Abbas V Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013 (Art 4)
Abbas V Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013 (Art 4)
Abbas V Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013 (Art 4)
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J : p
11 July 2003
Gloria stated that she and Syed had already been married on August 9,
1992 in Taiwan, but that she did not know if said marriage had been
celebrated under Muslim rites, because the one who celebrated their
marriage was Chinese, and those around them at the time were Chinese. 31
The Ruling of the RTC
In its October 5, 2005 Decision, the Pasay City RTC held that no valid
marriage license was issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona,
Cavite in favor of Gloria and Syed, as Marriage License No. 9969967 had
been issued to Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan, and the Municipal
Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite had certified that no marriage license had
been issued for Gloria and Syed. 32 It also took into account the fact that
neither party was a resident of Carmona, Cavite, the place where Marriage
License No. 9969967 was issued, in violation of Article 9 of the Family Code.
33 As the marriage was not one of those exempt from the license
SO ORDERED. 34
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE MARRIAGE
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT AS NULL AND VOID DUE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
TO THE ABSENCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE DESPITE EVIDENCE
CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THERE WAS ONE.
II
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING ON THE ISSUE OF
ESTOPPEL BY LACHES ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER, AN ISSUE
TIMELY RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW. 35
Syed then filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 1, 2008 40 but
the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated July 24, 2008. 41
Hence, this petition.
Grounds in Support of Petition
I
There is no issue with the essential requisites under Art. 2 of the Family
Code, nor with the formal requisites of the authority of the solemnizing
officer and the conduct of the marriage ceremony. Nor is the marriage one
that is exempt from the requirement of a valid marriage license under
Chapter 2, Title I of the Family Code. The resolution of this case, thus, hinges
on whether or not a valid marriage license had been issued for the couple.
The RTC held that no valid marriage license had been issued. The CA held
that there was a valid marriage license.
We find the RTC to be correct in this instance.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
Respondent Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license, or a
copy thereof, and relied on the marriage contract as well as the testimonies
of her witnesses to prove the existence of said license. To prove that no such
license was issued, Syed turned to the office of the Municipal Civil Registrar
of Carmona, Cavite which had allegedly issued said license. It was there that
he requested certification that no such license was issued. In the case of
Republic v. Court of Appeals 43 such certification was allowed, as permitted
by Sec. 29, n Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed
by an officer having the 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
office contain no such record or entry.
The Court held in that case that the certification issued by the civil
registrar enjoyed probative value, as his duty was to maintain records of
data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
The Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, where the marriage
license of Gloria and Syed was allegedly issued, issued a certification to the
effect that no such marriage license for Gloria and Syed was issued, and that
the serial number of the marriage license pertained to another couple,
Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. A certified machine copy of Marriage
License No. 9969967 was presented, which was issued in Carmona, Cavite,
and indeed, the names of Gloria and Syed do not appear in the document.
In reversing the RTC, the CA focused on the wording of the
certification, stating that it did not comply with Section 28, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court.
The CA deduced that from the absence of the words "despite diligent
search" in the certification, and since the certification used stated that no
marriage license appears to have been issued, no diligent search had been
conducted and thus the certification could not be given probative value.
To justify that deduction, the CA cited the case of Republic v. Court of
Appeals. 45 It is worth noting that in that particular case, the Court, in
sustaining the finding of the lower court that a marriage license was lacking,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
relied on the Certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, which merely
stated that the alleged marriage license could not be located as the same
did not appear in their records. Nowhere in the Certification was it
categorically stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent search, nor
is a categorical declaration absolutely necessary for Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court to apply.
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. We held, "The presumption
of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty." 46 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, proof does exist of a diligent search having been conducted, as
Marriage License No. 9969967 was indeed located and submitted to the
court. The fact that the names in said license do not correspond to those of
Gloria and Syed does not overturn the presumption that the registrar
conducted a diligent search of the records of her office.
It is telling that Gloria failed to present their marriage license or a copy
thereof to the court. She failed to explain why the marriage license was
secured in Carmona, Cavite, a location where, admittedly, neither party
resided. She took no pains to apply for the license, so she is not the best
witness to testify to the validity and existence of said license. Neither could
the other witnesses she presented prove the existence of the marriage
license, as none of them applied for the license in Carmona, Cavite. Her
mother, Felicitas Goo, could not even testify as to the contents of the
license, having admitted to not reading all of its contents. Atty. Sanchez, one
of the sponsors, whom Gloria and Felicitas Goo approached for assistance in
securing the license, admitted not knowing where the license came from.
