FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248643. December 7, 2021.]

LOVELLE S. CARIAGA, petitioner, vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES and HENRY G. CARIAGA, * respondents.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) filed under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Court (1997 Rules) against the December 17, 2018
Decision 2 (assailed Decision) and July 4, 2019 Resolution 3 (assailed
Resolution) rendered by the Court of Appeals Sixth Division (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 109998. HTcADC

The assailed Decision and Resolution affirmed the July 25, 2017
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate City, Branch 48 (RTC) in Civil
Case No. 7186. Said Decision dismissed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity
(Nullity Petition) filed by petitioner Lovelle S. Cariaga (Lovelle) against her
husband, herein private respondent Henry G. Cariaga (Henry).
The Facts
The CA summarized the facts, as follows:
[Lovelle] and [Henry] met while they were still attending college
at the Technical University of the Philippines. Henry courted Lovelle
and they became sweethearts sometime in July of 1999. Lovelle was
then 17 years of age while Henry was 21.
After she turned 18, Lovelle found out that she was pregnant. It
was accordingly agreed upon by Lovelle, Henry and their parents that
they would have a civil wedding sometime in November of 2000 or
after Lovelle would have given birth to their first child.
To assist with the documentary requirements of their intended
civil wedding, Lovelle's parents sought the help of a friend.
As planned, Lovelle and Henry got married on 10 November
2000. Their union was blessed with three (3) children, namely, Elijah
Henry (born on 21 August 2000), Elisha Lovelle (born on 12
September 2001), and Isaiah Henry (born on 03 June 2008).
Sometime in 2013, the couple decided to live apart owing to
their many differences and misunderstandings.
Upon learning that Henry was in a relationship with another
woman, Lovelle consulted a lawyer regarding her resolve to have
their marriage annulled. This was in 2015.
Lovelle was advised by her lawyer to verify with the Civil
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Registry of Quezon City if the marriage license number appearing in
their Certificate of Marriage had in fact been issued to them x x x.
At the Civil Registry [Department] of Quezon City [(CRD-QC)],
Lovelle discovered that Marriage License No. 131078 dated 09
November 2000 indicated in their [Certificate of Marriage] had been
issued, not to them but, to another couple, Mamerto O. Yambao and
Amelia B. Parado. Lovelle thus requested that a corresponding
certification be issued. She asked as well that she be furnished with
copies of documents related to the issuance of the said marriage
license.
As per her request, the following Certification dated 16 July
2015 [(2015 QCCR Certification)] was issued by Salvador G. Carino,
Jr., Assistant City Civil Registrar, [CRD-QC]:
CERTIFICATION
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that as per Registry Records of
Marriage License files in this office, there is no record of
Marriage License No. 131078 dated November 9, 2000
allegedly issued in favor of HENRY G. CARIAGA and
LOVELLE F. SAPLARAN. The said Marriage License No.
131078 dated November 9, 2000 was issued to MAMERTO
O. YAMBAO, a resident of 187th St. Goodrich Village and
AMELIA B. PARADO, a resident of 4-A Illinois St., Cubao,
Quezon City, valid until March 1, 2001.
This Certification is being issued upon the request
of LOVELLE F. SAPLARAN, for whatever legal purposes it
may serve.
Done this 16th day of July 2015 at City Hall, Quezon
City, Metro Manila.
SALVADOR G. CARINO, JR. (sgd.)
Assistant City Civil Registrar
City Civil Registry Department
Quezon City
Lovelle was also given copies of the following documents: (1)
Application for Marriage License of Mamerto O. Yambao and Amelia B.
Parado; (2) Marriage License and Fee Receipt of P50.00; (3) Sworn
Statement that Advice of Parents or Guardian has been Secured
executed by Amelia B. Parado; and, (4) Notice of Application for
Marriage License of Mamerto O. Yambao and Amelia B. Parado.
Armed with the x x x [2015 QCCR Certification] and the
documents she was able to obtain from the [CRD-QC], Lovelle filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Henry [(Nullity
Petition)] on 09 March 2016. The petition was docketed as Civil Case
No. 7186 before the RTC of Masbate City, Branch 48. 4
RTC proceedings
In the Nullity Petition, Lovelle averred that her marriage with Henry is
void ab initio as it was contracted without a valid marriage license. 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance and
deputized the City Prosecutor to appear on its behalf. Subsequently, the RTC
