G.R. No.

167684 July 31, 2006

JAIME O.SEVILLA, petitioner,
vs.
CARMELITA N. CARDENAS, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CHICONA!ARIO, J."
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision
1
of the Cort of !ppeals in
C!"#.R. C$ No. %&&1' dated () Dece*+er ())& which set aside the Decision
(
of the Re,ional Trial
Cort -RTC. of /akati Cit0, in Civil Case No. 1&"1(23 dated (3 4anar0 ())(.
In a Co*plaint
5
dated (2 /arch 111& filed +0 4ai*e O. Sevilla +efore the RTC, he clai*ed that on
11 /a0 11'1, thro,h *achinations, dress and inti*idation e*plo0ed pon hi* +0 Car*elita N.
Cardenas and the latter6s father, retired Colonel 4ose Cardenas of the !r*ed forces of the
Philippines, he and Car*elita went to the Cit0 7all of /anila and the0 were introdced to a certain
Reverend Cirilo D. #on8ales, a spposed /inister of the #ospel. On the said date, the father of
Car*elita cased hi* and Car*elita to si,n a *arria,e contract +efore the said /inister of the
#ospel. !ccordin, to 4ai*e, he never applied for a *arria,e license for his spposed *arria,e to
Car*elita and never did the0 o+tain an0 *arria,e license fro* an0 Civil Re,istr0, conse9entl0, no
*arria,e license was presented to the sole*ni8in, officer.
:or her part, Car*elita refted these alle,ations of 4ai*e, and clai*s that she and 4ai*e were
*arried civill0 on 11 /a0 11'1,
&
and in a chrch cere*on0 thereafter on 51 /a0 11'1
3
at the /ost
7ol0 Redee*er Parish in ;e8on Cit0. <oth *arria,es were re,istered with the local civil re,istr0 of
/anila and the National Statistics Office. 7e is estopped fro* invokin, the lack of *arria,e license
after havin, +een *arried to her for (3 0ears.
The trial cort *ade the followin, findin,s=
In spport of his co*plaint, plaintiff >4ai*e? testified that on /a0 11, 11'1, he and defendant
>Car*elita? appeared +efore a certain Rev. Cirilo D. #on8ales, a /inister of the #ospel, at
the cit0 hall in /anila where the0 e@ected a /arria,e Contract -E@h. A!A. in civil rites. !
certain #odofredo Occena who, plaintiff alle,ed, was an aide of defendant6s father
acco*panied the*, and who, to,ether with another person, stood as witness to the civil
weddin,. That altho,h *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( alle,edl0 issed in San 4an, Ri8al on
/a0 11, 11'1 was indicated in the *arria,e contract, the sa*e was fictitios for he never
applied for an0 *arria,e license, -I+id., p. 11.. Bpon verifications *ade +0 hi* thro,h his
law0er, !tt0. 4ose /. !+ola, with the Civil Re,istr0 of San 4an, a Certification dated /arch
11, 111& -E@h. AEA. was issed +0 Rafael D. !liscad, 4r., Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an,
that Ano *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( was ever issed +0 said office.A On /a0 51, 11'1, he
and defendant were a,ain wed, this ti*e in chrch rites, +efore /onsi,nor 4an $elasco at
the /ost 7ol0 Redee*er Parish Chrch in <ri@ton 7ills, ;e8on Cit0, where the0 e@ected
another *arria,e contract -E@h. A:A. with the sa*e *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( sed and
indicated. Preparations and e@penses for the chrch weddin, and reception were Dointl0
shared +0 his and defendant6s parents. !fter the chrch weddin,, he and defendant resided
in his hose at <ri@ton 7ills ntil their first son, 4ose #a+riel, was +orn in /arch 11%). !s his
parents contined to spport hi* financiall0, he and defendant lived in Spain for so*e ti*e,
for his *edical stdies. Eventall0, their *arital relationship trned +ad +ecase it +eca*e
difficlt for hi* to +e *arried he +ein, a *edical stdent at that ti*e. The0 started livin,
apart in 11%', +t the0 nderwent fa*il0 conselin, +efore the0 eventall0 separated in
11%2. It was drin, this ti*e when defendant6s second son was +orn whose paternit0 plaintiff
9estioned. Plaintiff o+tained a divorce decree a,ainst defendant in the Bnited States in
1121 and later secred a Ddicial separation of their conD,al partnership in 1125.
