Republic v. Lazaro

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237321. November 24, 2021.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. REYNOLD Q. LAZARO AND JACKELIN L. NAVARRO-LAZARO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 237321 (Republic of the Philippines v. Reynold Q. Lazaro and Jackelin L. Navarro-Lazaro). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) assailing the Decision 2 dated July 31, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104662. The CA Decision 4 affirmed the Decision 5 dated November 4, 2013 of Branch 130, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Caloocan City granting Reynold Q. Lazaro's (Reynold) action for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Jackelin L. Navarro-Lazaro (Jackelin), while the CA Resolution 6 denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The present case stems from a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Reynold against Jackelin before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. C-22497. In his petition, Reynold raised the absence of a marriage license as a ground for the nullification of his marriage to Jackelin, as provided for under Article 4 of the Family Code. 7

After Reynold and Jackelin decided to get married due to the latter's pregnancy, Reynold went to the Manila City Hall on August 3, 2000 to inquire about the process of a civil wedding. 8 An unnamed person told him that a pastor would officiate a wedding on August 5, 2000 and that he could take care of the necessary requirements therefor. On August 5, 2000, Reynold and Jackelin were married in the presence of Reynold's parents, sister, aunt, Jackelin's brother, and sister-in-law. As evidenced by their marriage certificate, the marriage was solemnized by virtue of Marriage License No. 4025408 purportedly issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite. 9

Reynold and Jackelin lived together for about five years. In 2005, however, they parted ways due to marital conflicts and financial problems. When Reynold prepared for the filing of the present petition, he found out that Marriage License No. 4025408 did not exist — it was not issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite — and that it was not among the marriage licenses recorded in the said office. 10

Ruling of the RTC

In its Decision 11 dated November 4, 2013, the RTC found that no valid marriage license was issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite under the names of Reynold and Jackelin. 12 It ruled that the marriage of Reynold and Jackelin was void ab initio because the officiated marriage was not one of those exempt from the license requirement, and that the lack of a valid marriage license is an absence of a formal requisite: 13

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision 14 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Declaring the marriage of petitioner Reynod [sic] Q. Lazaro and respondent Jackelin L. Navarro-Lazaro solemnized on August 5, 2000 in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila and entered in the Register of Marriage of the Civil Registry of Las Piñas City as Register No. 2000-3934 NULL and VOID AB INITIO having been contracted without a valid marriage license;

2. Declaring the absolute community of property of the petitioner and the respondent DISSOLVED and TERMINATED, but there being no properties acquired during their marriage, no liquidation, partition and distribution of common properties are provided for herein. However, all personal properties now in the possession and under the control of the petitioner and the respondent are awarded to them as his or her own share of common properties and each shall bear any lien or encumbrance thereon;

3. Respondent Jackelin L. Navarro-Lazaro hereby retains custody of the minor child David Hans Navarro Lazaro, giving, however, the petitioner Reynold Q. Lazaro liberal and reasonable visitation rights.

4. Authorizing the respondent Jackelin Llanes Navarro to revert to and use her maiden name and surname in accordance with Article 371 of the New Civil Code.

Pursuant to Article 52 of the Family Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, Metro Manila (Marriage Register No. 200-3934) [sic] as well as the City Civil Registrar of Caloocan who are both directed to cause the registration of this Decision in their proper Books of Civil Registry.

SO ORDERED. 15

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it in the Order dated May 23, 2014. 16

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In its Decision 17 dated July 31, 2017, the CA denied petitioner's appeal. It sustained the RTC's finding that the certification from the Local Civil Registrar was adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license and, absent any suspicious circumstance, it enjoys probative value. 18 While Jackelin adduced in evidence Marriage License No. 4025408 supposedly issued by the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, the CA noted the following: the document was a mere photocopy and there is no indication that it was issued by the said office; and Jackelin failed to present the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, or her representative, as a witness who could have brought the Registry Book of the Civil Registry of Las Piñas City to testify on the authenticity of Marriage License No. 4025408. 19

The fallo of the CA Decision reads:

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 4 November 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 130, in Civil Case No. C-22497, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 20

Hence, the present petition.

Issue

Petitioner raises the core issue of whether the CA erred in giving credence to Reynold's evidence, which established the absence of marriage license at the time of the solemnization of his marriage with Jackelin.

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

As the marriage of Reynold and Jackelin was solemnized on August 5, 2000, it is the Family Code that is applicable. The pertinent provisions that would apply to this case are Articles 3, 4, and 35 (3), which state:

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 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.

Art. 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).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.

An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.

Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

xxx xxx xxx.

(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered by the preceding Chapter.

xxx xxx xxx.

The resolution of the case hinges on whether a valid marriage license was issued for Reynold and Jackelin. Both the RTC and the CA held that there was none.

