SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 188519. June 3, 2013.]
ELMER H. BERMUNDO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JUVY LUCAS BERMUNDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 June 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 188519 (Elmer H. Bermundo, petitioner, v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Republic of the Philippines and Juvy Lucas Bermundo, respondents).
For resolution of the Court is the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed by Elmer H. Bermundo (petitioner), assailing the Decision, 2 dated 31 March 2009, and the Resolution, 3 dated 25 June 2009, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87317. The CA found the appeal interposed by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), meritorious, thereby reversing and setting aside the Decision, 4 dated 29 December 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 113, Pasay City, which annulled the marriage of petitioner to Juvy L. Bermundo (respondent). The CA declared the marriage as valid and subsisting.
The Facts
On 30 May 2005, petitioner filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage to respondent in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 45 of the Family Code. The petition alleged that petitioner's consent to the marriage was obtained through force, intimidation and undue influence. aAIcEH
According to petitioner, sometime in the latter part of May 1998, respondent was introduced to him by a friend. From that time on, they became close to each other. However, in 1999, they both left for work abroad; hence, they stopped seeing each other. When he returned to the Philippines in 2002, they resumed their friendship when respondent came to his house and invited him to go with her to Tagaytay. He accepted the invitation and they both went to Tagaytay where they had a few drinks. Respondent allegedly took advantage of the situation and initiated sex, to which he acceded. 5
Petitioner went on to relate that when they returned to Manila after the incident in Tagaytay, he started avoiding respondent. However, respondent's friends — three males and two females — constantly visited his house to demand money, at the same time threatening to kill him if he does not marry respondent. He was thus forced to give them P70,000.00. He did not report the matter to the authorities believing that by avoiding them, the threats would subside. 6
On 24 January 2003, respondent and her five aforementioned friends once more went to petitioner's house to convince him to go with them to a party. Petitioner claimed that since he did not want to cause a scene, he went with them against his will. To his surprise, however, he found themselves at the Manila City Hall where respondent's friends forced him to accomplish and sign some documents. Thereafter, somebody came and solemnized their wedding. 7 Immediately after the ceremony, respondent and her friends again demanded money from petitioner. In the hope that they would finally stop bothering him, he gave them P60,000.00. 8 They then went their separate ways. Although the wedding took place in Manila, petitioner was surprised to find out, when he later on secured a copy of their certificate of marriage, that it was made to appear therein that the wedding was celebrated in San Juan. 9
The last time petitioner saw respondent was sometime in April 2003 when she, together with her friends, went to his house to ask for money. He gave them the amount of P20,000.00 to avoid any problem. 10 From that time on, petitioner never saw respondent again. They never lived together as husband and wife, they did not acquire any properties, nor did they have any children. 11 Finally, in order to completely avoid respondent and her friends, petitioner transferred residence in April 2004. 12
In a Resolution dated 18 January 2010, the Court resolved, among others, to "REQUIRE petitioner to submit within ten (10) days from notice, the current and correct address of respondent Juvy Lucas Bermundo in view of the returned and unserved copy of the Resolution dated 2 September 2009 (which required respondents to comment on the petition) sent to respondent Juvy Lucas Bermundo at San Joaquin St., San Juan City, with notation 'RTS, Insufficient.'" 13
On 25 April 2012, the Court resolved to note and accept the compliance filed by counsel for petitioner with the aforementioned Resolution of the Court, submitting the current address of respondent at Bulanos, Narvacan, 2704 Ilocos Sur. 14
In view of the continued failure of respondent to file her comment to the petition, as required in the Resolution of the Court dated 2 September 2009, despite service thereof at Bulanos, Narvacan, 2704, Ilocos Norte, the Court issued a Resolution dated 13 February 2013 resolving to dispense with the comment of respondent. 15
The Ruling of the RTC
On 29 December 2005, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the herein petition is hereby granted, ordering as follows:
1. Ordering the marriage between Elmer H. Bermundo and Juvy C. Lucas, celebrated on January 24, 2003, annulled pursuant to the provision of paragraph No. 4, Article 45 of the Family Code;
2. Ordering the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, to cancel the entries of the said marriage, from the Book of Marriage, under Register No. 2003-1583; DHAcET
3. In lieu thereof, to record/register the herein decision, according to law;
4. Be it noted, that neither personal nor real properties were jointly acquired by both parties, considering that they never lived together as husband and wife. 16
The Ruling of the CA
On appeal by the OSG, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC upon a finding that petitioner's evidence failed to prove: (1) the absence of a valid marriage license; and (2) force, intimidation and undue influence to support his contention of vitiated consent to his marriage with respondent.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
After a review of the records of this case, we see no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA.
