Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage

REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE; FORMAL REQUISITES; empowered to do so, and that marriage

CEREMONY was perfectly legal.
i. CC removed this completely,
Art 3 FC. The formal requisites of marriage are: making such marriage void – acc.
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; Code Commission.
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases 1. Since state officiates in
provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and celebration of the marriage
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with through solemnizer, it is
the appearance of the contracting parties logical that such person has
before the solemnizing officer and their the authority from the
personal declaration that they take each other government at the time.
husband and wife in the presence of not less Authority is foundation of
that two witness of legal age. (53a, 55a) marriage.
2. Inconsistent that law
1. Absence of above render marriage void from the requires a license to
beginning (Art 4) perform marriage, then
2. Authority to solemnize. validate marriages done by
a. Article 7 Marriage may be solemnized by: unauthorized persons.
i. any incumbent member of the 3. Without authority,
judiciary within the court’s marriages might as well be
jurisdiction; performed by anyone.
ii. any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister ii. FC restored the old Marriage Law.
of any church or religious sect duly Marriages performed by
authorized by his church or religious unauthorized persons are void
sect and registered with the civil unless such marriages were
registrar general, acting within the contracted with either or both
limits of the written authority, parties in good faith.
granted him by his church or d. Is a void marriage under CC considered
religious sect and provided that at valid in FC?
least one of the contracting parties i. YES.
belongs to the solemnizing officer’s ii. Art 255 FC: this code shall have
church or religious sect; retroactive effect insofar as it does
iii. any ship captain or airplane chief not prejudice or impair vested or
only in cases mentioned in Art 31; acquired in accordance with the CC
iv. any military commander of a unit to or other laws.
which a chaplain is assigned, in the iii. FC is curative remedial, and can
absence of the latter, during a validate marriage in question;
military operation, likewise only in serves interest of public.
the cases mentioned in Article 32; or 3. Marriage license.
v. Any consul-general or vice-consul in a. Essential but ONLY a formal requirement.
the case provided in Article 10. b. Marriages that precede issuance of license
(56a) is void; and subsequent issues does NOT
b. CC: authority of person solemnizing render such marriage valid AT ALL.
marriage was an essential requisite for the c. BUT, law does not impose solemnizers to
validity of marriage, and, therefore, a investigate existence of license issued by
marriage solemnized by someone w/o local civil registrar of the parties’ domicile.
authority is void since beginning (Article 80 Enough that the license was issued by
(2)) competent official, who is assumed to have
c. Marriage law (Act # 3613) Sec 27. Marriage already validated the residence of the
is valid when at least on party believed in marrying parties in his municipality.
good faith that that solemnizer is
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
d. Marriage under license is NOT invalidated church, chapel or temple, or in the office the consul-
by fact that license was wrongfully general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and
obtained. not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted
4. Ceremony of marriage. on the point of death or in remote places in
a. No ceremony = no valid marriage. Even if accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both
there is a marriage license. of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing
i. 2 witnesses of legal age (Article 6). in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a
b. This requirement prevents PH to recognize house or place designated by them in a sworn
common law marriages (agreement statement to that effect. (57a)
between parties with capacity to enter into
such relationship to be husband and wife 1. Sunday marriages do not render marriage violative
and cohabitate) of requirement to be publicly held in open court.
2. Marriage in chambers is not ordinarily public.
Art 6 FC. [FROM OF CEREMONY; POINT OF DEATH] No
prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization Art 22 FC. The marriage certificate, in which the parties
of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, shall declare that they take each other as husband and
however, for the contracting parties to appear wife, shall also state:
personally before the solemnizing officer and declare (1) The full name, sex and age of each contracting
in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal party;
age that they take each other as husband and wife. (2) Their citizenship, religion and habitual residence;(3)
This declaration shall be contained in the marriage The date and precise time of the celebration of the
certificate which shall be signed by the contracting marriage;
parties and their witnesses and attested by the (4) That the proper marriage license has been issued
solemnizing officer. according to law, except in marriage provided for in
In case of a marriage in articulo mortis, when the party Chapter 2 of this Title;
at the point of death is unable to sign the marriage (5) That either or both of the contracting parties have
certificate, it shall be sufficient for one of the secured the parental consent in appropriate cases;
witnesses to the marriage to write the name of said (6) That either or both of the contracting parties have
party, which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing complied with the legal requirement regarding
officer. (55a) parental advice in appropriate cases; and
(7) That the parties have entered into marriage
1. Form of ceremony is of little consequence: civil, settlement, if any, attaching a copy thereof. (67a)
military, religious, simple, pompous, etc.
