G.R. No.

103047
lawphil.net

Republic of the Philippines

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 103047 September 2, 1994

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

Parungao, Abesamis, Eleazar & Pulgar Law Offices for private respondent.

PUNO, J.:

The case at bench originated from a petition filed by private respondent Angelina M. Castro in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage
to Edwin F. Cardenas.1 As ground therefor, Castro claims that no marriage license was ever
issued to them prior to the solemnization of their marriage.

Despite notice, defendant Edwin F. Cardenas failed to file his answer. Consequently, he was
declared in default. Trial proceeded in his absence.

The controlling facts are undisputed:

On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony
performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was
celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents. Defendant Cardenas personally
attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage,
including the procurement of the marriage, license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states
that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June
24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila.
The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was
unknown to Castro's parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971, when Castro discovered she
was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. However, their cohabitation lasted only
for four (4) months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways. On October 19, 1971, Castro gave
birth. The baby was adopted by Castro's brother, with the consent of Cardenas.

The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her daughter, Castro wanted to put in
order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer, Atty.
Frumencio E. Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her marriage. Through her lawyer's
efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the
celebration of their marriage.

As proof, Angelina Castro offered in evidence a certification from the Civil Register of Pasig,
Metro Manila. It reads:

February 20, 1987

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the names EDWIN F. CARDENAS and ANGELINA M. CASTRO
who were allegedly married in the Pasay City Court on June 21, 1970 under an
alleged (s)upportive marriage license
no. 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 cannot be located
as said license no. 3196182 does not appear from our records.

Issued upon request of Mr. Ed Atanacio.

(Sgd)
CENONA
D.
QUINTOS
Senior
Civil
Registry
Officer

Castro testified that she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig on or before June 24, 1970 in
order to apply for a license. Neither did she sign any application therefor. She affixed her
signature only on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in Pasay City.
The trial court denied the petition. 2 It held that the above certification was inadequate to
establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the
marriage between the parties. It ruled that the "inability of the certifying official to locate the
marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued."

Unsatisfied with the decision, Castro appealed to respondent appellate court. She insisted that
the certification from the local civil registrar sufficiently established the absence of a marriage
license.

As stated earlier, respondent appellate court reversed the Decision of the trial court. 3 It
declared the marriage between the contracting parties null and void and directed the Civil
Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract.

Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines urges that respondent appellate court erred when it ruled
that the certification issued by the civil registrar that marriage license no. 3196182 was not in
their record adequately proved that no such license was ever issued. Petitioner also faults the
respondent court for relying on the self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of private
respondent Castro that she had no part in the procurement of the subject marriage license.
Petitioner thus insists that the certification and the uncorroborated testimony of private
respondent are insufficient to overthrow the legal presumption regarding the validity of a
marriage.

Petitioner also points that in declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void,
respondent appellate court disregarded the presumption that the solemnizing officer, Judge
Pablo M. Malvar, regularly performed his duties when he attested in the marriage contract that
marriage license no. 3196182 was duly presented to him before the solemnization of the
subject marriage.

The issues, being interrelated, shall be discussed jointly.

The core issue presented by the case at bench is whether or not the documentary and
testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that no
marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the
marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas.

We affirm the impugned Decision.

At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital
relations was the New Civil Code. The law 4 provides that no marriage shall be solemnized
without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential
requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio. 5

Petitioner posits that the certification of the local civil registrar of due search and inability to
find a record or entry to the effect that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued to the parties
is not adequate to prove its non-issuance.

We hold otherwise. The presentation of such certification in court is sanctioned by Section 29,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, viz.:

Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having
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 above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to certify that despite diligent search,
a particular document does not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor
was not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public
officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required
to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date
the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data. 6

The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig 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. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and
pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability
to find" sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the
contracting parties.

The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is,
in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate
her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be remembered
that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The
subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" — a legally non-
existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the
knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The
records show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the
parents of the former.
Surely, the fact that only private respondent Castro testified during the trial cannot be held
against her. Her husband, Edwin F. Cardenas, was duly served with notice of the proceedings
and a copy of the petition. Despite receipt thereof, he chose to ignore the same. For failure to
answer, he was properly declared in default. Private respondent cannot be faulted for her
husband's lack of interest to participate in the proceedings. There was absolutely no evidence
on record to show that there was collusion between private respondent and her husband
Cardenas.

It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the appellate court that the marriage between
the contracting parties is null and void for lack of a marriage license does not discount the
fact that indeed, a spurious marriage license, purporting to be issued by the civil registrar of
Pasig, may have been presented by Cardenas to the solemnizing officer.

In fine, we hold that, under the circumstances of the case, the documentary and testimonial
evidence presented by private respondent Castro sufficiently established the absence of the
subject marriage license.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED there being no showing of any reversible error
committed by respondent appellate court.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

#Footnotes

1 Filed on February 19, 1987 and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-50117.

2 Decision dated June 30, 1987, issued by Presiding Judge Antonio P. Solano,
Quezon City RTC, Branch LXXXVI; Rollo, pp. 46-48.

3 Sixteenth Division, penned by Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, with Mr. Justices
Ricardo J. Francisco and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, concurring; Decision dated
November 27, 1991, Rollo, pp. 38-42.

4 Articles 53 (4) and 58, New Civil Code.

5 Article 80 (3), New Civil Code.

6 Article 70, New Civil Code.