ARTHUR V. PASCUA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SHIRLEY BULLOS PASCUA, RESPONDENTS.

Pascua versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is Pascua versus Republic of the Philippines and Shirley Bullos Pascua, a petition for review on certiorari brought by a husband who sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground that no valid marriage license was ever issued to him and his wife. The case matters because it settles a narrow but recurring evidentiary question in nullity practice: who is the competent officer to certify that a marriage license does not exist, and what weight may be given to a certification issued by someone who is not the legal custodian of the record. The Supreme Court denied the petition, and in doing so drew a sharp line between the Municipal Treasurer, who keeps blank accountable forms, and the Local Civil Registrar, who keeps the register of issued licenses.

Procedural History

Arthur filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before Branch 289 of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City. Shirley failed to file an answer and presented no evidence despite service of summons and notices of hearing, so after Arthur rested his case, the matter was submitted for decision. The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of evidence, holding that the officer responsible for issuing marriage licenses is the Local Civil Registrar and not the Municipal Treasurer, and that the Treasurer's certification could not be relied upon. Arthur moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied it.

Arthur then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full, agreeing that the certification lacked probative value because the duty to issue a marriage license and keep a record of it belongs to the Local Civil Registrar, even if fees are paid to the Municipal Treasurer. Arthur elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

On February 8, 2005, Arthur and Shirley were married at the Life Christian Fellowship Center in Caloocan City, solemnized by a reverend. Their Certificate of Marriage stated that the solemnizing officer had been shown Marriage License Number 5013850, purportedly issued to them on January 6, 2005 in Taytay, Rizal. They had two children and lived together as husband and wife for nine years, separating in 2014.

Arthur testified that the wedding was done in haste, arranged by his brother-in-law, who brought them to the solemnizing officer on the very day of the brother-in-law's own wedding before the same officer. Arthur suspected the license because neither he nor Shirley resided in Taytay, Rizal. In early 2017, he went to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Taytay and discovered that it had not issued that license on that date. He then obtained a Certification dated March 8, 2017 from the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal, stating that Accountable Form Number 54 with Serial Number 5013850 dated January 6, 2005, a marriage license issued to Arthur and Shirley, was not included in the series issued by the municipality.

At trial, the Treasurer's authorized representative identified the Certification and pages of the Marriage License Record Book, or Logbook, covering October 11, 2004 to August 22, 2006, and testified that there was no record of that serial number issued on that date. He also testified that the marriage license booklets in the Treasurer's custody are bought from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and he produced only a blank form bearing the Local Civil Registrar as authorized signatory.

Issues

• Whether or not the Certification of the Municipal Treasurer of Taytay, Rizal possesses probative value and may serve as proof that no valid marriage license was issued to Arthur and Shirley before their marriage on February 8, 2005.

Applicable Provisions

Article 3 of the Family Code provides:

Article 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.

This is the provision that makes a valid marriage license indispensable, so that its absence renders the marriage void from the beginning.

Article 9 of the Family Code provides:

A marriage license is issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides.

This identifies the Local Civil Registrar as the issuing officer, which is the premise for the ruling on custody of the records.

Article 25 of the Family Code provides:

The local civil registrar shall enter in a registry book all applications for marriage licenses, the names of the applicants, the date on which the marriage license was issued, and such other data as may be necessary.

This imposes on the Local Civil Registrar the duty to keep the register that a negative certification must speak about.

Section 28 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Section 28. Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his or her deputy that, after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his or her office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his or her office contain no such record or entry.

This is the rule that governs negative certifications, and it limits them to the officer who actually has custody of the record.

Section 470 of Republic Act Number 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, provides:

Section 470. Appointment, Qualifications, Powers, and Duties. (e) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance.

This is the catch-all provision Arthur invoked to claim that the Municipal Treasurer is the custodian of marriage licenses.

Ruling

The Court denied the petition for lack of merit and held that the Certification has no probative value. On the first issue, the Court reasoned that a marriage license and the application for it are official public documents required by law to be kept by the Local Civil Registrar and entered in the Register of Applications for Marriage License. Under Section 28 of Rule 132, a negative certification proves the absence of a record only if the certifying officer has records in his or her office relative to the document alleged to be non-existent. Since the Municipal Treasurer is not the custodian of the Register of Applications for Marriage License, the sworn applications, or other data on the issuance of licenses, the Certification cannot prove that no valid license was issued.

The Court stressed that the probative value of public documents flows from the presumption that the public officer regularly performed his duty as legal custodian, and that presumption cannot attach to one not required by law to prepare the document or make the entry. It also noted that the Certification did not comply with the requirement of a showing of diligent search.

On Arthur's reliance on the Local Government Code and the Local Treasury Operations Manual, the Court held that the accountable forms in the Treasurer's custody are blank, unaccomplished booklets requisitioned from government printers, held for inventory purposes only. The Logbook merely records batches of fifty serial numbers released to accountable officers, without the names of applicants or the dates of issuance of accomplished licenses. The Court quoted the Manual:

Section 86. Control of Official Receipts and Other Accountable Forms. The local treasurer shall be the custodian of all accountable forms requisitioned by the LGU. He/she shall maintain a complete record of the receipt, issue and transfer of accountable forms.

Thus, custody of the forms passes to the Local Civil Registrar, who is the authorized signatory on the face of the form. Neither the Logbook nor the Certification is reliable proof that no valid marriage license was issued.

Doctrine

To prove the absence or non-issuance of a marriage license, the negative certification required by Section 28 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence must come from the Local Civil Registrar, the legal custodian of the Register of Applications for Marriage License under Article 25 of the Family Code. A certification issued by a public officer who is not the legal custodian of the relevant record has no probative value, because the presumption of regularity attaches only to officers required by law to prepare the document or make the entry. The Municipal Treasurer's custody of Accountable Form Number 54 is limited to blank, unaccomplished booklets kept for inventory purposes, and a logbook of serial numbers released in batches does not record the issuance of an accomplished license to any particular applicant. Absent a valid license, the marriage is void from the beginning under Article 3 of the Family Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage for lack of evidence, so the Republic and Shirley prevailed and the marriage stands.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the negative certification proving the absence of a marriage license must come from the Local Civil Registrar, not the Municipal Treasurer, because only the legal custodian's certification carries probative value. Examiners use this case in evidence and persons questions on proof of lack of record and the presumption of regularity, and in civil law questions on the formal requisites of marriage.