!tt0. 4ose /. !+ola, then consel for the plaintiff, hi*self *anifested that when his service
was en,a,ed +0 plaintiff, and after the latter narrated to hi* the circ*stances of his
*arria,e, he *ade in9iries with the Office of Civil Re,istr0 of San 4an where the spposed
*arria,e license was o+tained and with the Chrch of the /ost 7ol0 Redee*er Parish
where the reli,ios weddin, cere*on0 was cele+rated. 7is re9est letters dated /arch 5,
111& -E@h. A4A., /arch %, 111& -E@h. ACA., /arch 1, 111& -E@h. A/A. and /arch 11, 111&
-E@h. AEA. were all sent to and received +0 the Civil Re,istrar of San 4an, who in repl0
thereto, issed Certifications dated /arch &, 111& -E@h. AIA., and /arch 11, 111& -E@h. AEA.
and Septe*+er (), 111& -E@h. ACA., that Ano *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( was ever issed
+0 that office.A Bpon his in9ir0, the 7ol0 Redee*er Parish Chrch issed hi* a certified
cop0 of the *arria,e contract of plaintiff and defendant -E@h. A:A. and a Certificate of
/arria,e dated !pril 11, 111& -E@h. A#A., wherein it noted that it was a Aprel0 reli,ios
cere*on0, havin, +een civill0 *arried on /a0 11, 11'1 at the Cit0 7all, /anila, nder
/arria,e Cicense No. (%%)%1( issed at San 4an, Ri8al on /a0 11, 11'1.A
Perlita /ercader, Re,istration Officer III of the Cocal Re,istr0 of San 4an, identified the
Certificates dated /arch &, 111&, /arch 11, 111& and Septe*+er (), 111& issed +0 Rafael
!liscad, 4r., the Cocal Civil Re,istrar, and testified that their office failed to locate the +ook
wherein *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( *a0 have +een re,istered -TSN, 2"'"1', p. 3..
Defendant Car*elita Cardenas testified that she and plaintiff had a stead0 ro*antic
relationship after the0 *et and were introdced to each other in Octo+er 11'2. ! *odel, she
was co*pelled +0 her fa*il0 to Doin the /t0a n, Pilipinas +eat0 pa,eant when plaintiff who
was afraid to lose her, asked her to rn awa0 with hi* to <a,io. <ecase she loved plaintiff,
she trned +ack on her fa*il0 and decided to follow plaintiff in <a,io. Fhen the0 ca*e +ack
to /anila, she and plaintiff proceeded to the latter6s ho*e in <ri@ton 7ills where plaintiff6s
*other, /rs. Sevilla, told her not to worr0. 7er parents were hostile when the0 learned of the
elope*ent, +t /rs. Sevilla convinced the* that she will take care of ever0thin,, and
pro*ised to spport plaintiff and defendant. !s plaintiff was still fearfl he *a0 lose her, he
asked her to *arr0 hi* in civil rites, withot the knowled,e of her fa*il0, *ore so her father
-TSN, 3"(2"12, p. &. on /a0 11, 11'1, +efore a *inister and where she was *ade to si,n
doc*ents. !fter the civil weddin,, the0 had lnch and later each went ho*e separatel0. On
/a0 51, 11'1, the0 had the chrch weddin,, which the Sevilla fa*il0 alone prepared and
arran,ed, since defendant6s *other Dst ca*e fro* hospital. 7er fa*il0 did not participate in
the weddin, preparations. Defendant frther stated that there was no se@al cons**ation
drin, their hone0*oon and that it was after two *onths when the0 finall0 had se@. She
learned fro* Dr. Escdero, plaintiff6s ph0sician and one of their weddin, sponsors that
plaintiff was nder,oin, ps0chiatric therap0 since a,e 1( -TSN, 11"("12, p. 13. for so*e
tra*atic pro+le* co*ponded +0 his dr, ha+it. She fond ot plaintiff has nsal se@al
+ehavior +0 his o+session over her knees of which he wold take endless pictres of.