2. Words of statute need not be recited verbatim, as 1. Seal not required. Valid regardless of presence of
long as mutual consent is evidential: acts of parties, seal of official, priest, minister performing
habit, and repute. ceremony.
3. Marriage by proxy. Some jurisdictions recognize
this, but NOT THIS ARTICLE. Parties need to Art 23 FC. It shall be the duty of the person
personally declare they take each other as husband solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the
and wife. contracting parties the original of the marriage
a. States ignoring common law marriages certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the
usually do the same (e.g. Louisiana) duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not
4. Failure to sign or issue certificate. NOT ESSENTIAL. later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local
It is merely of evidentiary value. civil registrar of the place where the marriage was
a. Consent can be proved by testimonies. solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local
b. Failure of solemnizing officer to have cert civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting
executed and issued is NOT ESSENTIAL as copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing
well – defect only. officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of
c. Not to be confused with marriage license. the marriage certificate, the copy of the marriage
certificate, the original of the marriage license and, in
proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party
Art 8 FC. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in
the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
regarding the solemnization of the marriage in place oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo
other than those mentioned in Article 8. (68a) mortis or that the residence of either party, specifying
the barrio or barangay, is so located that there is no
1. Failure to send certificate does not invalidate means of transportation to enable such party to
marriage. appear personally before the local civil registrar and
2. Failure to sign or issue certificate. NOT ESSENTIAL. that the officer took the necessary steps to ascertain
It is merely of evidentiary value. the ages and relationship of the contracting parties
a. Consent can be proved by testimonies. and the absence of legal impediment to the marriage.
b. Failure of solemnizing officer to have cert (72a)
executed and issued is NOT ESSENTIAL as
well – defect only.
c. Not to be confused with marriage license.
3. Proofs of marriage: MARRIAGE; MUSLIM FILIPINOS AND INDIGENOUS
a. Marriage certificate CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
b. Declaration of one of parties to marriage or Sec 13 CMPL.
of witnesses (need not be verbal – signing
of marriage contract is enough) Sec 32 RA 8371. Community Intellectual Rights. —
c. Public and open cohabitation as hubby and ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their
wife own cultural traditions and customs. The State shall
d. Birth and baptismal certs of children preserve, protect and develop the past, present and
e. Statement of such marriage in subsequent future manifestations of their cultures as well as the
documents right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual,
4. Presumption of marriage is prima facie, because religious, and spiritual property taken without their
that is the common order of society. If they are not free and prior informed consent or in violation of their
really married, but living together, then they are in laws, traditions and customs.
constant violation of decency and law. Bec PUGEDA V TRIAS (1962)
Art 24 FC. It shall be the duty of the local civil registrar PONENTE: Perez, J.
to prepare the documents required by this Title, and to
administer oaths to all interested parties without any FACTS:
charge in both cases. The documents and affidavits
1. Rodolfo died leaving an estate. His brother filed at
filed in connection with applications for marriage
RTC a petition for issuance of letter of
licenses shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax.
administration.
(n)
2. Anonuevo et al intervened, saying their mother
Sylvia was daughter of Isabel and John. But when R
died, their grandma Isabel was the lawful wife of
Art 28 FC. If the residence of either party is so located Rodolfo, based on a marriage certificate.
that there is no means of transportation to enable 3. R’s brother opposed intervention because birth
such party to appear personally before the local civil certificate of Sylvia states that Isabel and John were
registrar, the marriage may be solemnized without married; Therefore, I’s marriage to R was null and
necessity of a marriage license. (72a) void.
