G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINA M. CASTRO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Angelina M. Castro sought a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas, solemnized on June 24, 1970, on the ground of absence of a marriage license. The marriage was a civil ceremony performed without her parents’ knowledge. The marriage contract indicated Marriage License No. 3196182 was issued in Pasig on June 24, 1970. The couple cohabited only briefly. Years later, Castro discovered through her lawyer that no such license existed, supported by a certification from the Civil Registrar of Pasig stating that after a search, License No. 3196182 did not appear in their records. Castro testified she never applied for nor signed any application for a license.
The trial court denied the petition, holding the certification was inadequate to prove non-issuance, as the inability to locate a document is not conclusive proof of its absence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declared the marriage null and void, and ordered the cancellation of the marriage contract. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed this petition, arguing the evidence was insufficient to overthrow the legal presumption of marriage validity and the presumption of regularity in the performance of the solemnizing officer’s duties.

ISSUE

Whether the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued prior to the celebration of the marriage.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling the evidence was sufficient. Under the governing New Civil Code, a marriage license is an essential requisite; its absence renders a marriage void ab initio. The certification from the Civil Registrar of Pasig, stating that after diligent search no such license record existed, is admissible under Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court as proof of lack of record. As the custodian of such records, the civil registrar’s certification, unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion, sufficiently proved the non-issuance of the license.
The Court found Castro’s uncorroborated testimony credible given the peculiar circumstances. The marriage was initially secret, and her husband, though duly notified, was declared in default for failure to participate, with no evidence of collusion. The presumption of regularity in the solemnizing officer’s act was overcome by the positive evidence of the missing license, which suggested a spurious document may have been presented. Thus, the totality of evidence adequately established the absence of a marriage license, a fatal defect invalidating the marriage.