/oreover, plaintiff preferred to have se@ with her in +etween the knees which she called
Aintrafe*ral se@,A while real se@ +etween the* was far and +etween like 2 *onths, hence,
a+nor*al. Drin, their *arria,e, plaintiff e@hi+ited weird se@al +ehavior which defendant
attri+ted to plaintiff6s dr, addiction -TSN, 11"3"12, pp. 3"2.. ! co*plsive liar, plaintiff has a
+ad te*per who +reaks thin,s when he had tantr*s. Plaintiff took dr,s like
a*pheta*ines, +en8edrine and the like, AspeedA dr,s that kept hi* fro* sleep and then
wold take +ar+itrates or downers, like A*o,adon.A Defendant tried ver0 hard to keep
plaintiff awa0 fro* dr,s +t failed as it has +eco*e a ha+it to hi*. The0 had no fi@ed ho*e
since the0 often *oved and partl0 lived in Spain for a+ot for and a half 0ears, and drin,
all those ti*es, her *other"in"law wold send so*e financial spport on and off, while
defendant worked as an En,lish teacher. Plaintiff, who was spposed to +e std0in,, did
nothin,. Their *arria,e +eca*e n+eara+le, as plaintiff ph0sicall0 and ver+all0 a+sed her,
and this led to a +reak p in their *arria,e. Cater, she learned that plaintiff *arried one
!n,ela #arcia in 1111 in the Bnited States.
4ose Cardenas, father of defendant, testified that he was not aware of the civil weddin, of
his da,hter with the plaintiffG that his da,hter and ,randson ca*e to sta0 with hi* after
the0 retrned ho*e fro* Spain and have lived with hi* and his wife ever since. 7is
,randsons practicall0 ,rew p nder his care and ,idance, and he has spported his
da,hter6s e@penses for *edicines and hospital confine*ents -E@hs. A1A and A1)A..
$ictoria Cardenas Navarro, defendant6s sister, testified and corro+orated that it was plaintiff6s
fa*il0 that attended to all the preparations and arran,e*ents for the chrch weddin, of her
sister with plaintiff, and that she didn6t know that the cople wed in civil rites so*e ti*e prior
to the chrch weddin,. She also stated that she and her parents were still civil with the
plaintiff inspite of the *arital differences +etween plaintiff and defendant.
!s adverse witness for the defendant, plaintiff testified that +ecase of irreconcila+le
differences with defendant and in order for the* to live their own lives, the0 a,reed to
divorce each otherG that when he applied for and o+tained a divorce decree in the Bnited
States on 4ne 1&, 1125 -E@h. A15A., it was with the knowled,e and consent of defendant
who in fact athori8ed a certain !tt0. ;is*+in, to represent her -TSN, 1("%"())), p. (1..
Drin, his adverse testi*on0, plaintiff identified a recent certification dated 4l0 (3, ()))
-E@h. AEEA. issed +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an, that the *arria,e license no.
(%%)%1(, the sa*e *arria,e license appearin, in the *arria,e contract -E@h. A!A., is
ine@istent, ths appears to +e fictitios.
'
In its Decision dated (3 4anar0 ())(, declarin, the nllit0 of the *arria,e of the parties, the trial
cort *ade the followin, Dstifications=
Ths, +ein, one of the essential re9isites for the validit0 of the *arria,e, the lack or
a+sence of a license renders the *arria,e void a+ initio. It was shown nder the varios
certifications -E@hs. AIA, AEA, and ACA. earlier issed +0 the office of the Cocal Civil Re,istrar of
the /nicipalit0 of San 4an, and the *ore recent one issed on 4l0 (3, ())) -E@h. AEEA.
that no *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( was ever issed +0 that office, hence, the *arria,e
license no. (%%)%1( appearin, on the *arria,e contracts e@ected on /a0 11, 11'1 -E@h.
A!A. and on /a0 51, 11'1 -E@h. A:A. was fictitios. Sch a certification enDo0s pro+ative vale
nder the rles on evidence, particlarl0 Section (2, Rle 15( of the Rles of Cort, @ @ @.
@ @ @ @
F7ERE:ORE, the Cort here+0 declares the civil *arria,e +etween 4ai*e O. Sevilla and
Car*elita N. Cardenas sole*ni8ed +0 Rev. Cirilo D. #on8ales at the /anila Cit0 7all on /a0
11, 11'1 as well as their contract of *arria,e sole*ni8ed nder reli,ios rites +0 Rev. 4an
<. $elasco at the 7ol0 Redee*er Parish on /a0 51, 11'1, NBCC and $OID for lack of the
re9isite *arria,e license. Cet the *arria,e contract of the parties nder Re,istr0 No. ')1
-e"'1. of the re,istr0 +ook of the Cocal Civil Re,istr0 of /anila +e cancelled.