1. Difference from Art 72 CC: residence of female 4. A et al argued that entries in birth certificate of
must be 15 km from municipal building, besides Sylvia are not evidentiary support of I and J’s
absence of means of transpo. In FC, basta no means marriage. That such statement of marriage in birth
of transpo, and handicap could be of male or cert is just to save face and is customary.
female. ISSUE:
Can Anonueva et al intervene?
Art 29 FC. In the cases provided for in the two WON the birth certificate is evidentiary support for
preceding articles, the solemnizing officer shall state in marriage.
an affidavit executed before the local civil registrar or
any other person legally authorized to administer HELD:
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
No, they cannot intervene; Yes, it is evidence. weapon in his hands. The accused-appellant, Elias, said
that because they were legally and validly married, he
The birth certificate of Sylvia which shows that I and J should only be liable for “homicide” and not “parricide”.
were married is sufficient proof. Therefore, I’s marriage He thinks such because there was no marriage contract
to R is void due to legal impediment of subsisting issued on their wedding day and after that. However, in
marriage. Isabel and her descendants therefore have no his testimony, he admitted that the victim was his wife
share in the estate of R. and that they were married in a chapel by a priest.
While marriage cert is considered primary evidence of a ISSUES:
marital union, it is not regarded as sole and exclusive
evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence shows that the fact WON non-execution of a contract renders marriage
of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence of void.
other forms. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate
may be recognized as competent evidence of the HELD:
marriage between his parents. The reason “face saving/ In the view of the law, a couple living together with the
customary” is without merit. The Court cannot take image of being married, are presumed married unless
judicial notice of a folkway. proven otherwise. This is attributed to the common
order of society. Furthermore, the validity of a marriage
resides on the fulfillment or presence of the requisites
PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE of the marriage which are : legal capacity and consent.
The absence of the record of such marriage does not
Art 220 CC. [DOUBT; PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY] In invalidate the same as long as the celebration and all
case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of
requisites are present.
the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts
leans toward the validity of marriage, the Person living together in apparent matrimony are
indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption
children, the community of property during marriage, or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.
the authority of parents over their children, and the The reason is that such is the common order of society,
validity of defense for any member of the family in and if the parties were not what they thus hold
case of unlawful aggression. themselves out as being, they would be living in
constant violation of decency and law. (Son Cui vs.
Guepangco, 22 Phil. 216). And, the mere fact that no
Sec 3 (aa) Rule 131 RC. Disputable presumptions. — record of the marriage exists in the registry of marriage
The following presumptions are satisfactory if does not invalidate said marriage, as long as in the
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and celebration thereof, all requisites for its validity are
overcome by other evidence present. The forwarding of a copy of the marriage
certificate to the registry is not one of said requisites.
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as (Pugeda vs. Trias, 4 SCRA 849). The appealed decision is
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract AFFIRMED and the indemnity increased from 12,000 to
of marriage; 30,000

*PEOPLE V BORROMEO (1984) *TRINIDAD V CA (1998)

FACTS: FACTS:
At high noon on July 3, 1981, the four year old niece of Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones were the
Susana & Elias Borromeo told Matilde Taborada parents of three (3) children, namely, Inocentes,
(mother of Susana) that Susana was screaming because Lourdes and Felix. When Patricio died in 1940, survived
Elias was killing her. Taborada told her to inform her by the above named children, he left four (4) parcels of
son, Geronimo Taborada. Geronimo, in turn, told his land, all situated at Barrio Tigayon, Kalibo Aklan.
father and together, they went to Susana’s hut. There
they found Susana’s lifeless body next to her crying Arturio Trinidad, born on July 21, 1943, claimed to be
infant and Elias mumbling incoherently still with the the legitimate son of the late Inocentes Trinidad.
