Restituto filed for annulment of his marriage to Rosita, alleging they married without a license. However, the marriage contract lists a license number from Carmona, Cavite. A certification from the local registrar also confirmed the license. Restituto claims neither party lived in Carmona. The court found the license irregularity did not invalidate the marriage, as irregularities are seen as mere technical defects. The presumption under the law is always in favor of the validity of marriage. The court upheld the validity of Restituto and Rosita's marriage.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Restituto filed for annulment of his marriage to Rosita, alleging they married without a license. However, the marriage contract lists a license number from Carmona, Cavite. A certification from the local registrar also confirmed the license. Restituto claims neither party lived in Carmona. The court found the license irregularity did not invalidate the marriage, as irregularities are seen as mere technical defects. The presumption under the law is always in favor of the validity of marriage. The court upheld the validity of Restituto and Rosita's marriage.
Restituto filed for annulment of his marriage to Rosita, alleging they married without a license. However, the marriage contract lists a license number from Carmona, Cavite. A certification from the local registrar also confirmed the license. Restituto claims neither party lived in Carmona. The court found the license irregularity did not invalidate the marriage, as irregularities are seen as mere technical defects. The presumption under the law is always in favor of the validity of marriage. The court upheld the validity of Restituto and Rosita's marriage.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Restituto filed for annulment of his marriage to Rosita, alleging they married without a license. However, the marriage contract lists a license number from Carmona, Cavite. A certification from the local registrar also confirmed the license. Restituto claims neither party lived in Carmona. The court found the license irregularity did not invalidate the marriage, as irregularities are seen as mere technical defects. The presumption under the law is always in favor of the validity of marriage. The court upheld the validity of Restituto and Rosita's marriage.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Alcantara vs Alcantara
Marriage Valid Marriage Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio
Restituto filed a petition for annulment of marriage against Rosita alleging that on 8 Dec 1982 he and Rosita, without securing the required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a fixer who could arrange a marriage for them before a certain Rev. Navarro. They got married on the same day. Restituto and Rosita went through another marriage ceremony in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was again celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. The alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said place. In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives. Petitioner prayed that after due hearing, judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to cancel the corresponding marriage contract and its entry on file. Rosita however asserts the validity of their marriage and Restituto has a mistress with whom he maintains that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. has three children. Restituto only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage. Rosita, in fact, has filed a case for concubinage against Restituto. ISSUE: Whether or not their marriage is valid. HELD: The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the States demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the validity of his marriage. The cases where the court considered the absence of a marriage license as a ground for considering the marriage void are clear-cut. 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. Petitioner, in a faint attempt to demolish the probative value of the marriage license, claims that neither he nor respondent is a resident of Carmona, Cavite. Even then, we still hold that
there is no sufficient basis to annul petitioner and respondents marriage. Issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality, not the residence of either of the contracting parties, and issuance of a marriage license despite the absence of publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered mere irregularities that do 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. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage. Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.
Joseph Hiram Holt, JR., A Minor, by His Next Friend, Joseph Hiram Holt and Joseph Hiram Holt and Elwyna Holt v. Raleigh City Board of Education, A Body Corporate, 265 F.2d 95, 4th Cir. (1959)