Cet copies of this Decision +e dl0 recorded in the proper civil and propert0 re,istries in
accordance with !rticle 3( of the :a*il0 Code. Cikewise, let a cop0 hereof +e forwarded the
Office of the Solicitor #eneral for its record and infor*ation.
%
Car*elita filed an appeal with the Cort of !ppeals. In a Decision dated () Dece*+er ())&, the
Cort of !ppeals disa,reed with the trial cort and held=
In People v. De Guzman -#.R. No. 1)')(3, :e+rar0 1, 111&., the Spre*e Cort e@plained
that= "The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence
of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The pres*ption, however, prevails ntil it is
overco*e +0 no less than clear and convincin, evidence to the contrar0. Ths, nless the
pres*ption is re+tted, it +eco*es conclsive.A
In this case, Fe note that a certain #$%l&'( M$%)(*$% of the local civil re,istr0 of San 4an
testified that the0 "failed to locate the book wherein marriage license no. 2770792 is
registered," for the reason that "the employee handling is already retired." Fith said
testi*on0 Fe cannot therefore Dst pres*e that the *arria,e license specified in the
parties6 *arria,e contract was not issed for in the end the failre of the office of the local
civil re,istrar of San 4an to prodce a cop0 of the *arria,e license was attri+ta+le not to
the fact that no sch *arria,e license was issed +t rather, +ecase it Afailed to locate the
+ook wherein *arria,e license no. (%%)%1( is re,istered.A Si*pl0 pt, if the pertinent +ook
were availa+le for scrtin0, there is a stron, possi+ilit0 that it wold have contained an entr0
on *arria,e license no. (%()%1(.
@ @ @ @
Indeed, this Cort is not prepared to annl the parties6 *arria,e on the +asis of a *ere
perception of plaintiff that his nion with defendant is defective with respect to an essential
re9isite of a *arria,e contract, a perception that lti*atel0 was not s+stantiated with facts
on record.
2
4ai*e filed a /otion for Reconsideration dated ' 4anar0 ())3 which the Cort of !ppeals denied in
a Resoltion dated ' !pril ())3.
This denial ,ave rise to the present Petition filed +0 4ai*e.
7e raises the followin, isses for Resoltion.
1. Fhether or not a valid *arria,e license was issed in accordance with law to the parties
herein prior to the cele+ration of the *arria,es in 9estionG
(. Fhether or not the Cort of !ppeals correctl0 applied and relied on the pres*ption of
re,larit0 of officials acts, particlarl0 the issance of a *arria,e license, arisin, solel0 fro*
the contents of the *arria,e contracts in 9estion which show on their face that a *arria,e
license was prportedl0 issed +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istr0 of San 4an, /etro /anila, and
5. Fhether or not respondent cold validl0 invokeHrel0 pon the pres*ption of validit0 of a
*arria,e arisin, fro* the ad*itted Afact of *arria,e.A
1
!t the core of this controvers0 is the deter*ination of whether or not the certifications fro* the Cocal
Civil Re,istrar of San 4an statin, that no /arria,e Cicense No. (%%)%1( as appearin, in the
*arria,e contract of the parties was issed, are sfficient to declare their *arria,e as nll and
void ab initio.
Fe a,ree with the Cort of !ppeals and rle in the ne,ative.
Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code which was the law in force at the ti*e of the *arria,e of the
parties are !rticles 35,
1)
32
11
and 2).
1(
<ased on the fore,oin, provisions, a *arria,e license is an essential re9isite for the validit0 of
*arria,e. The *arria,e +etween Car*elita and 4ai*e is of no e@ception.
!t first ,lance, this case can ver0 well +e easil0 dis*issed as one involvin, a *arria,e that is nll
and void on the ,rond of a+sence of a *arria,e license +ased on the certifications issed +0 the
Cocal Civil Re,istar of San 4an. !s rled +0 this Cort in the case of Cario v. Cario
15
=
>!?s certified +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an, /etro /anila, their office has no
record of sch *arria,e license. In Republic v. Court of ppeals, the Cort held that sch a
certification is ade9ate to prove the non"issance of a *arria,e license. !+sent an0
circ*stance of sspicion, as in the present case, the certification issed +0 the local civil
re,istrar enDo0s pro+ative vale, he +ein, the officer char,ed nder the law to keep a record
of all date relative to the issance of a *arria,e license.
