Vital document

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) |
Updated August 17, 2016 - 12:00am

Under the Civil Code and subsequently the Family Code which took effect
on Aug. 3, 1988, a marriage license is necessary before a marriage can be
performed. The marriage license is the authority granted by the State to the
contracting parties after determining the capacity of the parties to contract
marriage. Its issuance demonstrates the State’s involvement and
participation in every marriage and its maintenance which is of general
public interest. This is illustrated in this case of Romy and Julie.

After a stormy and protracted courtship, Romy was able to convince Julie to marry him.
The lovers set the date of their marriage at around midnight on the first day of the
“marry” month of June after the public dance at the town plaza which is situated
adjacent to the Church. It was however only in the afternoon of the day before the
marriage when Romy’s parents sought the help of a clerk at the office of the Municipal
Treasurer to arrange and prepare whatever papers were required for their marriage.

The marriage ceremony actually took place at around 3 o’clock before dawn since the
dance only finished at around 2 o’clock that same early morning and Romy and Julie did
not want the public to witness their exchange of marital vows.

After the wedding ceremony, the married life of the couple underwent the usual ups and
downs, going through several stages of romance, disillusionment, adjustment and joy
although they never had any children. So after 25 years, Romy finally decided to end
their relationship by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Julie.

He alleged in his petition that never has he gone to the Office of the Civil Registrar to
apply for a marriage license and had not seen and much less signed any papers or
documents in connection with the procurement of a marriage license. He further claimed
that no marriage license could have been validly issued considering that the clerk of the
Municipal Treasurer was asked by his parents to obtain the pertinent papers only in the
afternoon of the day before the marriage that took place about 3 a.m. the following
morning. So Romy alleged that for all legal intents and purposes, their marriage was
solemnized sans the required marriage license rendering it null and void. To prove his
claim, he further presented a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of their
town attesting to the fact that its office has no record or copy of the marriage license
issued to them. In addition, the Marriage Certificate issued by the officiating priest does
not contain any entry regarding said marriage license.
Julie however opposed Romy’s petition and asked that it be dismissed outright. She
claimed that both she and Romy personally appeared before the local civil registrar and
secured a marriage license which they presented before their marriage was solemnized.
According to Julie, Romy wanted to declare their marriage a nullity only because he was
having an affair with another woman. She contended that Romy did nothing for the past
25 years to attack, even collaterally, his apparently void marriage with her for lack of a
marriage license.

The RTC however ruled in favor of Romy and declared his marriage to Julie, null and
void. It found that Romy’s evidence sufficiently established the absence of the requisite
marriage license and thus null and void based on Articles 53 (4), 58 and 80 (30 of the
Civil Code which was the applicable law when they got married.

But the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the RTC decision and declared
the marriage between Romy and Julie valid and subsisting. According to the CA, since a
marriage was in fact solemnized there is a presumption that a marriage license was
issued and Romy failed to overcome such presumption. The absence of any indication
in the marriage certificate as to the issuance of a marriage license is a mere formal
defect that does not invalidate the marriage. Was the CA correct?

No said the Supreme Court (SC). The SC said that the certification of the Local Civil
Registrar that their office has no record or copy of any marriage license ever issued in
favor of Romy and Julie is sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity of their
marriage and it becomes the burden of Julie to prove otherwise. In this case she failed
to discharge this burden since she failed to present a copy of said marriage license to
the RTC. In addition the Certificate of Marriage does not contain any entry regarding
said marriage license. Even if Julie and her witnesses testified that a marriage
ceremony was conducted, none of them testified that a marriage license was issued in
favor of Romy and Julie. The holding of a marriage ceremony and the signing of a
marriage contract does not operate to cure the absence of a marriage license which
renders the marriage void.

The less than pure motive of Romy in seeking the nullity of his marriage to Julie – his
alleged illicit affair with another woman – does not make up for the failure of Julie to
prove they had a valid marriage license. So the marriage of Romy and Julie is really null
and void. (Kho vs. Republic and Kho, G.R. 187462, June 21, 2016).