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
Sometime after the marriage, he demanded from Whether or not the petitioner presented sufficient
the defendants to partition the land into three equal evidence of his parent’s marriage and his filation.
shares and to give him the (1/3) individual share of his
late father, but the defendants refused. HELD:

Arturio Trinidad filed, an action for partition of four The partition of the late Patricios real properties
parcels of land. Defendantsdenied that plaintiff was the requires preponderant proof that petitioner is a co-
son of the late Inocentes owner or co-heir of the decedent’s estate. His right as a
Trinidad. Defendantscontended that Inocentes was co-owner would, in turn, depend on whether he was
single when he died in 1941, before plaintiff’s born during the existence of a valid and subsisting
birth. Defendants also denied that plaintiff had lived marriage between his mother (Felicidad) and his
with them, and claimed that the parcels of land putative father (Inocentes).
described in the complaint had been in their possession When the question of whether a marriage has been
since the death of their father in 1940 and that they had contracted arises in litigation, said marriage may be
not given plaintiff a share in the produce of the land. proven by relevant evidence. To prove the fact of
Arturio presented witnesses to prove his position. Jovita marriage, the following would constitute competent
evidence: the testimony of a witness to the matrimony,
Gerardo testified that Inocentes Trinidad
and Felicidad Molato are the parents of Arturio; that the couple’s public and open cohabitation as husband
Felix and Lourdes as the uncle and aunt of Arturio; and and wife after the alleged wedlock, the birth and
also identified pictures where the respondents were the baptismal certificates of children born during such
with Arturio and his family.(At this stage of the trial, union, and the mention of such nuptial in subsequent
Felix Trinidad [died] without issue and he was survived documents.
by his only sister, Lourdes Trinidad.) Another witness, In the case at bar, petitioner secured
ISABEL MEREN, 72 years old and a widow testified that a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of
she knows Inocentes Trinidad as the father of Arturio Aklan that all records of births, deaths and marriages
Trinidad; that she knew Inocentes Trinidad were lost, burned or destroyed during the Japanese
and Felicidad Molato as the parents of Arturio and that occupation of said municipality. Although the marriage
she was present when they were married in New contract is considered the primary evidence of the
Washington, Aklan, by a protestant pastor by the name marital union, petitioner’s failure to present it is not
of Lauriano Lajaylajay. She further testified that upon proof that no marriage took place, as other forms of
the death of Inocentes, Lourdes took Arturio and cared relevant evidence may take its place. In place of a
for him. ARTURIO TRINIDAD, himself, was presented as marriage contract, two witnesses were presented by
witness. As proof that he is the son of Inocentes petitioner: Isabel Meren and Jovita Gerardo.
Trinidad and Felicidad Molato, he showed a certificate It furthergives rise to the disputable presumption that a
of baptism, and a certificate of loss issued by the LCR man and a woman deporting themselves as husband
that his birth certificate was burned during World War and wife have entered into a lawful contract of
2. He also testified that he lived with Felix and Lourdes marriage. Petitioner also presented
and provided for his needs. his baptismal certificate in which Inocentes
On the other hand, defendants presented Pedro Briones and Felicidadwere named as the child’s father and
who testified that Inocentes was not married when he mother, and family pictures.
died in 1940s. Lourdes Trinidad also testified that she The totality of petitioner’s positive evidence clearly
was not aware that his brother married anybody and preponderates over private respondent’s self- serving
denied that Arturio lived with them. Beatriz Sayon also negations.
testified that Inocentes died in 1941, and
that FelicidadMolato had never been married to
Inocentes. The trial court rendered a twenty- *VDA DE JACOB V CA (1999)
page decision in favor of Arturio. The CA reversed
the decision. SUBJECT: The loss of the best evidence of marriage,
specifically the marriage contract, and how to prove the
ISSUES: validity of marriage using a reconstructed marriage
certificate and other evidences.
