v
Most profoundly our sincerest gratefulness to all members of
Aves and Tiempo families and importantly to the God Almighty.
The Authors
Cagayan de Oro City

March 8, 2007
vi
CONTENTS
Topics Page
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007 – Implementing

Rules and Regulations Governing the Registration of Authority
To Solemnize Marriage with the Civil Registrar General ....... 1
Rule 1 General Provision ................................................... 1
Rule 2 Concepts and Definitions ....................................... 2
Rule 2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG) ............................... 3
Historical Background ...................................................... 3
Legal Basis Governing Registration of Authority of
Solemnizing Officers to Solemnize Marriage
with OCRG ................................................................ 4
Memorandum Re Legal Basis of CRG’s Direction
and Supervision Over City/Municipal Civil Registrars .. 5
DOJ Opinion Re Authority of OCRG Over LCR’s
and The LCR’s Duty to Administer Oath –
Opinion No. 26 S. 2001 ............................................. 7
DOJ Opinion Re The Civil Registrar General to File
Administrative Proceedings Against Local Civil
Registrars – Opinion No. 128 S. 1979...................... 11
An Illustrative Case on a Ministerial Duty on the
Part of OCRG To Issue Authorization to
Solemnize Marriages to Solemnizing Officers
Pending Court Decision ............................................ 11
(Mons. Juan Jamias, petitioner vs. Eulogio
B. Rodriguez, Director of Public Libraries,
and Manuel V. Gallego, Secretary of Education,
respondents.)
Rule 2.2 Solemnizing Officer (SO) ........................................ 18
Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriages ................... 19
Rule 2.2 (a) Any Incumbent Member of the Judiciary
Within the Court’s Jurisdiction ......................... 19
vii
An Illustrative Case on Celebration of Marriage by a
Member of Judiciary Outside Court’s
Jurisdiction ............................................................... 20
An Illustrative Case of a Member of a Judiciary
Who Celebrated Marriage Without Marriage
License and Outside of Court’s Jurisdiction ........... 21
Liability of Solemnizing Officer Who Signs Marriage
Contract Before the Marriage License is
Obtained .................................................................... 26
The Legality of a Case on Marriage Where the
Solemnizing Officer Judge Who Merely Said
“You Are Married” .................................................... 26
Rule 2.2 (b) Any Priest, Imam, or Minister of any
Church or Religious Sect Duly Authorized
by His Church or Religious Sect...................... 26
A Problem on Marriage Where Both Contracting
Parties Do Not Belong to the Church of the
Solemnizing Officer................................................... 27
An Illustrative Case on the Validity of Marriage in
Articulo Mortis for Failure of the Parish Priest
to Submit the Marriage Certificate to the
Municipal Secretary (Now Local Registrar) ............ 28
An Illustrative Case of a Solemnizing Officer Who
Performed Marriage Ceremony Where One of the
Contracting Parties was Under the Age
of Consent.................................................................. 29
An Illustrative Case of a UCCP Minister Who Resigned
and Ran for Mayor .................................................... 36
Rule 2.2 (c) Any Ship Captain or Airplane Chief Only in
Cases of Marriage In Articulo Mortis ............. 37
A Problem on Marriage In Articulo Mortis by An
Airplane Pilot ............................................................ 38
A Problem on Marriage In Articulo Mortis by A
Ship Captain ............................................................. 38
Rule 2.2 (d) Any Military Commander of a Unit to Which
a Chaplain is Assigned, in the Absence of the
Latter, During a Military Operation,
In Cases of Marriage in Articulo Mortis ......... 39
A Problem on Marriage In Articulo Mortis Solemnized
by A Military Commander........................................ 39
Rule 2.2 (e) Any Consul-General, Consul or Vice-Consul,
in Cases of Marriage Between Filipino
Citizens Abroad .................................................. 40
viii
Reason Why Ambassador Cannot Solemnize Marriage .. 41
Marriage of Filipinos Abroad ............................................ 41
Rule 2.2 (f) City or Municipal Mayors Within Their Area
of Jurisdiction ..................................................... 41
An Illustrative Case Concerning An Issue of Nullity of
Marriage Due to Absence of a Valid Marriage
License and The Lack of Authority to Solemnize
Marriage of the Solemnizing Officer ........................ 42
Rule 2.2 (g) Proper Wali (Guardian in Marriage) of a
Woman to be Wedded ......................................... 44
Rule 2.2 (h) Any Person Who is Competent Under
Muslim Law Upon Authority of the
Proper Wali ......................................................... 44
