RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA, PETITIONER, VS. ROSITA A. ALCANTARA AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Alcantara versus Alcantara

The Case

This is Restituto Alcantara against his wife Rosita Alcantara, a petition to annul their marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. The case matters because it draws the exact line a Bar candidate must know: when is the absence of a marriage license fatal, and when is it merely an irregularity that leaves the marriage standing? The Supreme Court uses the case to restate the strong presumption in favor of the validity of marriage and to remind us that a party who himself arranged the wedding cannot later use its defects as a sword.

Procedural History

Restituto filed a petition for annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ordered him to pay twenty thousand pesos a month as support for their two children, and ordered him to pay the costs. Restituto appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court and held that the marriage license is presumed to have been regularly issued and that he had presented no evidence to overcome that presumption. His motion for reconsideration was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On the eighth of December 1982, Restituto and Rosita went to the Manila City Hall without a marriage license, looking for someone who could arrange a wedding for them. For a fee, a person arranged their marriage before Reverend Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel. They were married that same day. On the twenty-sixth of March 1983, they went through a second ceremony, this time at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, again without securing a marriage license. The marriage contract bore a license number supposedly issued in Carmona, Cavite, but Restituto claimed it was a sham because neither of them resided in Carmona and neither ever applied there for a license.

A child, Rose Ann, was born on the fourteenth of October 1985, and a second daughter, Rachel Ann, on the twenty-seventh of October 1992. In 1988 the spouses separated and lived apart. Restituto later kept a mistress with whom he had three children, and Rosita filed a concubinage case against him. Rosita insisted the marriage was valid and that a license had in fact been issued, as shown by a certification from the civil registry of Carmona, Cavite. She claimed the annulment was merely Restituto's way of evading prosecution for concubinage.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petition for annulment had no legal and factual basis despite the claim that there was no marriage license at the precise moment of the solemnization of the marriage.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in giving weight to the marriage license number appearing in the registrar's certification even though it differed from the number on the face of the marriage contract.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in failing to apply the ruling in Sy versus Court of Appeals.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not relaxing procedural rules to protect the substantial rights of the parties.

Applicable Provisions

The marriage was celebrated in 1982, before the Family Code took effect, so the Court applies the Civil Code. Article 53 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (2) Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.

This is the provision that makes a marriage license a formal requisite, and its absence the very ground Restituto invokes.

Article 58 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 58. Save marriages of an exceptional character authorized in Chapter 2 of this Title, but not those under article 75, no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides.

This fixes where the license must be obtained, which bears on Restituto's argument that neither party resided in Carmona.

Article 80, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code provides:

Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character.

This is the provision that declares such a marriage void from the beginning, and it is the consequence the Court weighs against the evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denies the petition. To be considered void for absence of a marriage license, the absence must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such license was issued. Here the marriage contract reflects a license number, and the civil registrar of Carmona issued a certification precisely identifying the parties to whom the license was issued. That certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and the presumption prevails until overcome by clear and convincing evidence, which Restituto did not present. The Court notes that his own counsel admitted a license was issued in Carmona.

On the second issue, the discrepancy between the license number in the certification and the number on the contract does not save him. A closer look at the contract shows the numbers zero and one overlapping, so the entry may read either way, and the difference is at most a typographical error. On the residence argument, the Court holds that issuing a license in a place where neither party resides is a mere irregularity that does not affect the validity of the marriage. On the third issue, Sy versus Court of Appeals does not apply, because there the license was issued almost a year after the ceremony, showing plainly that no license existed at the time of the wedding. On the fourth issue, there is no procedural rule to relax, since the petition fails on the merits.

The Court also invokes the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands. Restituto initiated the civil wedding, is an educated mechanical engineer, and willingly went through both ceremonies, presenting the first marriage contract to the church for the second. He cannot now extricate himself from a bond merely because the situation no longer suits him. Finally, the Court states the maxim semper praesumitur pro matrimonio, meaning the presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage.

Doctrine

First, a marriage is void for absence of a marriage license only where that absence is apparent on the marriage contract, or is supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no license was issued. Second, a certification from the local civil registrar enjoys the presumption of regularity of official duty, which prevails until rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Third, a license issued in a place where neither party resides is a mere irregularity that does not affect the validity of the marriage. Fourth, the presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage, and every intendment of law and fact leans toward it. Fifth, a party who himself arranged and willingly entered into the marriage cannot later use its defects to escape the bond.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court were affirmed, with costs against Restituto.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: absence of a marriage license voids a marriage only when it appears on the marriage contract or is certified by the local civil registrar, and the presumption always favors the validity of the marriage. Examiners use this case to test the void marriage for absence of a license against the mere irregularity of a license issued outside the parties' residence, and to test the clean hands doctrine against a spouse who arranged his own defective wedding.