1. Petitioner maintains that his marriage to respondent was solemnized without a marriage license because they simply went to the Manila City Hall where her friends arranged for their marriage after threatening him with bodily harm. He and respondent did not go to San Juan, Metro Manila to apply for a marriage license. In fact, their marriage was celebrated in Manila and not in San Juan. Even assuming that a marriage license from San Juan was issued to them, the same is not valid since neither he nor respondent was a resident of San Juan. 17
Article 3 of the Family Code provides:
ART. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
A marriage license being a formal requisite of marriage, the absence thereof renders a marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 4 18 of the Family Code.
Nevertheless, a marriage license is a public document; as such, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. 19 We consider this principle together with the fact that petitioner's and respondent's marriage contract is also a public document, and, as such, it is prima facie proof, under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, 20 of their questioned marriage. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption lies with petitioner who is challenging its validity.
In the case of Alcantara v. Alcantara, 21the Court pointed out that the "cases where the court considered the absence of a marriage license as a ground for considering the marriage void are clear-cut," viz.:
In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the Local Civil Registrar issued a certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the effect that Marriage License No. 3196182 was issued to the parties. The Court held that the certification of "due search and inability to find" a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, 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. Based on said certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the marriage void ab initio. SEHaTC
In Cariño v. Cariño, the Court considered the marriage of therein petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santiago S. Cariño as void ab initio. The records reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license. Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly void ab initio.
In Sy v. Court of Appeals, the marriage license was issued on 17 September 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on 15 November 1973. The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license.
In all these cases, there was clearly an absence of a marriage license which rendered the marriage void.
Clearly, from these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.
In the case at bar, as pointed out by the CA, petitioner failed to present any concrete proof, such as a certification from the local civil registrar of San Juan, to attest to the fact that the challenged marriage license does not exist in their records, or that the same is spurious. More importantly, the marriage contract between petitioner and respondent reflects a license number: 4920018, issued on 24 January 2003 at San Juan, Metro Manila. 22
2. Likewise, petitioner's claim of vitiated consent as a result of the force and intimidation employed by respondent's friends in obtaining his agreement to his marriage with respondent has no merit.
We agree with the ratiocination of the CA on this point:
Petitioner is an educated person. He is a seaman by profession. He knowingly and voluntarily went out with respondent's friends and even if, as he insisted, he was surprised that they did not go to the place that they intended to be and instead, they went to the Manila City Hall, he still knowingly and voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. We find as incredible, petitioner's claim that respondent's friends tried to threaten him if he would not marry respondent considering that the City Hall of Manila is a crowded place. Thus, if he was really being threatened into marrying respondent, he could have easily sought for immediate help from other people within the premises.
xxx xxx xxx
The records disclose that no evidence was presented to reveal force, intimidation or undue influence. There is no proof of the facts or circumstances constituting force, intimidation or undue influence that respondent or her friends have improperly taken advantage of, or used their power, if any, over the will of petitioner, depriving him of a reasonable freedom of choice. Petitioner is a healthy male with sufficient intellectual capacity to resist any untoward intimidation against him. 23
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner should have summoned other witnesses including the solemnizing officer to testify in his favor. His failure to report the so-called threats to his life and the demands for money casts serious doubt on the veracity of his claim. It is well-settled that evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. 24
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 31 March 2009 and the Resolution dated 25 June 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 87317 are hereby AFFIRMED. CARPIO, J. on Court's Wellness Program, LEONEN, J. designated acting member. AScTaD
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-15.
2.Id. at 24-32. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, concurring.
3.Id. at 33-34.
4.Id. at 20-23.
5.Id. at 25-26.
6.Id. at 26.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 21.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 26.
11.Id. at 26 and 27.
12.Id. at 26.
13.Id. at 96.
14.Id. at 127.
15.Id. at 129.
16.Id. at 23.
17.Id. at 28.
18.Article 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).
19.Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 1161, 1169 (2000).
20.Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
21.G.R. No. 167746, 28 August 2007, 531 SCRA 446, 454-455 citing the cases of Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 103047, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 257, 262; Cariño v. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001, 351 SCRA 127, 133; and Sy v. CA, 386 Phil. 760, 769 (2000).
22.Records, p. 6.
23.Rollo, pp. 29 and 31.
24.Id. at 31, citing People v. Ulpindo, 256 SCRA 201 (1996).