Sch +ein, the case, the pres*ed validit0 of the *arria,e of petitioner and the deceased
has +een sfficientl0 overco*e. It then +eca*e the +rden of petitioner to prove that their
*arria,e is valid and that the0 secred the re9ired *arria,e license. !ltho,h she was
declared in defalt +efore the trial cort, petitioner cold have s9arel0 *et the isse and
e@plained the a+sence of a *arria,e license in her pleadin,s +efore the Cort of !ppeals
and this Cort. <t petitioner convenientl0 avoided the isse and chose to refrain fro*
prsin, an ar,*ent that will pt her case in Deopard0. 7ence, the pres*ed validit0 of their
*arria,e cannot stand.
It is +e0ond cavil, therefore, that the *arria,e +etween petitioner Ssan Nicdao and the
deceased, havin, +een sole*ni8ed withot the necessar0 *arria,e license, and not +ein,
one of the *arria,es e@e*pt fro* the *arria,e license re9ire*ent, is ndo+tedl0 void ab
initio.
The fore,oin, Decision ,ivin, pro+ative vale to the certifications issed +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar
shold +e read in line with the decision in the earlier case of Republic v. Court of ppeals,
1&
where it
was held that=
The a+ove Rle athori8ed the cstodian of doc*ents 'o )$%'&+y ',(' *$-.&'$ *&l&/$0'
-$(%),, ( .(%'&)ul(% *o)u1$0' *o$- 0o' $2&-' &0 ,&- o++&)$ o% ',(' ( .(%'&)ul(% $0'%y o+ (
-.$)&+&$* '$0o% 3(- 0o' 'o 4$ +ou0* &0 ( %$/&-'$%. !s cstodians of p+lic doc*ents, civil
re,istrars are p+lic officers char,ed with the dt0, inter alia, of *aintainin, a re,ister +ook
where the0 are re9ired to enter all applications for *arria,e licenses, incldin, the na*es
of the applicants, the date the *arria,e license was issed and sch other relevant data.
-E*phasis spplied..
Ths, the certification to +e issed +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar *st cate,oricall0 state that the
doc*ent does not e@ist in his office or the particlar entr0 cold not +e fond in the re,ister despite
dili,ent search. Sch certification shall +e sfficient proof of lack or a+sence of record as stated in
Section (2, Rle 15( of the Rles of Cort=
SEC. (2. Proof of lac! of record. I a written state*ent si,ned +0 an officer havin, the
cstod0 of an official record or +0 his dept0 that after dili,ent search, no record or entr0 of a
specified tenor is fond to e@ist in the records of his office, acco*panied +0 a certificate as
a+ove provided, is ad*issi+le as evidence that the records of his office contain no sch
record or entr0.
Fe shall now proceed to scrtini8e whether the certifications +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an
in connection with /arria,e Cicense No. (%%)%1( co*plied with the fore,oin, re9ire*ents and
deserved to +e accorded pro+ative vale.
The first Certification
13
issed +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an, /etro /anila, was dated 11
/arch 111&. It reads=
TO F7O/ IT /!J CONCERN=
No /arria,e Cicense N*+er (%%)%1( were -sic. ever issed +0 this Office. Fith re,ards
-sic. to /arria,e Cicense N*+er (22)%1(,
1'
we e@ert all effort +t we cannot find the said
n*+er.
7ope and nderstand or loaded work cannot ,ive 0o or fll force locatin, the a+ove
pro+le*.
San 4an, /etro /anila
/arch 11, 111&
-S#D.R!:!EC D. !CISC!D, 4R.
Cocal Civil Re,istrar
The second certification
1%
was dated () Septe*+er 111& and provides=
TO F7O/ IT /!J CONCERN=
This is to certif0 that no *arria,e license N*+er (%%)%1( were ever issed +0 this Office
with re,ards to /arria,e Cicense N*+er (22)%1(, we e@ert all effort +t we cannot find the
said n*+er.
7ope and nderstand or loaded work cannot ,ive 0o or fll force locatin, the a+ove
pro+le*.
San 4an, /etro /anila
Septe*+er (), 111&
-S#D.R!:!EC D. !CISC!D, 4R.
Cocal Civil Re,istrar
The third Certification,
12
issed on (3 4l0 ())), states=
TO F7O/ IT /!J CONCERN=
This is to certif0 that accordin, to the records of this office, no /arria,e Cicense !pplication
was filed and no /arria,e Cicense No. (%%)%1( alle,edl0 dated /a0 11, 11'1 was issed +0
this Office to /R. 4!I/E O. SE$ICC! and /S. C!R/ECIT! C!RDEN!S"SE$ICC!.
This is to frther certif0 that the said application and license do not e@ist in or Cocal Civil
Re,istr0 Inde@ and, therefore, appear to +e fictitios.
This certification is +ein, issed pon the re9est of the interested part0 for whatever le,al
intent it *a0 serve.
San 4an, /etro /anila
4l0 (3, ()))
-S#D.R!:!EC D. !CISC!D, 4R.
Cocal Civil Re,istrar
Note that the first two certifications +ear the state*ent that Ahope and nderstand or loaded work
cannot ,ive 0o or fll force locatin, the a+ove pro+le*.A It cold +e easil0 i*plied fro* the said
state*ent that the Office of the Cocal Civil Re,istrar cold not e@ert its +est efforts to locate and
deter*ine the e@istence of /arria,e Cicense No. (%%)%1( de to its Aloaded work.A Cikewise, +oth
certifications failed to state with a+solte certaint0 whether or not sch license was issed.
This i*plication is confir*ed in the testi*on0 of the representative fro* the Office of the Cocal Civil
Re,istrar of San 4an, /s. Perlita /ercader, who stated that the0 cannot locate the lo,+ook de to
the fact that the person in char,e of the said lo,+ook had alread0 retired. :rther, the testi*on0 of
the said person was not presented in evidence. It does not appear on record that the for*er
cstodian of the lo,+ook was deceased or *issin,, or that his testi*on0 cold not +e secred. This
+elies the clai* that all efforts to locate the lo,+ook or prove the *aterial contents therein, had +een
e@erted.
!s testified to +0 Perlita /ercader=
; Bnder the s+poena duces tecum, 0o were re9ired to +rin, to this Cort a*on, other
thin,s the re,ister of application ofHor -sic. for *arria,e licenses received +0 the Office of
the =Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an, Province of Ri8al, fro* 4anar0 11, 11'1 to /a0 11'1.
Did 0o +rin, with 0o those recordsK
! I +ro,ht *a0 11, 11'1, sir.
; Is that the +ook re9ested of 0o nder no. 5 of the re9est for s+poenaK
! /eron pan, 4anar0. I for,ot, 4anar0 . . .
; Did 0o +rin, that with 0oK
! No, sir.
; Fh0 notK
! I )(00o' lo)('$ ',$ 4oo5. T,&- &- ',$ o0ly 4oo5.
; Fill 0o please state if this is the re,ister of *arria,e of *arria,e applications that 0or
office *aintains as re9ired +0 the *anal of the office of the Cocal Civil Re,istrarK
COBRT
/a0 I see that +ook and the portion *arked +0 the witness.
@ @ @ @
COBRT
Fh0 don6t 0o ask her direct 9estion whether *arria,e license (22)%1( is the
n*+er issed +0 their office while with respect to license no. (%%)%1( the office of
the Cocal Civil Re,istrar of San 4an is ver0 definite a+ot it it was never issed.
Then ask hi* how a+ot no. (22)%1( if the sa*e was ever issed +0 their office. Did
0o ask this (22%)1(, +t 0o cold not find the recordK <t for the *o*ent 0o
cannot locate the +ooksK Fhich is which now, was this issed or notK
! T,$ $1.loy$$ ,(0*l&0/ &' &- (l%$(*y %$'&%$*, -&%.
11
#iven the doc*entar0 and testi*onial evidence to the effect that t*ost efforts were not e@erted to
locate the lo,+ook where /arria,e Cicense No. (%%)%1( *a0 have +een entered, the pres*ption
of re,larit0 of perfor*ance of official fnction +0 the Cocal Civil Re,istrar in issin, the
certifications, is effectivel0 re+tted.
!ccordin, to Section 5-*.,
()
Rle 151 of the Rles of Cort, the pres*ption that official dt0 has
+een re,larl0 perfor*ed is a*on, the dispta+le pres*ptions.
In one case, it was held=
! dispta+le pres*ption has +een defined as a species of evidence that *a0 +e accepted
and acted on where there is no other evidence to phold the contention for which it stands,
or one which *a0 +e overco*e +0 other evidence. One sch dispta+leHre+tta+le
pres*ption is that an official act or dt0 has +een re,larl0 perfor*ed. @ @ @.