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
SUMMARY: Tomasa is the surviving spouse of the took place between two contracting parties,
deceased Alfredo e. Jacob and claims the right over the absence or loss of contract does not render
latter's estate. However Pedro, the legally adopted son the marriage void. The marriage license is
of the late Alfredo, claims for his share of the estate as not a formal requisite of marriage; it is
the sole surviving heir. Pedro further questions the merely a written manifestation or the
validity of the marriage between Tomasa and his late reiteration of the exchange of vows done
adoptive father. during the marriage ceremony. As provided
by Section 3 in relation to Section 5, Rule
NATURE: The instant case is a petition for Review under 130 of the Rules of Court, the contents of
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and such document may be proven by
the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying competent evidences other than the
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The CA ruled in document itself. In the case at bar,
favor of Pedro Pilapil and against Tomasa Vda. de Jacob
appellant Tomasa had provided competent
on grounds including the declaration that the evidences to prove that a valid marriage
reconstructed marriage certificate as spurious and non- had been solemnized between her and the
existent. Hence, the present petition. late Alfredo. Such evidences were supplied
FACTS: by the sworn testimonies of Msgr. Yllana
who was the solemnizing officer; witness
1. Petitioner Tomasa narrated that her marriage with Adela Pilapil, and Tomasa herself both in
the late Alfredo was solemnized by one Msgr. open court and in writing.
Florencio C. Yllana in Intramuros, Manila sometime 2. Whether the questioned marriage was void ab initio
in 1975. She could not however present the original due to lack of marriage license and a marriage
copy of the Marriage Contract stating that the ceremony as alleged by the legally adopted son,
original document was lost when Msgr. Yllana Pedro.
allegedly gave it to one Mr. Jose Centenera for a. No. The contention Pedro that there was no
registration. In lieu of the lost marriage certificate, marriage license issued prior to the
petitioner presented a reconstructed marriage solemnization of the marriage between the
contract issued three years after the said marriage. two was misplaced due to the fact that the
2. irregularities of the reconstructed marriage said spouses had been cohabiting with
contract: each other for more than five years as
a. No copy of the Marriage Contract was sent stated in a sworn affidavit made by the late
to the local civil registrar; Alfedo and the appellant. This is an
b. A mere thumbmark was purportedly placed exceptional character under the Article 76
by the late Alfredo on the alleged of the Civil Code which provided that the
reconstructed marriage contract instead of questioned marriage is exempted from the
his customary signature as affixed in their requisite of a valid marriage license. The
sworn affidavit; accusations of Pedro Pilapil which were
c. Inconsistencies in the affidavit of Msgr. formerly favored by the Court of Appeals
Yllana on the circumstances surrounding were then reversed and set aside.
the loss of the marriage contract and the 3. Whether the absence of said marriage on the
testimonies of appellant Tomasa; and record book of the local civil register affects the
d. Appellant admitted that there was no validity of such.
record entered into the San Agustin Church a. No. Absence of an entry pertaining to 1975
where the alleged marriage was in the Books of Marriage of the Local Civil
solemnized. Registrar of Manila and in the National
ISSUES AND HELD: Census and Statistics Office (NCSO) does
not invalidate the marriage. It is of the
1. Whether the alleged reconstructed marriage solemnizing officer's duty to send a copy of
contract is valid and is a sufficient proof of marriage marriage certificate to these offices in order
in lieu of the lost Marriage Contract. to be duly recorded (Art. 23, FC). In the
a. Yes. Even though the marriage contract is absence of other competent evidences to
the best evidence that a marriage indeed the contrary, a man and a woman deporting
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
themselves as husband and wife are “failed to locate the book wherein
presumed to have entered into a legal marriage license no. 2770792 is registered.”
contract of marriage. The fact that the b. If ever Makita yung book, may strong
appellant and the deceased had lived possibility that license is there.
together as husband and wife and the same
was affirmed by the evidences, the ISSUE:
presumption of marriage was not likewise WON there was a marriage license issued.
rebutted.
HELD:

*SEVILLA V CARDENAS, SUPRA The above Rule authorized the custodian of

documents to certify that despite diligent search, a
DOCTRINE: inability to find records without particular document does not exist in his office or that
certification of diligent search does not mean records a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be
do not exist. They just cannot be found. found in a register. As custodians of public documents,
FACTS: civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty,
1. Jaime O. Sevilla to RTC complaint: inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are
a. 19 May 1969, through machinations, required to enter all applications for marriage licenses,
duress and intimidation by Carmelita N. including the names of the applicants, the date the
Cardenas and retired Colonel Jose marriage license was issued and such other relevant
Cardenas, he and Carmelita went to the data. (Emphasis supplied.)