The task of applying for the license was delegated to a certain Qualin, who
could have testified as to how the license was secured and thus impeached
the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar as well as the testimony of
her representative. As Gloria failed to present this Qualin, the certification of
the Municipal Civil Registrar still enjoys probative value.STcAIa
It is also noted that the solemnizing officer testified that the marriage
contract and a copy of the marriage license were submitted to the Local Civil
Registrar of Manila. Thus, a copy of the marriage license could have simply
been secured from that office and submitted to the court. However, Gloria
inexplicably failed to do so, further weakening her claim that there was a
valid marriage license issued for her and Syed.
In the case of Cariño v. Cariño, 47 following the case of Republic, 48 it
was held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had
no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-issuance of
said license. The case of Cariño further held that the presumed validity of the
marriage of the parties had been overcome, and that it became the burden
of the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was valid,
and that the required marriage license had been secured. 49 Gloria has failed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
to discharge that burden, and the only conclusion that can be reached is that
no valid marriage license was issued. It cannot be said that there was a
simple irregularity in the marriage license that would not affect the validity
of the marriage, as no license was presented by the respondent. No
marriage license was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed, based
on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and
Gloria's failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license.
To bolster its ruling, the CA cited other evidence to support its
conclusion that Gloria and Syed were validly married. To quote the CA:
Moreover, the record is replete with evidence, testimonial and
documentary, that appellant and appellee have been validly married
and there was compliance with all the requisites laid down by law. Both
parties are legally capacitated to marry. A certificate of legal capacity
was even issued by the Embassy of Pakistan in favor of appellee. The
parties herein gave their consent freely. Appellee admitted that the
signature above his name in the marriage contract was his. Several
pictures were presented showing appellant and appellee, before the
solemnizing officer, the witnesses and other members of appellant's
family, taken during the marriage ceremony, as well as in the
restaurant where the lunch was held after the marriage ceremony.
Most telling of all is Exhibit "5-C" which shows appellee signing the
Marriage Contract.
xxx xxx xxx
The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and
has [sic] one offspring, Aliea Fatima Goo Abbas, who was born on 15
June 1993. It took appellee more than ten (10) years before he filed on
01 August 2003 his Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under
Article 4 of the Family Code. We take serious note that said Petition
appears to have been instituted by him only after an Information for
Bigamy (Exhibit "1") dated 10 January 2003 was filed against him for
contracting a second or subsequent marriage with one Ma. Corazon
(Maryam) T. Buenaventura. We are not ready to reward (appellee) by
declaring the nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in
the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy. 50
All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was
conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the
absence of a valid marriage license. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear
when it says, "The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall
render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2)." Article
35 (3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without
a license is void from the beginning, except those exempt from the license
requirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code. 51
Again, this marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and
thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio.
As to the motive of Syed in seeking to annul his marriage to Gloria, it
may well be that his motives are less than pure, that he seeks to evade a
bigamy suit. Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
the respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the
weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The lack of a valid marriage
license cannot be attributed to him, as it was Gloria who took steps to
procure the same. The law must be applied. As the marriage license, a
formal requisite, is clearly absent, the marriage of Gloria and Syed is void ab
initio. aESHDA
Footnotes
3. Rollo , p. 13.
4. Id. at 47.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 12.
7. Id. at 10.
8. Id. at 48.
9. Id. at 49, "January 19, 1993" in some parts of the records.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 49-50.
17. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 56.
30. Id. at 57.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 58.
33. Article 9. A Marriage License shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the
city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, except
in marriages where no license is required in accordance with Chapter 2 of
this Title.
51. Art. 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of
death, the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage
license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives.
Art. 28. 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, the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a
marriage license.
Art. 29. In the 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 barrioor barangay, is so located 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 legal
impediment to the marriage.
Art. 30. 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 the period of thirty days after the performance
of the marriage.
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.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. "269"
should read as "209".