Rule 2.2 (i) Judge of Shari’a District Court or any person
Designated by the Judge, Should the Proper
Wali Refuse Without Justifiable Reason,
to Authorize the Solemnization ......................... 44
DOJ Opinion Re Coverage of Muslim Solemnizing
Officers To Register Their Authority to Solemnize
Marriage with OCRG ............................................... 45
A Problem on Absence of Marriage License to
Muslim Marriage ...................................................... 48
Rule 2.2 (j) Community Elders ............................................. 49
Rule 2.2 (k) Tribal Leaders or Authorities and Traditional
Socio-Political Structures Certified by
National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) ................................................... 49
Rule 2.2 (l) Authorities Duly Acclaimed and Respected
in the Tribal Communities Who Perform
and Solemnize Marriage in Accordance with
the Customs, Traditions and Practices
of the Community ............................................... 49
Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage on
Indigenous People (IP).............................................. 49
DOJ Opinion on the Need of Tribal Heads or Chieftains
of Indigenous People to be Authorized and
Register Their Authority to Solemnize
Marriage with OCRG ............................................... 50
A Problem on Marriage Performed by Chieftain
of Indigenous People (IP) Without Marriage
License ....................................................................... 53
An Illustrative Case on the Validity of Marriage
Before a Village Leader ............................................ 53
ix
Other Pertinent Features for Solemnizing Officers ........ 54
Duty of the Solemnizing Officer as Required Under the
Marriage Laws of the Philippines............................ 54
An Instance Where Marriage is Valid Despite
Absence of Authority of Solemnizing Officer to
Solemnize Marriage .................................................. 55
OCRG’s Memorandum on Territorial Jurisdiction of
Solemnizing Officers ................................................. 55
OCRG’s Memorandum to LCR on Nullity of Marriage
Due To Absence of Valid Marriage License
and Lack of Authority To Solemnize Marriage ....... 57
Marriage Shall Be Solemnized Publicly........................... 58
Instances Where Public Solemnization Is Not Needed ... 58
A Solemnizing Officer Need Not Investigate Whether
Marriage License Issued by LCR is Legal or Not ... 58
The Local Civil Registrar Is Not Required to Inquire
Into The Authority of the Officer Administering
the Oath .................................................................... 59
Rule 2.3 City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) ............... 59
OCRG Circular Re DOJ Opinion on Ministerial
Duty of LCR Not to Deny Registration of
Documents Other than Insufficiency Thereof ......... 60
An OCRG Circular Re Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
Against LCR for Refusing to Register Legitimation
of Child To Underage Mother and that LCR’s
Ministerial Duty to Register CR Documents Only
Obtains once the LCR is Satisfied that the
Application Along with the Supporting
Documents are Complete and Consistent ............... 61
An Illustrative Case Against LCR Where the Court
Ruled That Mandamus Does Not Lie to Compel
the Performance of an Act Prohibited by Law ........ 65
OCRG’s Memorandum Concerning a Case of LCR
Who Refused to Register Document Despite
Regional Trial Court’s Order.................................... 71
OIC Local Civil Registrar Cannot Validly Exercise
the Additional Power Vested by RA No. 9048 ........ 74
An Instance Where OIC Local Civil Registrar (LCR)
May Accept and Act on Petition Under
RA No. 9048 .............................................................. 74
When to Furnish the Marriage Certificate to the Local
Civil Registrar........................................................... 75
Failure to Furnish the Marriage Certificate to the
Local Civil Registrar ................................................. 75
x
An Illustrative Case on the Validity of the Marriage
for Failure to Record the Marriage in the
Marriage Register ..................................................... 76
Failure to Register Marriage Contract ............................ 77
The Local Civil Registrar is Not Required to Inquire
Into The Authority of the Officer Administering
the Oath .................................................................... 77
OCRG’s Memorandum Regarding A Case Where LCR
Was Dismissed from Service Due to Issuance
of Fake Death Certificate ......................................... 78
An Illustrative Case on Failure of the Solemnizing
Officer (Judge) to Retain a Copy of the
Marriage Certificate and to Register the
Marriage With LCR’s Office ..................................... 79
Rule 2.4 NSO Regional Director (RD) .................................. 80
OCRG’s Circular Re Delegation of Supervisory
