Republic v. Court of Appeals 1994

Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines

Respondents: Court of Appeals and Angelina M. Castro

Persons / Marriage Licenses

SUMMARY: Respondent Castro seeks to nullify her marriage to Edwin Cardenas claiming that there was no marriage license issued to them. While trial court held that failure to find license does not nullify the marriage, court of appeals reversed the decision of trial court. Republic of the Philippines petitioned for review the decision of the CoA and dismisses petition of the Republic.

FACTS:

June 24, 1970: Castro and Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar. Marriage was celebrated without knowledge of Castro’s parents.

Defendant Cardenas attended to the processing of the documents required for marriage, which includes the marriage license. Their marriage contract states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued to them on June 24, 1970.

Castro had a baby which was adopted by Castro’s brother, with the consent of Cardenas. Baby is now in US and Castro wishes to follow, but wants to put her marital status in order before leaving.

Castro seeks to nullify marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas and finds that there was no marriage license issued to them prior to the marriage.

As proof of no marriage, Castro offered a certification from the civil register which states that marriage license no. 3196182 does not appear in their records

Trial court denied petition on grounds that certification is inadequate to establish non-issuance of marriage license

o “inability of certifying official to locate marriage license is not conclusive to sow

that there was no marriage license issued” Castro appealed to respondent appellate court

o Respondent appellate court reversed decision of trial court

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines said that appellate court erred when it ruled that the certification issued by the civil registrar was enough

o CoA also relied too much on the self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of

private respondent o CoA disregarded the assumption that solemnizing officer, Pablo M. Malvar,

performed his duties when he attested in the marriage contract that marriage license no. 3196182 was presented to him before solemnization of marriage

ISSUE/S:

WoN documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that marriage license was not issued by the civil registrar prior to the celebration of marriage of Castro to Cardenas

o YES. The presentation of certification from the civil registrar enjoys probative

value. Because they can’t find the record of it, civil registrar certifies that their office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182

o The lone testimony of petitioner is mainly because of their secret marriage

This cannot be held against her because Cardenas was duly served with notice of proceedings

Cardenas’ failure to appear/answer declares him in default

NOTES: