TOPIC:
Art. 22. The marriage certificate, in which the parties shall declare that they take each other as husband and wife, shall also state:
(4) That the proper marriage license has been issued according to law, except in marriage provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
Art. 23. It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license and, in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in place other than those mentioned in Article 8. (68a)
Article 8, FC.
The marriage shall be solemnized publicly
1. in the chambers of the judge or in open court,
2. in the church, chapel or temple, or
3. in the office the consul-general, consul or vice-consul,
as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except
a.) in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or
b.) in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or
c.) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
Relation to topic:
Q- In your recollection, where did you file those affidavits with [Severina] before the solemnization of the marriage?
A- It was in the Municipal Hall. I do not know whether that was the Registrar, Office of the [M]ayor or Office of the Chief of Police. I cannot recall. It is inside the Munisipyo of San Juan.
In the case at bar, it was indicated in their marriage contract that no marriage license was exhibited for being an exceptional character.
Though they executed an affidavit instead of securing a marriage license prior to their wedding, it was filed in the municipal hall and Luis was not even sure to what specific office the affidavit was filed.
Their marriage was solemnized in the house of their Mayor friend.
The pertinent portion of the marriage contract is quoted as follows:
[A]nd I further certify that Marriage License No. x x x issued at x x x on x x x, 19 x x x in favor of, said parties, was exhibited to me or no marriage license was exhibited to me, this marriage being of an exceptional character performed under Art. 77 of Rep. Act 386; x x x
FACTS:
1. Luis Anson and Severina de Asis-Anson were common-law husband and wife before their marriage was solemnized. They had 1 daughter, Maria Luisa married to Gasto Maya. (Spouses Maya)
2. Severina also had another daughter from a previous relationship named Jo-ann, who was wed to Gerard Salgado. (Spouses Salgado)
3. Luis and Severina's marriage was held on December 28, 1966, prior to the effectivity of Family Code (E.O. 209 - effectivity: August 03, 1988) and 2 days prior to Maria Luisa's 1st birthday. It was solemnized by their mayor friend in the latter's house witnessed by the Chief of Police.
5. During Luis and Severina's marriage, which was still governed by the Civil Code, they acquired several real properties and according to Luis, because there was no marriage settlement between them, the above-listed properties pertain to their conjugal partnership. However, after their cohabitation ended, Luis went to the USA and married another and had a son with her while Maria was left under the care of Severina.
6. However, Severina executed three separate Unilateral Deeds of Sale on January 23, 2002 transferring 3 properties (covered by TCT Nos. 20618, 60069 and 5109) in favor of Jo-Ann, who secured new certificates of title over the said properties, without Luis' knowledge and consent.
7. Severina died on September 21, 2002.
8. After Severina died, the Spouses Maya were also able to obtain a Certificate of No Record of Marriage (CENOMAR)( Luis and Severina) from the Office the Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office. Maria Luisa Anso-Maya also executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Severina de Asis on October 25, 2002 (TCT Nos. 8478-R, 44637 and 8003) adjudicating herself as Severina's sole heir.
9. Luis alleged that as the surviving spouse, he was divested of his lawful share in the conjugal properties and of his inheritance as a compulsory heir of Severina because of the preceding acts. Thus, he filed for the annulment of the said 3 Unilateral Deeds of Sale and Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate.
10. Jo-ann (Spouses Salgado) countered that they were not aware of the marriage contracted by her mother with Luis. She knew however that Luis and Severina had a common-law relationship that they both acknowledged and formally terminated through a Partition Agreement executed in April 1981 and implemented by another Partition Agreement executed in April 1981. Thus, Luis had already received the properties apportioned to him by virtue of the said agreement.
11. The properties subject of the Unilateral Deeds of Sale were acquired exclusively by Severina. The TCTs covering Severina's properties were under Severina's name only and she was described therein as single without reference to any husband.
12. Spouses Maya corroborated Spouses Salgado's claim. Maria cognizes that Luis and Severina are common-law husband and wife which was terminated upon the partition agreement, and not that they were married.
13. During trial, and Luis gave testimony and presented a certified true copy of their marriage contract without a marriage license number inputted. The lower court ruled in favor of Luis citing the case of Geronimo v. CA wherein the marriage was still declared valid despite the absence of the marriage license no. in the marriage contract.
14. The trial court thus declared that the properties covered by the Unilateral Deeds of Sale were considered conjugal which cannot be disposed of by Severina without the consent of her husband, Luis.
15. They appealed to CA but CA affirmed RTC's decision. Thus, Spouses Salgado elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
|
Spouses
Salgado |
LUIS |
|
Petitioned that marriage
between Luis and Severina is null and void for want of marriage license based
on the Marriage Contract presented by Luis which has adequately established
its absence. |
The petition raises a
question of fact, which cannot be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari. He also countered that the Spouses Salgado did not present any
evidence to support their theory.64 If the existence of the marriage license
is in issue, it is incumbent upon the Spouses Salgado to show the lack of
marriage license by clear and convincing evidence |
ISSUE:
1. Whether the absence of a marriage license may be proven on the basis of a marriage contract which states that no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer on account of the marriage being of an exceptional character.