Function to Regional Directors and Provincial
Officers of NSO by OCRG ......................................... 81
Rule 2.5 NSO Provincial Statistics Officer (PSO) ............... 82
Rule 2.6 Office of the Muslim Affairs (OMA) ....................... 83
Islamic Rule on Application of Laws ................................ 84
Islamic Marriage to Non-Muslims.................................... 85
Explanation of Imagined Conflict of Article 13
and Article 3 of Muslim Code ................................... 85
Example of Questions of Marriage Between Muslim
and Christian ............................................................ 86
OMA’s Certificate of Orientation on Conversion
to Islam...................................................................... 88
Rule 2.7 National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP)........................................................ 88
Rule 2.8 Marriage.................................................................. 90
Canonical Marriages ......................................................... 91
Classification of Marriage ................................................. 91
Forms of Marriage ............................................................. 91
Meaning of Islamic Marriage............................................ 92
Salient Principles in Marriage ......................................... 93
Marriage Contract and Ordinary Contract
Differentiated ............................................................ 93
Characteristics of Marriage as an Institution ................. 94
Can There Be A Valid Marriage Even Without
A Marriage Ceremony? ............................................. 94
The Rationale of the Law Requiring A Marriage
Ceremony .................................................................. 94
xi
Marriage Counselling........................................................ 95
Reason for Requiring Marriage Counseling..................... 95
OCRG’s Circular Requiring Certificate of Marriage
Counseling as a Requirement for the Issuance of
Marriage License ...................................................... 96
Registration of Marriage ................................................... 97
OCRG’s Memorandum Re Effects of Divorce
Obtained Abroad by an Alien from His or
Her Filipino Spouse .................................................. 97
An Illustrative Case of A Petition for Annulment
of Marriage Since the Solemnizing Officer Failed
to Send Copy of the Marriage Contract to the
Civil Registrar’s Office.............................................. 98
Rule 108 – Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the
Civil Registry.................................................... 105
Delayed Registration of Marriage .................................... 108
Marriages to be Registered Under the Rules of
Delayed Registration ................................................ 109
Availability or Non-Availability of Certificate of
Marriage (Marriage Contract) ................................. 110
Procedures in Reconstructing the Certificate of
Marriage .................................................................... 113
Double or Multiplicity of Registration Should
be Avoided ................................................................. 114
Rule 2.9 Essential Requisites of Marriage........................... 115
Essential Requisite No. 1 .................................................. 115
An Illustrative Case on the Nullity of the
Subsequent Marriage Due to Existing Prior
Marriage (De Cardenas vs. Cardenas,
G.R. No. L-8218) ....................................................... 116
Problems Essential Requisites of Valid Marriage
in the Phil. ................................................................. 117
Parties Must Be Male and Female as an Essential
Requisite of Valid Marriage ..................................... 119
Problem of Sex as Essential Requisite of Valid
Marriage .................................................................... 119
Essential Requisite No. 2 .................................................. 119
The Consent if Freely Given ............................................. 119
Problem on Consent as an Essential Requisite
of Valid Marriage ...................................................... 120
Marriage by Proxy ............................................................. 120
Rules on Marriages by Proxy ............................................ 120
Rule 2.10 Formal Requisites of Marriage .............................. 121
xii
Formal Requisite No. 1 ..................................................... 121
Authority of the Person Solemnizing the Marriage ........ 121
A Valid Marriage License, except in a Marriage of
Exceptional Character .............................................. 122
An Illustrative Case of Marriage Declared Void
Due to Absence of Marriage License........................ 122
An Illustrative Case Where Marriage Was Presumed
Since Record of Marriage Cannot Be Found
