JUN 1 6 2016

31\cpulllic of tbc ~1Jilippittc%

S>uprcmc <!Court
jflllnn iln
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 187462

RAQUEL G. KHO,
Petitioner,

Present:

VELASCO, JR., J, Chairperson,

BRION,*
PERALTA,
PEREZ,
REYES, JJ.

- versus -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

and VERONICA B. KHO,
Respondents.

Promulgated:
June ?1, 2016

x--------------------------------------------------------------~~~-x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Challenged in the present petition for review on certiorari are the
Decision 1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City dated
March 30, 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No.
69218. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the Decision 3 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, in
Civil Case No. 464, which ruled in petitioner's favor in an action he filed for
declaration of nullity of his marriage with private respondent, while the CA
Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated May 23,
2016.
1

Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Arsenio J. Magapale and Vicente L. Yap, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rollo, pp. 28-40.
2
Penned by Associate Justice francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
and Rodi! V. Zalameda, concurring; Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 41-43.
J
Annex "C" to Petition, id. at 44-59.

t#

Decision

GR. No. 187462

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 pmiions of the Petition allege as follows:
xx xx
3. 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
marnage 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;
xx xx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be
rendered:
1. Declaring the contract of marriage between petitioner and
respondent held on June 1, 1972, at Arteche, Eastern Samar, null and void
ab initio and of no legal effect;
xx xx 4

Rollo, pp. 60-61.

Decision

GR. No. 187462

Among the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner is a

Certification 5 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 recorq nor copy of a marriage license issued to petitioner and
respondent with re spect to their marriage celebrated on June 1, 1972.
1

Respondent filed her Answer6 praying that the petition be outrightly

dismissed for lack: of cause of action because there is no evidence to prove
petitioner's allegation that their marriage was celebrated without the
requisite marriage license and that, on the contrary, both petitioner and
respondent personally appeared before the local civil registrar and secured a
marriage license which they presented before their marriage was
solemnized.
1

Upon petitioner's request, the venue of the action was subsequently

transferred to the RTC of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, where the
parties submitted their respective pleadings as well as affidavits of
witnesses.
On September 25, 2000, the RTC rendered its Decision granting the
petition. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
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.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Municipal Civil
Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar for proper registration of this decree
of nullity of marriage.
SO ORDERED. 7

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.

See RTC Decision, id. at 56.

Rollo, p. 64.
Id. at 59.

tfl

Decision

GR. No. 187462

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.
SO ORDERED. 8

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.
9

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in

its Resolution dated January 14, 2009.
Hence, the instant petition raising the following issues, to wit:
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;
WHETHER OR NOT TI-IE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
3.
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

ct'
Id. at 39.
Id. at 72.

Decision

GR. No. 187462

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
0
THE REQUISITE MARRIAGE LICENSE. '

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.
The Court finds for the petitioner.
At the outset, the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General
( OSG), raises a procedural question by arguing that the issues presented by
petitioner in the present petition are factual in nature and it is not proper for
this Court to delve into these issues in a petition for review on certiorari.
The Court does not agree.
The issues in the instant petition involve a determination and
application of existing law and prevailing jurisprudence. However,
intertwined with these issues is the question of the existence of the subject
marriage license, which is a question of fact and one which is not
appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court. This rule, nonetheless, is not without exceptions, viz.:
( 1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of
the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee;
(7) When the findings arc contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based;

10

/d.atl5.

t?1

._,

Decision

GR. No. 187462

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(I 0) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on rccord. 11

In the present case, the findings of the RTC and the CA, on whether or
not there was indeed a marriage license obtained by petitioner and
respondent, are conflicting. 1-Ience, it is but proper for this Court to review
these findings.
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 slwll be sole11111ized unless all tltese
requisites are complied witlt:
(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
charactcr. 13

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 III, comprising Articles 72 to 79.
These marriages are: (I) 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
II

Geronimo v. Court al Appeals, GR. No. I 05540, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 494, 498-499_
(Emphasis supplied)
12
The Family Code of the Philippines took effect on August 3, 1988.
u
Emphasis supplied.
11
'
Art. 75. Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by consuls and vice-consuls of the Republic of the Philippines. The duties of the local civil registrar and of a judge or justice or
the peace or mayor with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by such consuls and vice-consuls.

(/

Decision

"

GR. No. 187462

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. 16
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. 17
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 Carino v. Yee Carino. 18 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
19
license. 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 secured. 20
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
15

16
17
IH
19

20

Republic of'the Phils. v. Dayal, 573 Phil. 553, 568-569 (2008).

Id. at 569.
Alcantara v. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192, 202 (2007).
403 Phil. 861 (2001).
Id at 869.
Id. at 870.

..
Decision

GR. No. 187462

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

Marriage 22 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
. 1s
. not ev1'dence. 23
a II egat10n
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, 24 the
certification issued by the local civil registrar, which attests to the absence in

21
22

2J

21

See RTC Decision, ro/lo, p. 56.

Rollo, p. 133.
Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals, 543 Phil. 568, 575 (2007).
529 Phil. 419, 429 (2006).

Decision

I;

GR. No. 187462

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, 25 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,
26
citing Section 28, 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 Carino v.
Yee Carifio, 27 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 Go2&
Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr.
Furthermore, in the fairly recent case of Abbas v. Abbas, 29 this Court
echoed the ruling in Republic v. CA 30 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
25

G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA257, 262.

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.
27
Supra note 18.
28
G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013.
11
'
702 Phil. 578, 590-592 (2013).
:w
Supra note 25.
26

(;/

..
Decision

10

GR. No. 187462

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 oHicial 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 x 31

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 or
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.

3I

31
)}

Ahbas v. Abbas, supra note 29, at 592.

Alcantara v. Alcantara, supra note 17, at 203-204.
Ahhas v. Abbas, supra note 29, at 594.

ti

11 '

Decision

"

GR. No. 187462

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-GR. 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.
SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:
'\

.J. VELASCO, .JR.

ciate Justice

On leave

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

.J

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Comi's Division.

PRESBITE~R .J. VELASCO, .JR.

Ass iate Justice

Chairpe son, Third Division

Decision

12

G.R. No. 187462

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

,.,,,,.:;r~'~nn

~~!4'..~~:_;;~_'~,~-}

,, ..... ' , .. ,

r'-f'l.

~ L'<,~;_, l;'.__,Ji_

'
.,,_,
~~
~.~ri\r~'"
lo

~_,a

vV'<J

Divis on CEeirk of Cc urt

Third Diviion

JUN 1 6 2016