Facts:
Jaime O. Sevilla filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Carmelita N. Cardenas. He alleged that he never applied for a marriage license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita and never did they obtain any marriage license from any Civil Registry, consequently, no marriage license was presented to the solemnizing officer. He further alleged that although marriage license no. 2770792 was indicated in the marriage contract, the same was fictitious for he never applied for any marriage license. He presented three certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan.
The first two certifications state that "No marriage license Number 2770792 were ever issued by this Office. With regards to Marriage License Number 2880792, we exert all effort but we cannot find the said number. Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above problem." The third certification states that the said application and license do not exist in their Local Civil Registry Index and, therefore, appear to be fictitious.
For her part, Carmelita refuted these allegations of Jaime, and claims that she and Jaime were married civilly and in a church ceremony thereafter. Both marriages were registered with the local civil registry of Manila and the National Statistics Office. Jaime is estopped from invoking the lack of marriage license after having been married to her for 25 years.
The first two certifications state that "No marriage license Number 2770792 were ever issued by this Office. With regards to Marriage License Number 2880792, we exert all effort but we cannot find the said number. Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above problem." The third certification states that the said application and license do not exist in their Local Civil Registry Index and, therefore, appear to be fictitious.
For her part, Carmelita refuted these allegations of Jaime, and claims that she and Jaime were married civilly and in a church ceremony thereafter. Both marriages were registered with the local civil registry of Manila and the National Statistics Office. Jaime is estopped from invoking the lack of marriage license after having been married to her for 25 years.
The trial court declared the nullity of marriage of the parties based on the Jaime’s allegations that no marriage license was presented before a solemnizing officer. The CA reversed the decision.
Issue:
Are the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan stating that no Marriage License No. 2770792 as appearing in the marriage contract of the parties was issued sufficient to declare their marriage as null and void ab initio?
Held:
The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite diligent search. Such certification shall be sufficient proof of lack or absence of record as stated in Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
The first two certifications bear the statement that "hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above problem." It could be easily implied from the said statement that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine the existence of Marriage License No. 2770792 due to its "loaded work." Likewise, both certifications failed to state with absolute certainty whether or not such license was issued.
This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the representative from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had already retired. Further, the testimony of the said person was not presented in evidence. It does not appear on record that the former custodian of the logbook was deceased or missing, or that his testimony could not be secured. This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material contents therein, had been exerted.
Given the documentary and testimonial evidence to the effect that utmost efforts were not exerted to locate the logbook where Marriage License No. 2770792 may have been entered, the presumption of regularity of performance of official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is effectively rebutted.
This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the representative from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had already retired. Further, the testimony of the said person was not presented in evidence. It does not appear on record that the former custodian of the logbook was deceased or missing, or that his testimony could not be secured. This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material contents therein, had been exerted.
Given the documentary and testimonial evidence to the effect that utmost efforts were not exerted to locate the logbook where Marriage License No. 2770792 may have been entered, the presumption of regularity of performance of official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is effectively rebutted.
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty is disputable and can be overcome by other evidence as in the case at bar where the presumption has been effectively defeated by the tenor of the first and second certifications.
Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of Marriage License No. 2770792. It can also mean, as we believed true in the case at bar, that the logbook just cannot be found. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the said logbook, we cannot easily accept that absence of the same also means non-existence or falsity of entries therein.
Finally, the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. The courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.
The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and lived together for several years producing two offsprings, now adults themselves. It took Jaime several years before he filed the petition for declaration of nullity. Admittedly, he married another individual sometime in 1991. We are not ready to reward petitioner by declaring the nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy (Sevilla vs. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006).
Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of Marriage License No. 2770792. It can also mean, as we believed true in the case at bar, that the logbook just cannot be found. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the said logbook, we cannot easily accept that absence of the same also means non-existence or falsity of entries therein.
Finally, the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. The courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.
The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and lived together for several years producing two offsprings, now adults themselves. It took Jaime several years before he filed the petition for declaration of nullity. Admittedly, he married another individual sometime in 1991. We are not ready to reward petitioner by declaring the nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy (Sevilla vs. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006).
0 Comments
Post a Comment