City Hall of Manila and they were
introduced to one Reverend Cirilo D. Thus, the certification to be issued by the Local Civil
Gonzales, Minister of the Gospel. Registrar must categorically state that the document
b. Father caused him and Carmelita to sign a does not exist in his office or the particular entry could
marriage contract before the said Minister not be found in the register despite diligent search.
of the Gospel. Such certification shall be sufficient proof of lack or
c. That he never applied for and obtained a absence of record as stated in Section 28, Rule 132 of
marriage license from any Civil Registry. No the Rules of Court:
marriage license was presented to the
solemnizing officer. SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. – a written
2. Carmelita refuted: statement signed by an officer having the
a. Civil marriage 19 May 1969; custody of an official record or by his deputy
b. Church ceremony on 31 May 1969 at the that after diligent search, no record or entry of
Most Holy Redeemer Parish in Quezon City. a specified tenor is found to exist in the records
c. Both marriages were registered with the of his office, accompanied by a certificate as
local civil registry of Manila and the NSO. above provided, is admissible as evidence that
d. He is estopped from invoking the lack of the records of his office contain no such record
marriage license after having been married or entry.
to her for 25 years.
3. Perlita Mercader of the local civil registry of San This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the
Juan: representative from the Office of the Local Civil
a. “failed to locate the book wherein marriage Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated
license no. 2770792 is registered,” for the that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that
reason that “the employee handling is the person in charge of the said logbook had already
already retired.“ retired. Further, the testimony of the said person was
4. Cannot just presume that the marriage license was not presented in evidence. It does NOT INDICATE that
not issued. former custodian of the logbook was deceased or
a. Failure of local civil registrar to produce a missing, or that his testimony could not be secured.
copy of the marriage license is attributed This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the
not to the fact that no such marriage logbook or prove the material contents therein, had
license was issued but rather, because it
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
been exerted. arrived in the Philippines in December of 1992. On
January 9, 1993, he was at his mother-inlaw's residence
Absence of the logbook is not proof of non-issuance of in Malate, Manila, when his mother-in-law arrived with
Marriage License No. 2770792. Logbook just cannot be two men. He was told that he was going to undergo
found. some ceremony, one of the requirements for his stay in
the Philippines. During the ceremony he and Gloria
Presumption in favor of marriage: Law or fact leans signed a document. He claimed that he did not know
toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility that the ceremony was a marriage until Gloria told him
of the marriage bonds. later. He further testified that he did not go to
Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage license, and
“The basis of human society throughout the civilized that he had never resided in that area.
world is x x x marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is
The Office of the Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite
not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an
institution in the maintenance of which the public is issued a certification to the effect that the marriage
deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of license number appearing in the marriage contract of
the law leans toward legalizing matrimony .Persons Syed and Gloria, Marriage License No. 9969967, was the
dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, number of another marriage license issued to a certain
in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan.
special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is Felicitas Goo, mother of Gloria Goo, admitted that she
that such is the common order of society, and if the sought the help of Atty. Sanchez at the Manila City Hall
parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as in securing the marriage license.
being, they would be living in the constant violation of
decency and of law. A presumption established by our The RTC held that given the lack of a valid marriage
Code of Civil Procedure is `that a man and a woman license, the marriage of Gloria and Syed on January 9,
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered 1993 was void ab initio. The Court of Appeals, however,
into a lawful contract of marriage. Semper praesumitur reversed the RTC. The CA held that the certification of
pro matrimonio – Always presume marriage.” 30 the Municipal Civil Registrar failed to categorically state
that a diligent search for the marriage license of Gloria
and Syed was conducted, and thus held that said
*ABBAS V ABBAS (2013) certification could not be accorded probative value. The
SUBJECT: CA ruled that there was sufficient testimonial and
documentary evidence that Gloria and Syed had been
Certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office validly married and that there was compliance with all
had no record of a marriage license was adequate to the requisites laid down by law.
prove the nonissuance of said license; Absence of the
words "despite diligent search" in the certification does ISSUE:
not destroy its probative value; Lack of a valid marriage Whether or not the marriage of Syed and Gloria is valid.
license, a formal requisite, renders marriage void ab
initio HELD:

FACTS: No.