There is no reason now to depart from the lower courts' findings.

In Republic v. CA and Castro (Castro), 21 the Court was confronted with the similar issue of whether the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the private respondent therein are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas. 22

In Castro, the Court found that 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. Accordingly, 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. His certification of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently proved that his office did not issue Marriage License No. 3196182 to the contracting parties. 23

Similarly, in Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 24 the Court held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that its office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove its non-issuance. Absent any circumstance of suspicion, such certification issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, the latter being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. 25 The Court explained:

Such being the case, the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and the deceased has been sufficiently overcome. It then became the burden of petitioner to prove that their marriage is valid and that they secured the required marriage license. Although she was declared in default before the trial court, petitioner could have squarely met the issue and explained the absence of a marriage license in her pleadings before the Court of Appeals and this Court. But petitioner conveniently avoided the issue and chose to refrain from pursuing an argument that will put her case in jeopardy. Hence, the presumed validity of their marriage cannot stand.

It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased, having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license, and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, is undoubtedly void ab initio. 26

More recently, in Abbas v. Abbas, 27 the Court reiterated its ruling in Castro and affirmed that the certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value, as his duty was to maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. 28

In all those cases, it was clearly ruled that an absence of a marriage license rendered the subject marriages void.

In this case, a certification was duly issued by Ms. Violeta P. Sañez, Municipal Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Imus, Cavite, attesting that no application for a marriage license was made by Reynold and Jackelin between the period of May to August 2000. 29 Nothing in the record also shows that Marriage License No. 4025408 was ever issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite in their favor. 30 Significantly, the certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and may only be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. However, as in the case, the presumption prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 31

As found by the RTC and CA, on the basis of such certification by the Municipal Civil Registrar, the presumption of the validity of the marriage of Reynold and Jackelin has been overcome. Thus, it becomes the burden of petitioner to rebut the certification or disprove its regularity. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge such a burden. The fact remains that petitioner failed to prove that Marriage License No. 4025408 was issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite. The law is clear that a marriage which is performed without the corresponding marriage license is null and void. 32

Yet, petitioner insists that Reynold failed to present substantial evidence that he contracted marriage with Jackelin without a valid marriage license. On the contrary, the latter submitted Marriage License No. 4025408 purportedly issued by the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City.

The Court is not persuaded.

There is no substantial distinction between a photocopy or a "xerox" copy, and a true copy of an official document, as long as the photocopy is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his/her duly authorized representative, and the photocopy is a faithful reproduction of the original. Here, Jackelin adduced Marriage License No. 4025408 purportedly issued by the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City as evidence. Strikingly, though, it was a mere photocopy, not certified by the proper officer. Neither the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City nor her representative was presented as a witness. Further, the task of applying for the license was supposedly delegated by Jackelin to her mother, who could have testified as to how the license was secured. Again, Jackelin failed to do this. As she failed to present her mother or the City Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite attesting that no application for a marriage license was made by Reynold and Jackelin enjoys utmost probative value. 33

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 31, 2017 and the Resolution dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104662 are AFFIRMED. The marriage celebrated on August 5, 2000 between respondent Reynold Q. Lazaro and Jackelin L. Navarro-Lazaro is hereby declared void ab initio for lack of a marriage license at the time of celebration.

Further, the Court resolves to NOTE the:

1. Notice of Change of Address dated September 7, 2021 of counsel for respondent Jackelin L. Navarro-Lazaro to No. 419 Rm. 2, 2F PPSTA Bldg. 1, Quezon Avenue cor. Banawe St., Brgy. Lourdes, Quezon City; and

2. Letter dated November 18, 2021 of Fernando C. Prieto, Chief Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila transmitting the original records and CA rollo of CA-G.R. CV No. 104662.

SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 9-20.

2.Id. at 24-34; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.

3.Id. at 35-36; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.

4.Id. at 24-34.

5.Id. at 42-47; penned by Presiding Judge Raymundo G. Vallega.

6.Id. at 35-36.

7.Id. at 24-25.

8.Id. at 43.

9.Id. at 25.

10.Id. at 25.

11.Id. at 42-47.

12.Id. at 45.

13.Id. at 46.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 46-47.

16.Id. at 28.

17.Id. at 24-34.

18.Id. at 31.

19.Id. at 32.

20.Id. at 33.

21. 306 Phil. 284 (1994).

22.Id. at 289.

23.Id. at 290.

24. 403 Phil. 861 (2001).

25.Id. at 869.

26.Id. at 870.

27. 702 Phil. 578 (2013).

28.Id. at 591.

29.Rollo, p. 45.

30.Id.

31.Alcantara v. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192, 204-205 (2007).

32.Kho v. Republic, 786 Phil. 43, 56 (2016).

33. See Abbas v. Abbas, supra note 27.