Facts:

In 1970, Angelina and Edwin were married in a civil ceremony performed by a judge in Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Angelina's parents. Edwin personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license. The marriage contract states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig City.

The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was a secret. It was only in March 1971, when Angelina discovered she was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. However, after 4 months, they parted ways. In October 1971, Angelina gave birth. The baby was adopted by Angelina's brother, with the consent of Edwin.

The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her daughter, Angelina wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer regarding the possible annulment of her marriage. Through her lawyer's efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Edwin prior to the celebration of their marriage.

Angelina filed a petition seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of absence of a marriage license. She offered in evidence the certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig City certifying that marriage license no. 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 cannot be located. She testified that she did not go to the Civil Registrar of Pasig in order to apply for a license. Neither did she sign any application therefor. She affixed her signature only on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in Pasay City.

The trial court denied the petition. It held that the above certification was inadequate to establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the "inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued."


Issue:

Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by Angelina are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the marriage.


Held:

Yes. The presentation of such certification in court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, viz.:

Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.

The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data. 

The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.

The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" — a legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. Furthermore, Edwin was duly served with notice of the proceedings but he chose to ignore. (Republic vs. CA and Castro, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994)