Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA,Petitioner, -versusYNARES-SANTIAGO, J., ROSITA A.

ALCANTARA and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August 28, 2007 G.R. No. 167746 Present:

Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel.They got married on the same day, 8 December 1982.Petitioner and respondent went through another marriage ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983.The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license.The alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said place.On 14 October 1985, respondent gave birth to their child Rose Ann Alcantara.In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives.Petitioner prayed that after due hearing, judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to cancel the corresponding marriage contract and its entry on file. Answering petitioners petition for annulment of marriage, respondent asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. Contrary to petitioners representation, respondent gave birth to their first child named Rose Ann Alcantara on 14 October 1985 and to another daughter named Rachel Ann Alcantara on 27 October 1992. Petitioner has a mistress with whom he has three children.Petitioner only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage.Respondent, in fact, has filed a case for concubinage against petitioner before the MetropolitanTrialCourtofMandaluyongCity, Branch 60.Respondent prays that the petition for annulment of marriage be denied for lack of merit.

On 14 February 2000, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, rendered its x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Decision disposing as follows: - -x The foregoing considered, judgment is rendered as follows: DECISION 1. The Petition is dismissed for lack of merit; 2. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the sum of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) per month as support for their two (2) children on Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitionerthe first five (5) days of each month; and Restituto Alcantara assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 3. To pay the costs. 30 September 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66724 denying petitioners appeal and affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of MakatiAs earlier stated, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing City, Branch 143, in Civil Case No. 97-1325 dated 14 February 2000,the petitioners appeal.His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 6 April 2005. dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: The Court of Appeals held that the marriage license of the parties is presumed to be regularly issued and petitioner had not presented any A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by petitioner against evidence to overcome the presumption.Moreover, the parties marriage respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 December 1982 he contract being a public document is aprima facie proof of the and respondent, without securing the required marriage license, went questioned marriage under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. to the ManilaCity Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange a marriage for them.They met a person who, for a fee, In his Petition before this Court, petitioner raises the following issues for arranged their wedding before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, aresolution: The antecedent facts are:

a. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; ruled that the Petition for Annulment has no legal and factual basis (2)Their consent, freely given; despite the evidence on record that there was no marriage license at (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and the precise moment of the solemnization of the marriage. b. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character. gave weight to the Marriage License No. 7054133 despite the fact that The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the States the same was not identified and offered as evidence during the trial, demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in and was not the Marriage license number appearing on the face of the the maintenance of which the general public is interested. marriage contract. Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn c. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it the validity of his marriage.The cases where the court considered the failed to apply the ruling laid down by this Honorable Court in the case absence of a marriage license as a ground for considering the marriage of Sy vs. Court of Appeals.(G.R. No. 127263, 12 April 2000 [330 SCRA void are clear-cut. 550]). In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the Local Civil d. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it Registrar issued a certification of due search and inability to find a failed to relax the observance of procedural rules to protect and record or entry to the effect that Marriage License No. 3196182 was promote the substantial rights of the party litigants. issued to the parties.The Court held that the certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry as to the purported marriage We deny the petition. license, issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, enjoys probative value, he Petitioner submits that at the precise time that his marriage with the being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data respondent was celebrated, there was no marriage license because he relative to the issuance of a marriage license.Based on said and respondent just went to the ManilaCity Hall and dealt with a fixer certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license who arranged everything for them.The wedding took place at the stairs that would render the marriage void ab initio. in ManilaCity Hall and not in CDCC BR Chapel where Rev. Aquilino Navarro who solemnized the marriage belongs. He and respondent didIn Cario v. Cario, the Court considered the marriage of therein petitioner not go to Carmona, Cavite, to apply for a marriage license.Assuming a Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santiago S. Carino as void ab initio.The marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was issued to them, neither herecords reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the nor the respondent was a resident of the place. The certification of the deceased bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weightLocal Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record because the certification states that Marriage License number 7054133of such marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the but their marriage contract bears the number 7054033 for theirmarriage license. Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license and not being one of the marriages exempt marriage license number. from the marriage license requirement, the marriage of the petitioner The marriage involved herein having been solemnized on 8 December and the deceased is undoubtedly void ab initio. 1982, or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law to determine its validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at theIn Sy v. Court of Appeals, the marriage license was issued on 17 September 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on 15 time of its celebration. November 1973.The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. the Civil Code, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58 of the sameIn all these cases, there was clearly an absence of a marriage license which rendered the marriage void. Code. Article 53 of the Civil Code which was the law applicable at the time ofClearly, 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 marriage of the parties states: the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage Art. 53.No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local complied with:

civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.Intypographical error, as a closer scrutiny of the marriage contract this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondentreveals the overlapping of the numbers 0 and 1, such that the marriage reflects a marriage license number.A certification to this effect was alsolicense may read either as 7054133 or 7054033. It therefore does not issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The certification detract from our conclusion regarding the existence and issuance of moreover is precise in that it specifically identified the parties to whomsaid marriage license to the parties. the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to hands, petitioner cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party the parties herein. to the marriage celebration which he now insists took place without the The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of Carmona,requisite marriage license.Petitioner admitted that the civil marriage Cavite, reads: took place because he initiated it. Petitioner is an educated person.He is a mechanical engineer by profession.He knowingly and voluntarily went This is to certify that as per the registry Records of Marriage filed in this to the ManilaCity Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went office, Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. through a marriage ceremony.He cannot benefit from his action and be Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on December 8, 1982. allowed to extricate himself from the marriage bond at his mere say-so This Certification is being issued upon the request of Mrs. Rosita A.when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his Alcantara for whatever legal purpose or intents it may serve. lifestyle.We cannot countenance such effrontery. His attempt to make a mockery of the institution of marriage betrays his bad faith. This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was donePetitioner and respondent went through a marriage ceremony twice in a in the regular conduct of official business.The presumption of regularityspan of less than one year utilizing the same marriage license.There is of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity orno claim that he went through the second wedding ceremony in church failure to perform a duty.However, the presumption prevails until it isunder duress or with a gun to his head.Everything was executed overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to thewithout nary a whimper on the part of the petitioner. contrary.Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes In fact, for the second wedding of petitioner and respondent, they conclusive.Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presented to the San Jose de Manuguit Church the marriage contract presumption and, in case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or executed during the previous wedding ceremony before the ManilaCity unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.Significantly, Hall.This is confirmed in petitioners testimony as follows apart from these, petitioner, by counsel, admitted that a marriage license was, indeed, issued in Carmona, Cavite. WITNESS Petitioner, in a faint attempt to demolish the probative value of the As I remember your honor, they asked us to get the necessary marriage license, claims that neither he nor respondent is a resident ofdocument prior to the wedding. Carmona, Cavite.Even then, we still hold that there is no sufficient basis COURT to annul petitioner and respondents marriage.Issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality, not the residence of either of theWhat particular document did the church asked you to produce?I am contracting parties, and issuance of a marriage license despite thereferring to the San Jose de Manuguit church. absence of publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period WITNESS for publication are considered mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage.An irregularity in any of the formal requisites of I dont remember your honor. marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible COURT for the irregularity are civilly, criminally and administratively liable. Were you asked by the church to present a Marriage License? Again, petitioner harps on the discrepancy between the marriage license number in the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar, which WITNESS states that the marriage license issued to the parties is No. 7054133, I think they asked us for documents and I said we have already a while the marriage contract states that the marriage license number ofMarriage Contract and I dont know if it is good enough for the marriage the parties is number 7054033.Once more, this argument fails to sway and they accepted it your honor. us.It is not impossible to assume that the same is a mere a

COURT In other words, you represented to the San Jose de Manuguit church that you have with you already a Marriage Contract? WITNESS Yes your honor. COURT That is why the San Jose de Manuguit church copied the same marriage License in the Marriage Contract issued which Marriage License is Number 7054033. WITNESS Yes your honor. The logical conclusion is that petitioner was amenable and a willing participant to all that took place at that time.Obviously, the church ceremony was confirmatory of their civil marriage, thereby cleansing whatever irregularity or defect attended the civil wedding. Likewise, the issue raised by petitioner that they appeared before a fixer who arranged everything for them and who facilitated the ceremony before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC Br Chapel will not strengthen his posture.The authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary.Moreover, the solemnizing officer is not duty-bound to investigate whether or not a marriage license has been duly and regularly issued by the local civil registrar.All the solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license has been issued by the competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled the duty to ascertain whether the contracting parties had fulfilled the requirements of law. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage.Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds.The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor.It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is Denied for lack of merit.The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143 of Makati City, dated 14 February 2000, areAFFIRMED.Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.