Certification which merits nullity
The court opined that the certification merely stated that their supposed marriage license was issued to someone else, and not them
Aside from psychological incapacity and a host of other grounds, a marriage can be declared null and void if the parties did not obtain a marriage license before marriage.
Here is an interesting case of the absence of a marriage license. The wife filed for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband on the said ground. As her evidence, she presented the certification of the Local Civil Registrar which says that the marriage license she and her husband supposedly applied for, was actually issued to another couple. She also testified that she never recalled having gone to the civil registrar to apply for one.
Thus, she asked the court to declare her marriage null and void. The trial court, however, refused to grant her petition. The court opined that the certification merely stated that their supposed marriage license was issued to someone else, and not them. It did not certify that there was no marriage license at all issued to them. With such doubt, the court resolved to deny it.
Obviously, the wife did not take this sitting down. She brought the matter to the Court of Appeals. Sadly, the appellate court did not side with her. The court agreed with the trial court’s interpretation.
Undaunted, the wife requested the Supreme Court to resolve the issue. With the finding already by two courts, the trial and appellate courts, the odds of reversal were quite nil. Besides, the findings of both courts seem anchored on solid ground. Despite what these courts said, however, the Supreme Court saw the matter from a different perspective.
The Supreme Court discussed several cases on the interpretation of certifications issued by the civil registrar.
Thereafter, the Highest Court declared that “bearing in mind the duties of the local civil registrar, the rules governing the registration of applications for marriage license and certificates of marriage, and the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter, the Court finds the 2015 QCCR Certification sufficient to establish that Lovelle and Henry’s marriage had been solemnized without a valid marriage license. To recall, the first part of the 2015 QCCR Certification states that ‘per Registry Records of Marriage License files (in the CRD-QC) no record of Marriage License No. 131078 dated November 9, 2000, allegedly issued in favor of (Henry) and (Lovelle) appears.”
“This corroborates Lovelle’s testimony to the effect that she never appeared before the CRD-QC to file an application for a marriage license. Hence, the first part of the 2015 QCCR Certification, when considered in light of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules and in connection with Lovelle’s testimony, confirms that Lovelle and Henry did not file the required application for marriage license in connection with Marriage License 131078. The non-filing of the requisite application for marriage license is rendered even more apparent by the second part of the 2015 QCCR Certification, which states that the marriage license referred to in Lovelle and Henry’s Certificate of Marriage had actually been issued to Yambao and Parado.
“This statement is further supported by the documentary evidence formally offered by Lovelle. The circumstances in Abbas are strikingly similar to those in the present case. Like the certificate presented in Abbas, the 2015 QCCR Certification also states that the marriage license number indicated in Lovelle and Henry’s Certificate of Marriage refers to a license issued to a different couple. As well, similar to Gloria’s allegation in Abbas, the OSG’s assertions regarding the insufficiency of the 2015 QCCR Certification are unsubstantiated.
As her evidence, she presented the certification of the Local Civil Registrar which says that the marriage license was actually issued to another couple.
“To recall, the Republic attacks the sufficiency of the 2015 QCCR Certification as it lacks a categorical statement that ACCR Carino conducted ‘a diligent search’ to find Lovelle and Henry’s marriage license in the records of CRD-QC. This argument lacks merit.
As held in Abbas, the absence of the words ‘despite diligent search’ in the certification of the local civil registrar does not, on its own, diminish the probative value of the certification.”
Interesting is it not? I do find the interpretation of the trial court plausible. After all, the certification merely said that the parties’ marriage license was issued to someone else. So it is possible that another marriage license was issued to them. But then again, I agree with the Supreme Court in light of the plethora of cases it cited in resolving this case. Am happy for the petitioner. Finally, she got what she wanted after that tedious battle.
The facts and citation are from Lovelle S. Cariaga vs. the Republic of the Philippines and Henry G. Cariaga (G.R. 248643 promulgated on 7 December 2021).