(1
The pres*ption of re,larit0 of official acts *a0 +e re+tted +0 affir*ative evidence of irre,larit0 or
failre to perfor* a dt0.
((
The pres*ption of re,larit0 of perfor*ance of official dt0 is dispta+le and can +e overco*e +0
other evidence as in the case at +ar where the pres*ption has +een effectivel0 defeated +0 the
tenor of the first and second certifications.
/oreover, the a+sence of the lo,+ook is not conclsive proof of non"issance of /arria,e Cicense
No. (%%)%1(. It can also *ean, as we +elieved tre in the case at +ar, that the lo,+ook Dst cannot
+e fond. In the a+sence of showin, of dili,ent efforts to search for the said lo,+ook, we cannot
easil0 accept that a+sence of the sa*e also *eans non"e@istence or falsit0 of entries therein.
:inall0, the rle is settled that ever0 intend*ent of the law or fact leans toward the validit0 of the
*arria,e, the indissol+ilit0 of the *arria,e +onds.
(5
The corts look pon this pres*ption with
,reat favor. It is not to +e li,htl0 repelledG on the contrar0, the pres*ption is of ,reat wei,ht.
(&
The Cort is *indfl of the polic0 of the 112% Constittion to protect and stren,then the fa*il0 as the
+asic atono*os social instittion and *arria,e as the fondation of the fa*il0. Ths, an0 do+t
shold +e resolved in favor of the validit0 of the *arria,e.
(3
The parties have co*ported the*selves as hs+and and wife and lived to,ether for several 0ears
prodcin, two offsprin,s,
('
now adlts the*selves. It took 4ai*e several 0ears +efore he filed the
petition for declaration of nllit0. !d*ittedl0, he *arried another individal so*eti*e in 1111.
(%
Fe
are not read0 to reward petitioner +0 declarin, the nllit0 of his *arria,e and ,ive hi* his freedo*
and in the process allow hi* to profit fro* his own deceit and perfid0.
(2
Or Constittion is co**itted to the polic0 of stren,thenin, the fa*il0 as a +asic social instittion.
Or fa*il0 law is +ased on the polic0 that *arria,e is not a *ere contract, +t a social instittion in
which the State is vitall0 interested. The State can find no stron,er anchor than on ,ood, solid and
happ0 fa*ilies. The +reak"p of fa*ilies weakens or social and *oral fa+ricG hence, their
preservation is not the concern of the fa*il0 *e*+ers alone.
(1
AThe +asis of h*an societ0 thro,hot the civili8ed world is @ @ @ *arria,e. /arria,e in this
Drisdiction is not onl0 a civil contract, +t it is a new relation, an instittion in the *aintenance of
which the p+lic is deepl0 interested. Conse9entl0, ever0 intend*ent of the law leans toward
le,ali8in, *atri*on0. Persons d"elling together in apparent matrimony are presumed# in the
absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case# to be in fact married. The
reason is that sch is the co**on order of societ0, and if the parties were not what the0 ths hold
the*selves ot as +ein,, the0 wold +e livin, in the constant violation of decenc0 and of law. !
pres*ption esta+lished +0 or Code of Civil Procedre is Lthat a *an and a wo*an deportin,
the*selves as hs+and and wife have entered into a lawfl contract of *arria,e.6 $emper
praesumitur pro matrimonio I !lwa0s pres*e *arria,e.A
5)
This Drisprdential attitde towards *arria,e is +ased on the prima facie pres*ption that a *an
and a wo*an deportin, the*selves as hs+and and wife have entered into a lawfl contract of
*arria,e.
51
<0 or failre to co*e to the sccor of 4ai*e, we are not triflin, with his e*otion or deepest
senti*ents. !s we have said in Carating%$iayngco v. $iayngco,
5(
re,retta+l0, there are sitations like
this one, where neither law nor societ0 can provide the specific answers to ever0 individal pro+le*.
6HERE7ORE, pre*ises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Cort of
!ppeals dated () Dece*+er ())& and the Resoltion dated ' !pril ())3 are A77IRMED. Costs
a,ainst the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban# C.&.# 'nares%$antiago# ustria%(artinez# Calle)o# $r.# &.&.# concr.