Kho vs. Republic of the Philippines

RAQUEL G. KHO, Petitioner, 
vs. 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA B. KHO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 187462
June 1, 2016

FACTS:

In the afternoon of May 31, 1972, petitioner Raquel’s parents instructed the clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer to arrange and prepare the necessary papers required for the intended marriage between petitioner and respondent Veronica to take place at around midnight of June 1, 1972 so as to exclude the public from witnessing the marriage ceremony. Petitioner and respondent thereafter exchanged marital vows in a marriage ceremony which actually took place at around 3:00 o’clock before dawn of June 1, 1972. 

Twenty-five (25) years later, petitioner filed an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage between him and respondent on the ground of the absence of marriage license. He argued that he has never gone to the office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for marriage license and had not seen much less signed any papers or documents in connection with the procurement of a marriage license. He presented a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar which attested to the fact that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has neither record nor copy of a marriage license issued to petitioner and respondent with respect to their marriage celebrated on June 1, 1972.

ISSUE:

Is the Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar attesting to the fact that it has no record or copy of the marriage license adequate to prove the non-issuance of such license, thus, sufficient to declare the marriage null and void?

HELD:

Yes. The marriage of petitioner and respondent was celebrated on June 1, 1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Hence, the Civil Code governs their union. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a contract which include “a marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character”.

Article 80(3) of the Civil Code also makes it clear that a marriage performed without the corresponding marriage license is void. In this case, petitioner was able to present a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar attesting that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has no record or copy of any marriage license ever issued in favor of petitioner and respondent.

Thus, on the basis of such Certification, the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been overcome and it becomes the burden of respondent to prove that their marriage is valid as it is she who alleges such validity. However, the respondent was not able to discharge that burden. Respondent failed to present their alleged marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. In addition, the Certificate of Marriage issued by the officiating priest does not contain any entry regarding the said marriage license. As the marriage license, an essential requisite under the Civil Code, is clearly absent and the marriage cannot be characterized as among the exceptions, the marriage of petitioner and respondent is void ab initio.