RAQUEL G. KHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA B. KHO , G.R. No. 187462, June 01, 2016

Case Digest

RAQUEL G. KHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA B. KHO , G.R. No. 187462, June 01, 2016

Facts: The present petition arose from a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by herein petitioner with the RTC of Oras, Eastern Samar. Pertinent portions of the Petition allege as follows:

Sometime in the afternoon of May 31, 1972, petitioner's parents summoned one Eusebio Colongon, now deceased, then clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer, instructing said clerk to arrange and prepare whatever necessary papers were required for the intended marriage between petitioner and respondent supposedly to take place at around midnight of June 1, 1972 so as to exclude the public from witnessing the marriage ceremony; 4. Petitioner and Respondent thereafter exchanged marital vows in a marriage ceremony which actually took place at around 3:00 o'clock before dawn of June 1, 1972, on account that there was a public dance held in the town plaza which is just situated adjacent to the church whereas the venue of the wedding, and the dance only finished at around 2:00 o'clock of same early morning of June 1, 1972;5. Petitioner has never gone to the office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for marriage license and had not seen much less signed any papers or documents in connection with the procurement of a marriage license;6. Considering the shortness of period from the time the aforenamed clerk of the treasurer's office was told to obtain the pertinent papers in the afternoon of May 31, 1972 so required for the purpose of the forthcoming marriage up to the moment the actual marriage was celebrated before dawn of June 1, 1972, no marriage license therefore could have been validly issued, thereby rendering the marriage solemnized on even date null and void for want of the most essential requisite;7. For all intents and purposes, thus, Petitioner's and Respondent's marriage aforestated was solemnized sans the required marriage license, hence, null and void from the beginning and neither was it performed under circumstances exempting the requirement of such marriage license;

Among the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner is a Certification5 issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar which attested to the fact that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has neither record nor copy of a marriage license issued to petitioner and respondent with respect to their marriage celebrated on June 1, 1972.

On September 25, 2000, the RTC rendered its Decision granting the petition. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the marriage contracted between Raquel G. Kho and Veronica Borata on June 1, 1972 null and void ab initio, pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Family Code. The foregoing is without prejudice to the application of Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.The RTC found that petitioner's evidence sufficiently established the absence of the requisite marriage license when the marriage between petitioner and respondent was celebrated. As such, the RTC ruled that based on Articles 53(4), 58 and 80(3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the absence of the said marriage license rendered the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio.

Respondent then filed an appeal with the CA in Cebu City. On March 30, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, disposing thus:WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 25 September 2000 of Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage between the petitioner-appellee Raquel Kho and Veronica Kho is declared valid and subsisting for all intents and purposes.The CA held that since a marriage was, in fact, solemnized between the contending parties, there is a presumption that a marriage license was issued for that purpose and that petitioner failed to overcome such presumption. The CA also ruled that the absence of any indication in the marriage certificate that a marriage license was issued is a mere defect in the formal requisites of the law which does not invalidate the parties' marriage. 

Issues: 

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ASCRIBING A SO-CALLED "ETHICAL DIMENSION" TO PETITIONER'S CAUSE, ALLUDING TO AN ALLEGED LIAISON WITH ANOTHER WOMAN AS A FACTOR IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH VOIDED HIS MARRIAGE IN QUESTION WITH RESPONDENT;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST PETITIONER THE FACT THAT DESPITE THE LAPSE OF 25 YEARS HE DID NOTHING TO ATTACK, EVEN COLLATERALLY, HIS APPARENTLY VOID MARRIAGE WITH RESPONDENT;

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER DISREGARDING PETITIONER'S OBVIOUSLY OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF LACK OF MARRIAGE LICENSE AND GIVING WEIGHT INSTEAD TO UNSUPPORTED PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT, IN ITS ASSAILED DECISION; and

4 WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE OR REVERSING THE LOWER COURT'S JUDGMENT DECLARING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT A NULLITY FOR ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE MARRIAGE LICENSE.10 

Petitioner's basic contention in the present petition centers on the alleged failure of the CA to give due credence to petitioner's evidence which established the absence or lack of marriage license at the time that petitioner and respondent's marriage was solemnized. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in deciding the case not on the basis of law and evidence but rather on the ground of what the appellate court calls as ethical considerations as well as on the perceived motive of petitioner in seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent.