Syed Azhar Abbas filed for the declaration of nullity of Certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office
his marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas. Syed alleged the had no record of a marriage license was adequate to
absence of a marriage license as a ground for the prove the non-issuance of said license.
annulment of his marriage to Gloria. In the Marriage 1. As the marriage of Gloria and Syed was solemnized
Contract of Gloria and Syed, it is stated that Marriage on January 9, 1993, Executive Order No. 209, or the
License No. 9969967, issued at Carmona, Cavite on Family Code of the Philippines, is the applicable law.
January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing The pertinent provisions that would apply to this
officer. particular case are Articles 3, 4 and 35(3).
According to Syed, a Pakistani citizen, he met Gloria, a 2. The certification of the Civil Registrar is competent
Filipino citizen, in Taiwan and they were married on to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license.
August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan. He Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court authorizes
Persons HW # 7 Formal Requisites; Muslim Filipinos Indigenous Cultural Communities; Presumption of marriage
the custodian of the documents to certify that proof does exist of a diligent search having been
despite diligent search, a particular document does conducted, as Marriage License No. 996967 was
not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a indeed located and submitted to the court. The fact
specified tenor was not to be found in a register. As that the names in said license do not correspond to
custodians of public documents, civil registrars are those of Gloria and Syed does not overturn the
public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of presumption that the registrar conducted a diligent
maintaining a register book where they are required search of the records of her office.
to enter all applications for marriage licenses, 8. Atty. Sanchez, whom Gloria and Felicitas Goo
including the names of the applicants, the date the approached for assistance in securing the license,
marriage license was issued and such other admitted not knowing where the license came
relevant. from. The task of applying for the license was
3. The certification issued by the civil registrar enjoys delegated to a certain Qualin, who could have
probative value, as his duty was to maintain records testified as to how the license was secured and thus
of data relative to the issuance of a marriage impeached the certification of the Municipal Civil
license. Registrar . As Gloria failed to present this Qualin,
4. The certification of the Local Civil Registrar that the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar still
their office had no record of a marriage license was enjoys probative value.
adequate to prove the nonissuance of said license.
The presumed validity of the marriage of the parties Lack of a valid marriage license, a formal requisite,
had been overcome, and that it became the burden renders marriage void ab initio.
of the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that
the marriage was valid, and that the required 9. All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a
marriage license had been secured. (see Carino vs wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage
Carino) contract was signed does not operate to cure the
5. It cannot be said that there was a simple irregularity absence of a valid marriage license.
in the marriage license that would not affect the 10. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says,
validity of the marriage, as no license was "The absence of any of the essential or formal
presented by the respondent. No marriage license requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed, except as stated in Article 35(2)." Article 35(3) of
based on the certification of the Municipal Civil the Family Code also provides that a marriage
Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and Gloria's failure to solemnized without a license is void from the
produce a copy of the alleged marriage license. beginning, except those exempt from the license
requirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2,
Absence of the words "despite diligent search" in the Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage cannot
certification does not destroy its probative value be characterized as among the exemptions, and
6. In reversing the RTC, the CA focused on the wording thus, having been solemnized without a marriage
of the certification, particularly the absence of the license, is void ab initio.
words “despite diligent search,” stating that it did
not comply with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court. A categorical declaration is not absolutely
necessary for Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
to apply.
7. Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is
a disputable presumption that an official duty has
been regularly performed, absent contradiction or
other evidence to the contrary.The presumption of
regularity of official acts may be rebutted by
affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to
perform a duty." No such affirmative evidence was
shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in
performing her duty of checking the records of their
office, thus the presumption must stand. In fact,