at LCRO .................................................................... 123
A marriage Ceremony ....................................................... 124
The Liability of the Witnesses to the Marriage
Ceremony .................................................................. 124
An Illustrative Case on the Liability of the Witness
to Marriage Ceremony .............................................. 124
Is the Solemnizing Officer Liable If He Solemnizes
the Marriage Even If An Impediment Exists? ........ 125
What is the Effect If There Is Absence, Defect or
Irregularity of Any of the Essential or Formal
Requisites of Marriage? ............................................ 126
Rule 2.11 Marriage License .................................................... 126
Effect of Lapse of Period ................................................... 127
OCRG’s Circular Re Place and Period of Validity of
OCRG’s Memorandum to LCR on Nullity of Marriage
Due To Absence of Valid Marriage License
and A Court’s Reminder That Duty of Mayors to
Solemnize Marriage Cannot Be Delegated ............. 130
A Problem on the Validity of Marriage License After
the Lapse of One Hundred Twenty Days ................ 131
Liability of Solemnizing Officer Who Solemnizes
Marriage With Expired License ............................... 131
An Illustrative Case Re Petition for Nullity of
Marriage For Having No Marriage License
Issued to Parties Prior to Celebration
of Marriage ................................................................ 131
Validity of Marriage That Took Place Before Issuance
of Marriage License .................................................. 137
Issuance of Marriage License Despite Knowledge of
Impediment ............................................................... 137
OCRG’s Memorandum to LCRs That No Application
for Marriage License Shall Be Accepted Without
Supporting Papers .................................................... 139
xiii
An Ombudsman Case Against LCR for Refusing to
Issue Marriage License to Applicants Due to
Their Failure to Submit Required Family
Planning Certificate on Time ................................... 140
(Doroteo B. Ferrer, Jr., Daet, Camarines Sur,
Complainant versus Filina Herico Local Civil
Registrar, Labo, Camarines Norte, Respondent)
Issuance of Marriage License Capacitating a Widow
to Remarry ................................................................ 143
Solemnizing Officer Need Not Investigate Whether the
License Issued by LCR Is Legal or Illegal ............... 144
An Illustrative Case on Proclamation or Publicity of
Marriage (The People of the Philippine Islands,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. H. Janssen, defendant-
appellant) .................................................................. 144
Marriages Exempted from License Requirement ............ 148
DOJ Opinion Allowing Aliens to Avail of Article 34
of Family Code (Marriage Without Marriage
License Provided Living Together As Husband
and Wife for 5 Years) ................................................ 149
Danger of Death Distinguished from Point of Death –
An Issue of Articulo Mortis Being Exempted from
Who Can Perform Marriages in Articulo Mortis? ........... 151
An Illustrative Case on the Validity of Marriage in
Articulo Mortis Even If One Party Dies Only
After One Year .......................................................... 151
Affidavit to be Executed by Solemnizing Officer that
Marriage Was Performed in Articulo Mortis or
That Residence of One of The Parties Is So
Located That There Is No Means of Trans-
portation to Enable the Party Concerned to Appear
Before the Local Civil Registrar .............................. 153
Religious Ratification Does Not Require Marriage
License ....................................................................... 154
An Illustrative Case on Marriage Between A Man
and A WomanWho Have Not Lived Together As
Husband and Wife for At Least Five Years and
With Legal Impediment to Marry Each Other
(Ninal, et al. vs. Bayadog) ........................................ 154
Problems on the Validity of Marriage Without
Marriage License Where the Parties Have Lived
Together as Husband and Wife For At Least
Five Years ................................................................. 156
xiv
An Illustrative Case on Marital Cohabitation of
At Least Five (5) Years – Tomasa Vda. De Jacob
vs. Court of Appeals, et al. ....................................... 157
Validity of Marriage Without Marriage License
Among Muslims ........................................................ 159
Marriage Without Marriage License Among
Indigenous People (IP).............................................. 159
Rule 2.12 Certificate of Marriage .............................................. 159
Significance of the Marriage Certificate .......................... 160
An Illustrative Case on Failure of the Parties To A
Marriage to Sign the Marriage Contract
(Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria,
