Restituto Alcantara filed a petition to annul his marriage to Rosita Alcantara, arguing that they did not obtain a marriage license. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that (1) the marriage contract and certification from the local civil registrar indicated that a marriage license was issued; (2) any irregularities in the license like improper residency did not invalidate the marriage; and (3) discrepancies in the license number appeared to be a typographical error and did not negate the license's existence. The petition for annulment was denied.
Restituto Alcantara filed a petition to annul his marriage to Rosita Alcantara, arguing that they did not obtain a marriage license. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that (1) the marriage contract and certification from the local civil registrar indicated that a marriage license was issued; (2) any irregularities in the license like improper residency did not invalidate the marriage; and (3) discrepancies in the license number appeared to be a typographical error and did not negate the license's existence. The petition for annulment was denied.
Restituto Alcantara filed a petition to annul his marriage to Rosita Alcantara, arguing that they did not obtain a marriage license. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that (1) the marriage contract and certification from the local civil registrar indicated that a marriage license was issued; (2) any irregularities in the license like improper residency did not invalidate the marriage; and (3) discrepancies in the license number appeared to be a typographical error and did not negate the license's existence. The petition for annulment was denied.
Restituto Alcantara filed a petition to annul his marriage to Rosita Alcantara, arguing that they did not obtain a marriage license. However, the trial court and Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that (1) the marriage contract and certification from the local civil registrar indicated that a marriage license was issued; (2) any irregularities in the license like improper residency did not invalidate the marriage; and (3) discrepancies in the license number appeared to be a typographical error and did not negate the license's existence. The petition for annulment was denied.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Alcantara vs Alcantara
G.R. No. 167746
August 28, 2007 FACTS: Petitioner Restituto M. Alcantara filed a petition for annulment of marriage against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and Rosita, without securing the required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange a marriage for them. They met a person who, for a fee, arranged their wedding before a certain priest. They got married on the same day. They went through another marriage ceremony in a church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives. In her Answer, Rosita asserted the validity of their marriage and maintained that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. She alleged that Restituto has a mistress with whom he has three children and that Restituto only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage. After hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The CA affirmed the decision. Restituto appealed. He submitted that at the precise time that his marriage with the Rosita was celebrated, there was no marriage license because he and respondent just went to the Manila City Hall and dealt with a fixer who arranged everything for them. He and Rosita did not go to Carmona, Cavite, to apply for a marriage license. Assuming a marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was issued to them, neither he nor the Rosita was a resident of the place. The certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weight because the certification states that Marriage License number 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario but their marriage contract bears the number 7054033 for their marriage license number.
ISSUE: Was the marriage between petitioner and respondent void ab initio?
HELD: No. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio. To be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in that it specifically identified the parties to whom the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein. This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done in the regular conduct of official business. Hence, petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the validity of his marriage. Issuance of a marriage license despite the fact that the fact that neither of the parties are residents of the city or municipality which issued the same is a mere irregularity that does not affect the validity of the marriage. An irregularity in any of the formal requisites of marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly, criminally and administratively liable. As to the discrepancy in the marriage license number, the court held that it is not impossible to assume that the same is a mere a typographical error. It does not detract from the conclusion regarding the existence and issuance of said marriage license to the parties. Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands, petitioner cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party to the marriage celebration which he now insists took place without the requisite marriage license. Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his action and be allowed to extricate himself from the marriage bond at his mere say-so when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143 of Makati City, dated 14 February 2000, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
