G.R. No. 167746; August 28, 2007
Restituto M. Alcantara, Petitioner, vs. Rosita A. Alcantara and Hon. Court of Appeals, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Restituto Alcantara filed a petition for annulment of his marriage to respondent Rosita Alcantara, alleging their marriage was void for lack of a valid marriage license. He claimed they were married on December 8, 1982, through a “fixer” at Manila City Hall without securing a license. A second ceremony occurred on March 26, 1983, at a church. Petitioner asserted the marriage license indicated on their contract, allegedly procured from Carmona, Cavite, was a sham as neither party resided there. They cohabited, had a child in 1985, and separated in 1988.
Respondent opposed the petition, asserting the marriage’s validity and presenting a certification from the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite, confirming the issuance of a marriage license. She contended petitioner filed for annulment to evade a concubinage case she had filed against him. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for annulment, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which upheld the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the license and the prima facie evidence value of the marriage contract.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of the marriage despite petitioner’s claim of absence of a valid marriage license at the time of solemnization.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. Applying the Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the marriage in 1982, a marriage license is an essential formal requisite. However, the Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, which applies to the issuance of the marriage license by the Carmona civil registrar. This presumption means that the license was regularly issued unless convincingly rebutted.
Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. His bare allegations about dealing with a fixer and non-residency in Carmona were insufficient. The certification from the civil registrar and the marriage contract, a public document, constituted prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, including the existence of the license. The discrepancy in the license number noted by petitioner was deemed a minor clerical error that did not invalidate the license itself or the marriage. Consequently, the marriage was declared valid, and the petition for annulment was properly dismissed for lack of merit.