petitioner, vs. Felipe Apelan Felix, respondent,
G.R. No. L-9005) ....................................................... 161
OCRG’s Circular Requiring That Certificate of Legal
Capacity to Contract Marriage Shall Be
Issued by the Foreigner’s Diplomatic or
Consular Officials ..................................................... 166
OCRG’s Memorandum for LCR to Require Affidavit
In Lieu of Certificate of Legal Capacity to
Contract Marriage for American Citizens ............... 170
Sample of Affidavit In Lieu of Certificate of Legal
Capacity To Contract Marriage Issued by U.S.
Embassy for American Citizens ............................... 171
Additional Requirement for U.S. Military Personnel...... 173
The Marriage Application Process ................................... 173
Alternative to Marriage Abroad ....................................... 174
The Proof of the Existence of Marriage ............................ 174
Effect of Failure of the Solemnizing Officer (Priest)
To Send Certificate to LCR’s Office ......................... 175
Failure to Sign or Issue Certificate .................................. 175
An Illustrative Case Where A Man and A Woman
Living in Marital Relations Under the Same
Roof Legally Presumed A Legitimate Spouse
(U.S. vs. Memoracion, et al., G.R. No. 11371) ......... 176
An Illustrative Cases Where Solemnizing Officer
Failed To Send Copy of Marriage Certificate
to LCRO (Pugeda vs. Trias, et al., L-16925)............ 177
An Illustrative Case Where Parish Priest’s Failure
to Execute Affidavit That Marriage Was
Celebrated In Articulo Mortis .................................. 178
Number of Copies of Marriage Certificates to be
Accomplished For Distribution ................................ 179
xv
Certificate of Marriage Among Muslims and Its
Attachments .............................................................. 179
Marriage Certificate for Indigenous Peoples (IPs) .......... 180
Rule 2.13 Certificate of Registration of Authority to
Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) ............................... 180
Rule 2.14 Register of Solemnizing Officers ............................ 181
Rule 2.15 Territorial Jurisdiction........................................... 182
Rule 2.16 Place of Solemnization of Marriage ....................... 182
Place of Solemnization Under the Muslim Code ............. 183
Instances Where Public Solemnization of Marriage
Is Not Required ......................................................... 184
Effect If One Party Is Not Asked During the Marriage
Ceremony .................................................................. 184
Rule 2.17 Church/Chapel/Temple/Mosque ............................. 184
Rule 2.18 Religious Sect.......................................................... 185
Rule 2.19 Religion ................................................................... 185
Rule 2.20 Religious Services ................................................... 186
Rule 2.21 Religion/Religious Sect Deemed Operating
in the Philippines ................................................... 186
Constitutionality of Government Office on Determining
Whether the Church, Sect, or Religion of the
Applicant to Solemnize Marriage Operates in
the Philippines Is In Good Repute ........................... 187
Rule 2.22 Religion/Religious Sect in Good Refute ................. 188
An Illustrative Case on Whether the Religious
Denomination Is In Good Refute (Jamias vs.
Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-2133) .................................... 188
Rule 3 – Duties of the Civil Registrar General .................... 190
Rule 4 – Duties and Responsibilities of the Solemnizing
Officer ............................................................... 192
Rule 5 – Duties of the Regional Director ............................. 193
Rule 6 – Duties of the Provincial Statistics Officer ............. 194
Rule 7 – Registration Procedures ......................................... 195
Rule 7.1 Who Shall Apply ..................................................... 195
Rule 7.2 Where to Apply ....................................................... 196
Rule 7.3 When to Apply ........................................................ 196
Rule 7.4 Requirements for Registration .............................. 196
Rule 7.5 Fees ......................................................................... 199
Rule 8 – Grounds for Cancellation of CRASM ..................... 202
Rule 9 – Penalty Provisions .................................................. 203
Rule 10 – Retroactivity Clause ............................................... 206
Rule 11 – Separability Clause ................................................ 207
Rule 12 – Repealing Clause .................................................... 207
Rule 13 – Date of Effectivity ................................................... 207
xvi
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – OCRG –SO Form No. 1 (Application for

Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage) .......... 211
Appendix 2 – Circulars/Memoranda Issued by OCRG ........... 214
Circular No. 89-12 19 March 1989 Re Territorial
Jurisdiction of Solemnizing Officers ........................ 214
Memorandum 19 December 2000 Re Assigning of
Population Reference Number (PRN) to
Certificates of Live Birth for the Year 2001
No Longer Necessary ................................................ 215
Memorandum 22 November 2000 Re Signature
Specimen of German Embassy Officers Who Are
Authorized to Issue Certificate of Legal Capacity .. 216
Memorandum 25 July 2001 Re The Administrative
Naturalization Law of 2000 ..................................... 216
Sample: Report to the SCN ............................................... 218
Sample: Notice to the Public ............................................. 219
Memorandum 7 September 2001 Re Guidelines
Implementing Section 7, RA 9139 Pursuant to
the Pertinent Provisions of Section 7, Republic Act
(RA) No. 9139, the following are the Guidelines
in Implementing the said Provisions ....................... 220
Memorandum 24 September 2001 Re Implementation
of Republic Act No. 9139 .......................................... 221
Memorandum 15 November 2001 Re Formation
of LCRO/NSO Field Unit .......................................... 224
Memorandum 18 April 2002 Re Opinion No. 11, S.
2002 of the Secretary of Justice Concerning
Filing Fee of Petition Under Republic
Act No. 9048 .............................................................. 226
Memorandum 5 August 2005 Re Reiteration of the
Guidelines Implementing Republic Act No. 9139 ... 229
Memorandum 9 September 2002 Re Adjustment
of Fees for Unconverted Document Requests.......... 230
Memorandum 27 January 2002 Revised Procedures
in the Remittance and Reporting of Collections
from Sale of Civil Registry Forms............................ 231
Report of Collections and Deposits (RCD) ....................... 232
Authentication Procedure to be Adopted at the
Regional Census Serbilis Centers ............................ 234
New Rate for the Issuance of Civil Registry
Documents................................................................. 235
xvii
National Statistics Office Advisory Schedule
of Fees Effective December 2, 2002 ......................... 236
December 28, 2002 Re Renewal of CRASM ..................... 236
Memorandum Circular 03-01 February 10, 2003 Re
Officers-In-Charge at the Local Civil Registry
Office ...................................................................... 237
03 April 2003 Re Reiteration of Memorandum
Dated August 10, 2001 Re Price of Civil
Registration Forms ................................................... 238
Memorandum 26 June 2003 Re Requests Made
Through E-Mails, Fax Messages and Letters/
Communications ....................................................... 239
Memorandum 5 July 2003 Re Transfer and Applications
for Annotated Civil Registry Documents Affected By
Republic Act No. 9048 from the Office of the
Administrator in NSO-Sta. Mesa to the Civil
Registry Department in NSO-EDSA. ..................... 240
Memorandum 15 September 2003 Re Prohibition of
Certifying Photocopies of NSO-Issued Civil
Registry Documents in SECPA ................................ 241
Memorandum 4 November 2003 Re Guidelines in
Providing Information to the Media ........................ 242
Memorandum 4 January 2004 Re New Decentralized
Vital Statistics System ............................................. 243
Memorandum Circular No. 2004-01 January 8, 2004
Re Rules and Regulations in the Registration
of Births of Children in Need of Special
Protection (CNSP)..................................................... 244
Memorandum Circular No. 2005-002 8 October 2004
Re Guidelines on Securing Copies of Documents
Affected by R.A. No. 9255 from the OCRG .............. 248
Memorandum 11 October 2004 Re Use of Birth
Reference Number (BREN) Generated Through
the Civil Registry System Information Technology
Project (CRIS-ITP) Replacing the Population
Reference Number (PRN) ......................................... 249
Memorandum Circular 04-12 18 October 2004
Re Clarification On the Scope of Public Documents
Under Republic Act No. 9255 ................................... 250
Memorandum 9 November 2004 Re NSO Fees to be
Imposed in BREQS Transactions ............................ 252
Memorandum 21 January 2005 Re Civil Registration
Month (February 2005) ............................................ 253
xviii
Memorandum Circular No. 2005-002 10 February 2005
Memorandum 1 August 2005 Re Free Birth
Registration of Children in Need of Special
Protection (CNSP)..................................................... 257
Memorandum Circular No. 05-006 1 August 2005
Memorandum Circular No. 2005-007 June 21, 2005
Re Clarifying Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048
(Publication Requirement for Change of
First Name) ............................................................... 260
Memorandum Circular No. 05-009 June 28 2005
Re Registration of the Authority to Solemnize
Marriage .................................................................... 261
Memorandum Circular No. 2005-001 April 8, 2005
Re CENOMAR As Requirement for
Legitimation .............................................................. 262
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-004 February 7, 2007
Re Guidelines in Preparing and Issuing
Supplemental Report ................................................ 266
Re Middle Name and Middle Initial in the
Certificate of Live Birth ........................................... 269
Re guidelines in Filing the Appropriate Petition
Involving the Use of Jr., II, III and the Likes
Under RA 9048 ......................................................... 271
Appendix 3 – DOJ Opinions
Opinion 73, S 2005 ............................................................ 275
Appendix 4 – Referred Cases/Queries
Opinion No. 90, S. 2000 – Use of the Surname by
the Son of Malaysian National................................. 280
Opinion No. 26, S. 2001..................................................... 281
1) Re Power to control and supervise LCRs
2) Whether LCRs can still perform duty to
administer oath
Opinion No. 60, S. 2002 – Whether Permanent or
Temporary/OIC/Assistant LCR Acting as LCR
Can Validly Act RA 9048 .......................................... 286
xix
Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 – On which filing fees shall
prevail, those prescribed by RA 9048 or those
prescribed by city ordinance of Cagayan de
Oro City ..................................................................... 288
Republic Act No. 6514 – An Act Providing that
the Authorization to Solemnize Marriage
Issued to Priest, or Ministers or Rabbis Shall Be
Valid for a Period of Three Years The Same o
Expire on the Thirty-First Day of December of
Every Third Year Amending for the Purpose
Article Ninety-Five of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, and For Other Purposes ...................... 294
Legal Provisions Concerning Marriages .......................... 295
Marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church,
chapel or in the temple ............................................. 296
Presidential Decree No. 1083 ........................................... 297
Section 1. – Requisites of Marriage ......................... 297
Section 2. – Prohibited Marriages ........................... 299
Section 3. – Subsequent Marriages ......................... 300
Section 4. – Batil and Fasid Marriages ................... 301
Section 5. – Rights and Obligations Between
Spouses ............................................................... 302
Section 6. – Property Relations Between Spouses .. 303
Registration of Application for Marriage License ........... 308
The Civil Registry Law Act No. 3753 – An Act to
Establish A Civil Register ....................................... 312
Republic Act No. 6809 – An Act Lowering the Age
of Majority From Twenty-One to Eighteen Years,
Amending for the Purpose Executive Numbered
Two Hundred Nine and For Other Purposes .......... 319
Papers Presented During the 4th National Convention
of Solemnizing Officers Held at Bacolod City
on August 9-11, 2005 ................................................ 320
New Procedures in the Registration of the Authority
to Solemnize Marriage.............................................. 320
Marriage Registration: Issues and Concerns................... 329
Issues and Concerns Pertaining to Marriage
Registration............................................................... 337
Types of Void Marriages
1. Absence of Formal Requisites
A. Marriages Without a Marriage License ............ 338
B. Marriages Without a Marriage Ceremony........ 338
C. Marriages By Proxy ........................................... 339
xx
D. Marriages Officiated By a Person Without
Any Legal Authority To Solemnize
Marriages ............................................................ 339
2. Absence of Essential Requisites............................... 340
3. Marriages that Are Incestous and Those that
are Against Public Policy ......................................... 340
4. Marriages that are Bigamous and Polygamous ...... 343
5. Marriages that Have Not Complied with
Recording Requirements .......................................... 344
6. Marriage Despite Impediment ................................. 344
7. Effect of Lapse Period ............................................... 344
CENOMAR: as a Requirement for Legitimation
and Marriage License ............................................... 354
What Is CENOMAR .......................................................... 354
How to Avail the CENOMAR ........................................... 355
CENOMAR as a Reuirement for Legitimation ................ 357
CENOMAR as a Requirement for the Issuance
of Marriage License .................................................. 359
CENOMAR and Its Effects ............................................... 360
Answers to Main Issues and Questions During
Open Forum Re The 4th National Convention
of Solemnizing Officers at Bacolod Convention
Plaza Hotel, Bacolod City on August 9-11, 2005
(As reprinted from the Daily Publication of
Highlights during the Convention) .......................... 362
Primary Issues and Concerns Experienced by
Concerned Agencies in Dealing Marriage
Documents As Discussed by Different Lecturers
During the 14th National Convention of
Solemnizing Officers at Bacolod City on
August 9-11, 2005 ..................................................... 365
Papers Presented During the 3rd National Convention
of Solemnizing Officers Held at Tagaytay City
on August 5-7, 2003 .................................................. 366
Issues and Concerns on Marriage Registration
By US Consul Barry Simmons ................................. 366
By MCR Cynthia B. Soriano .................................... 369
By Atty. Antonio Morales ......................................... 378
Radio-Style Discussion with Broadcasters Daniel Razon
and Atty. Danny Concepcion .................................... 386
Open Forum After Ms. Ronaida Javaluya’s
Presentation .............................................................. 409
xxi
Open Forum After Ms. Marites Espinoza’s
Presentation .............................................................. 414
Open Forum After Presentations of Round Table
Speaker ............................................................... 424
Open Forum After Dir. Hufana’s Presentation ............... 442
Application for a Philippine Marriage License ................ 452
Foreigners and Marriage in the Philippines.................... 454
How To Get Married in the Philippines If You Are
A U.S. Citizen ........................................................... 455
Fianceé Visa ...................................................................... 460
Appendix 5 – Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007
Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing the
Registration of the Authority to Solemnize
Marriage with the Civil Registrar General
of Bishops, Heads/Founders of Religions and
Religious Sects, Priests, Imams, Religious Ministers,
Tribal Heads/Leaders/Chieftains, Community
Elders, and Other Designated Authorities.............. 461
Appendix 6 – OCRG-SO Form No. 1 – Application for
Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage ........... 479
Appendix 7 – Accomplishment of Application Form
(OCRG-SO Form No. 1) ..................................................... 482
Index ........................................................................................... 485
About the Author ....................................................................... 491
About the Co-Author .................................................................. 493
xxii

