Republic - v - CA, Castro
GR 103047
2.
They did not immediately lived together as
husband and wife until May 1971 when Castro discovered she was pregnant.
Cohabitation only lasted for 4 month and parted ways.
Sept. 2, 1994
Ponente: Puno, J.
Facts:
1.
June 24, 1970: Angelina Castro and Edwin
Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Malvar (City Court
Judge of Pasay) without the knowledge of Castro’s parents. Cardenas personally processed the documents
required for including marriage licence which number is 3196182 in the name of
the contracting parties in Pasig, MM.
3.
Castro gave birth on October 19, 1971. The baby
was adopted by her brother with consent of Cardenas and now in the US.
4.
Desiring to follow her daughter, Castro wanted
to put in order her marital status before leaving US. She consulted Atty.
Pulgar regarding possible annulment of marriage. They discovered tat there was
no marriage licence issued to Cardenas prior to celebration of their marriage.
5.
Trial court denied petition and held that
the certification was inadequate to establish the alleged non-issuance of a
marriage licence prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties
and ruled that the “inability
of the certifying official to locate the marriage licence is not conclusive to
show that there was no marriage licence issued.”
6.
Castro appealed and appellate court reversed
the decision of the trial court.
7.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: WON the documentary and
testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to
establish that no marriage licence was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig
prior to the celebration of the marriage of Casto and Cardenas
Held/Ratio: Yes. The marriage was
solemnised on June 24, 1970 with the law governing marital relations was New
Civil Code which provides that no marriage shall be solemnised without a
marriage licence first issued by a local civl registrar. Being one of the
essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a licence would render the
marriage void ab initio.
The certification of “due search and inability to
find” issued by the cvil
registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the officer under the law
to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage licence.
Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant t Sec. 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 licence no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.
Notes:
-
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 both of the contracting
parties)
-
fact that only Castro testified during trial
cannot be held against her, Cardenas was properly held in default for ignoring
the notice of the proceedings
-
it may have been that a spurious marriage
licence purporting to be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig may have been
presented by Cardenas to the solemnising officer
Decision: DENIED. NO SHOWING OF ANY
REVERSIBLE ERROR COMMITTED BY CA.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
