Marriage License

See - 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... - The Lawyer's Post

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


"x x x.

The marriage of petitioner and respondent was celebrated on June 1, 1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code.⁠2 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.⁠3

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 75.⁠4 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.⁠5 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.⁠6 Stated 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.⁠7

In the instant case, respondent claims that she and petitioner were able to secure a marriage license which they presented to the solemnizing officer before the marriage was performed.

The OSG, on its part, contends that the presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage and that any doubt should be resolved to sustain such validity. Indeed, this Court is mindful of this principle as well as of the Constitutional policy which protects and strengthens the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.

On the other hand, petitioner insists that the Certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with the testimony of the former Civil Registrar, is sufficient evidence to prove the absence of the subject marriage license.

The Court agrees with petitioner and finds no doubt to be resolved as the evidence is clearly in his favor.

Apropos is the case of Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño.⁠8 There, 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.⁠9 It was 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 secured⁠10.

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.”⁠11 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 Marriage⁠12 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.⁠13

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.

As to the sufficiency of petitioner’s evidence, the OSG further argues that, on the basis of this Court’s ruling in Sevilla v. Cardenas,⁠14 the certification issued by the local civil registrar, which attests to the absence in its records of a marriage license, must categorically state that the document does not exist in the said office despite diligent search.

However, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,⁠15 this Court considered the certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar as a certification of due search and inability to find the record or entry sought by the parties despite the absence of a categorical statement that “such document does not exist in their records despite diligent search.” The Court, citing Section 28,⁠16 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, held that the certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, issued by the civil registrar, enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Based on said certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the marriage void ab initio.

Moreover, as discussed in the abovestated case of Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño,⁠17 this Court considered the marriage of the petitioner and her deceased husband as void ab initio as the records reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the local civil registrar, their office has no record of such marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license. Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly void ab initio. This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr.⁠18

Furthermore, in the fairly recent case of Abbas v. Abbas,⁠19 this Court echoed the ruling in Republic v. CA⁠20 that, in sustaining the finding of the lower court that a marriage license was lacking, this Court relied on the Certification issued by the local civil registrar, which stated that the alleged marriage license could not be located as the same did not appear in their records. Contrary to petitioner’s asseveration, nowhere in the Certification was it categorically stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent search. In this respect, this Court held that Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court does not require a categorical statement to this effect. Moreover, in the said case, this Court ruled that:

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. x x x⁠21

In all the abovementioned cases, there was clear and unequivocal finding of the absence of the subject marriage license which rendered the marriage void.

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.⁠22

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.⁠23 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.

x x x."


THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 187462, June 01, 2016,RAQUEL G. KHO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA B. KHO, RESPONDENTS.