Handbook For Solemnizing Officers in The PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook For Solemnizing Officers in The PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

Administrative Order No. 1

Subject: IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

Pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the

RULE 1 — GENERAL PROVISION

the provisions of Act 3753 (entitled: “An Act to Establish a Civil

RULE 2 — CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG)

LEGAL BASIS GOVERNING REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY

an authorization to solemnize marriage. Said priest or minister or

MEMORANDUM RE LEGAL BASIS OF CRG’S DIRECTION AND

Attached is a copy of Opinion No. 26, S. 2001 which was issued

(SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTA

DOJ OPINION RE AUTHORITY OF OCRG OVER LCRs AND THE

OPINION NO. 26 S. 2001

May 17, 2001

a case, the 1,607 City/Municipal Registrars would be having his or

duty of the Administrator of the National Statistics Office to report

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) HERNANDO B. PEREZ

DOJ OPINION RE THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL TO FILE

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON A MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE

MANDAMUS; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES; MINISTE-

required by law and accompanied by a tender of payment of the

downright discrimination in favor of the faction headed by Isabelo

the said Episcopal Church and, as alleged by respondents, Bishop

shall be obliged to exhibit his authorization to contracting parties,

the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, thereby

BENGZON, J., concurring:

of the minister requesting for authorization to solemnize marriages.

Rule 2.2 Solemnizing Officer (SO)

g. proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be

PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES

Any incumbent member of the Judiciary is authorized to

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE

Navarro vs. Judge Domagtoy

Under said article, a marriage can be held outside of the

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A MEMBER OF A JUDICIARY WHO

Republic of the Philippines

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390 April 11, 2002

They lived together as husband and wife on the strength of this

Respondent judge vigorously denies that he told the contracting

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P. 129, the

“A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local

act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua,

Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of

LIABILITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER WHO SIGNS MAR-

Negre vs. Rivera

If a Judge signs a marriage contract before the marriage

THE LEGALITY OF A CASE ON MARRIAGE WHERE THE

b. Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or

A “priest,” according to lexicographers, means one especially

A “rabbi” means the chief religious official of a synagogue trained

A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE WHERE BOTH CONTRACTING

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE IN

Madridejo vs. De Leon, et al.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

Republic of the Philippines

The offender shall be pardoned as soon as the parents or the

account of his ignorance and lack of instruction, on the 27th of June,

The judgment of October 4, 1893, is of the same tenor. It is

to permit the officiating clergyman or other person solemnizing the