2. Whether or not Luis and Severina's marriage is valid without a marriage license (and the subject lands as conjugal properties.)
RULING:
1. YES. The absence of marriage license may be proven with the marriage contract as prima facie evidence.
In the case at bar, Luis and Severina's marriage was declared as VOID AB INITIO.
Luis and Severina's marriage (December 28, 1966) was contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code and is thus covered by the Civil Code.
A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, and the absence thereof, save for marriages of exceptional character, renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3 ). It sets forth:
Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
x x x x
(3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character;
A cursory examination of the marriage contract of Luis and Severina reveals that no marriage license number was indicated therein.
The marriage contract, being a public document, is prima facie proof that at the time of their Luis and Severina's marriage, no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer for the reason that their marriage is of an exceptional character under Article 77 of the Civil Code.
Art. 77. In case two persons married in accordance with law desire to ratify their union in conformity with the regulations, rites, or practices of any church, sect, or religion, it shall no longer be necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 of this Title and any ratification made shall merely be considered as a purely religious ceremony.
For this exemption to be applicable, it is sine qua non that:
(1) the parties to the religious ceremony must already be married to each other in accordance with law (civil marriage); and
(2) the ratifying ceremony is purely religious in nature.
Since the ceremony held on December 28, 1966 was the only marriage ceremony between the parties and this was not solemnized pursuant to any ratifying religious rite, practice or regulation but a civil one officiated by the mayor, their marriage does not fall under the purview of Article 77 of the Civil Code.
The requisites of Art. 77 are:
a. prior civil marriage between the parties and
b. a ratifying religious ceremony
were not complied with. There is no prior ceremony to ratify. Thus, this marriage is not of an exceptional character and a marriage license is required for Luis and Severina's marriage to be valid.
The trial court erred by relying in Geronimo v. CA, because in that case, despite the absence of the marriage license number on the marriage contract presented by therein petitioner (brother of the deceased), there was no statement therein that the marriage is of an exceptional character. Various witnesses also testified that the deceased and her husband were indeed married. More importantly, the husband of the deceased was able to produce a copy of the marriage contract on file with the National Archives and Records Section where the marriage license number appears.
To be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the:
1. absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or
2. at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.
Considering that the absence of the marriage license is apparent on the marriage contract itself, with a false statement therein that the marriage is of an exceptional character, and no proof to the contrary was presented, there is no other plausible conclusion other than that the marriage between Luis and Severina was celebrated without a valid marriage license and is thus, void ab initio.
As held in In Republic of the Philippines v. Dayot, a marriage solemnized without a marriage license based on a fabricated claim of exceptional character, is void. Instead of a marriage license, therein parties to the marriage executed a false affidavit of marital cohabitation. In declaring the marriage void, the Court rejected the notion that all the formal and essential requisites of marriage were complied with.
The Court also noted that while Luis contends the validity of his marriage to Severina, he knowingly contracted a subsequent marriage abroad casting doubt on his credibility. He went to the USA in 1981 and until Severina's death in 2002. Much less reconciled with her. All those years, he never presented himself to be the husband of Severina. Not even their daughter, Maria Luisa, knew of the marriage. Thus, he failed to prove the validity of their marriage based on the evidence he himself had presented.
-------------------------
2. Luis and Severina's marriage is not valid without a marriage license.
With regard to the subject properties, the Partition Agreement which Luis and Severina executed in November 1980 which divided their properties between them without court intervention is VALID.
In Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City, the Court held that "in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code.
As there is no showing that Luis and Severina were incapacitated to marry each other at the time of their cohabitation and considering that their marriage is void from the beginning for lack of a valid marriage license, Article 144 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code, are the pertinent provisions of law governing their property relations. Article 147 of the Family Code "applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void for other reasons, like absence of a marriage license."
"Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's 'efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household.
Accordingly, the provisions on co-ownership under the Civil Code shall apply in the partition of the properties co-owned by Luis and Severina. It is stated under Article 1079 of the Civil Code that "partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong. The thing itself may be divided, or its value." As to how partition may be validly done, Article 496 of the Civil Code is precise that "partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings x x x." The law does not impose a judicial approval for the agreement to be valid. Hence, even without the same, the partition was validly done by Luis and Severina through the execution of the Partition Agreement.
-----
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES IN LUIS
It is the burden of Luis to prove that they secured the required marriage license. However, instead of proving that a marriage license was indeed issued to them at the time of their marriage, Luis relied mainly on the presumption of validity of marriage. This presumption does not hold water vis-a-vis a prima facie evidence (marriage contract), which on its face has established that no marriage license was presented to the solemnizing officer. If there was a marriage license issued to Luis and Severina, its absence on the marriage contract was not explained at all. Neither the original nor a copy of the marriage license was presented. No other witness also testified to prove its existence, whereas Luis is not the best witness to testify regarding its issuance. He admitted that he did not apply for one, and is uncertain about the documents they purportedly submitted in the Municipal Hall.
It was also established during the cross-examination that prior to going to the house of their friend Mayor for the solemnization of their marriage, they did not obtain a marriage license.
Comments
Post a Comment