Held: The Court finds for the petitioner.The marriage of petitioner and respondent was celebrated on June 1, 1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code.12 Hence, the Civil Code governs their union. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a contract, to wit:

ART 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with:

(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;(2) Their consent, freely given;(3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.Article 58 of the Civil Code makes explicit that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, save marriages of an exceptional character authorized by the Civil Code, but not those under Article 75.14 Under the Civil Code, marriages of exceptional character are covered by Chapter 2, Title 111, comprising Articles 72 to 79. These marriages are: (1) marriages in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or war; (2) marriages in remote places; (3) consular marriages; (4) ratification of marital cohabitation; (5) religious ratification of a civil marriage; (6) Mohammedan or pagan marriages; and (7) mixed marriages. Petitioner's and respondent's marriage does not fall under any of these exceptions.

Article 80(3) of the Civil Code also makes it clear that a marriage performed without the corresponding marriage license is void, this being nothing more than the legitimate consequence flowing from the fact that the license is the essence of the marriage contract.15 The rationale for the compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil Code is that it is the authority granted by the State to the contracting parties, after the proper government official has inquired into their capacity to contract marriage.16Stated differently, the requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested.17

As stated above, petitioner was able to present a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar attesting that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar "has no record nor copy of any marriage license ever issued in favor of Raquel G. Kho [petitioner] and Veronica M. Borata [respondent] whose marriage was celebrated on June 1, 1972."21 Thus, on the basis of such Certification, the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been overcome and it becomes the burden of respondent to prove that their marriage is valid as it is she who alleges such validity. As found by the RTC, respondent was not able to discharge that burden.

It is telling that respondent failed to present their alleged marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. In addition, the Certificate of Marriage22 issued by the officiating priest does not contain any entry regarding the said marriage license. Respondent could have obtained a copy of their marriage contract from the National Archives and Records Section, where information regarding the marriage license, i.e., date of issuance and license number, could be obtained. However, she also failed to do so. The Court also notes, with approval, the RTC's agreement with petitioner's observation that the statements of the witnesses for respondent, as well as respondent herself, all attest to the fact that a marriage ceremony was conducted but neither one of them testified that a marriage license was issued in favor of petitioner and respondent. Indeed, despite respondent's categorical claim that she and petitioner were able to obtain a marriage license, she failed to present evidence to prove such allegation. It is a settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.23

Based on the Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with respondent's failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license or of any evidence to show that such license was ever issued, the only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid marriage license was, in fact, issued. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, it cannot be said that there was a simple defect, not a total absence, in the requirements of the law which would not affect the validity of the marriage. The fact remains that respondent failed to prove that the subject marriage license was issued and the law is clear that a marriage which is performed without the corresponding marriage license is null and void.

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." 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. 

From these cases, it can be deduced that 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.32

Indeed, 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.33 As cited above, Article 80(3) of the Civil Code clearly provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning, except marriages of exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the same Code. As earlier stated, petitioner's and respondent's marriage cannot be characterized as among the exceptions.

As to the motive of petitioner in seeking to annul his marriage to respondent, it may well be that his motives are less than pure - that he seeks a way out of his marriage to legitimize his alleged illicit affair with another woman. Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure of the respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The law must be applied. As the marriage license, an essential requisite under the Civil Code, is clearly absent, the marriage of petitioner and respondent is void ab initio.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, dated March 30, 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69218, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, dated September 25, 2000, in Civil Case No. 464 is REINSTATED.

__________

endnotes: formal requisites