directed the investigating prosecutor to conduct an investigation to
determine whether collusion existed between the parties. In his Report, the
investigating prosecutor declared that no collusion existed. 6
Despite being duly served with summons, Henry did not file his answer.
He also failed to participate in the proceedings. 7
During the pre-trial, the City Prosecutor stipulated on the genuineness
and due execution of the 2015 QCCR Certification. Because of this, the
testimony of Assistant City Civil Registrar Salvador G. Carino, Jr. (ACCR
Carino) was dispensed with. 8
After trial, the RTC issued its July 25, 2017 Decision denying the Nullity
Petition, thus:
A careful reading of the [2015 QCCR Certification], however,
shows that [it] only declares that the Marriage License No. 131078,
appearing on the marriage certificate of the parties, was not issued
for one Henry S. Cariaga and Lovelle F. Saplaran but was issued for
another couple. The [2015 QCCR Certification] failed to state
that no marriage license appears to have been issued [in
favor of Henry and Lovelle] on their record. The [2015 QCCR
Certification] is insufficient that, in a way, there remains a doubt on
whether there is a marriage license bearing another number issued
for the parties to this case. This is important because, a typographical
error of the number typed in the marriage certificate when there is
actually a marriage license bearing a different number issued to the
parties would only be an irregularity in the formal requisite and would
not affect the validity of the marriage.
Evidence on record also shows that [Lovelle] failed to submit
the original or a certified true copy of the [2015 QCCR Certification].
During the testimony of [Lovelle], the Court asked for the original
copy of the [2015 QCCR Certification] but [Lovelle] stated that she
failed to bring the same. On her formal offer of exhibits, [Lovelle] still
failed to submit the original copy of the [2015 QCCR Certification].
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [Nullity Petition] is
DENIED. 9 (Emphasis supplied)
In sum, the RTC found the 2015 QCCR Certification insufficient for the
purpose of establishing that Lovelle and Henry's marriage was contracted
without a valid marriage license.
Lovelle filed a motion for reconsideration alleging, among others, that
the original 2015 QCCR Certification was presented during the pre-trial, after
which, a stipulation had been made by the parties as regards its
genuineness and due execution. Lovelle further explained that, contrary to
what the Decision stated, the original document that she failed to produce
during trial was not the 2015 QCCR Certification but rather, the Certificate of
Live Birth of Elijah Henry S. Cariaga. This is confirmed by the transcript of
stenographic notes. 10
Nevertheless, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration in its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Order dated September 11, 2017. 11 Aggrieved, Lovelle filed an appeal with
the CA under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules.
CA proceedings
In her appeal, Lovelle maintained that the evidence she presented
proved that she and Henry contracted their marriage without a valid
marriage license. In particular, Lovelle relied on the 2015 QCCR Certification,
her unequivocal and unrebutted testimony that she and Henry did not apply
for a marriage license prior to the marriage, and that it was her parents'
friend who took care of the documentary requirements for their civil
wedding. 12
Lovelle further asserted that after she received notice of the RTC
Decision, she returned to the CRD-QC to request for another certification
explicitly stating that no marriage license was ever issued in her and Henry's
names in order to comply with the parameters set by the RTC. However, the
CRD-QC could not issue such a certification, as "they could not retrieve all
the marriage licenses that its office had issued from the beginning." 13 In
place of this, Lovelle attached to her Appeal Brief a new Certification dated
November 7, 2017 (2017 QCCR Certification) that is similarly worded as the
2015 QCCR Certification. 14
On December 17, 2018, the CA issued the assailed Decision denying
Lovelle's appeal, thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed
Decision of the [RTC] is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15

Like the RTC, the CA also found Lovelle's evidence insufficient to

support her cause.
According to the CA, the fact that no marriage license was issued to
Lovelle and Henry cannot be deduced from the 2015 QCCR Certification. All
that it confirms is that the marriage license referred to in Henry and Lovelle's
Certificate of Marriage pertains to that issued to a certain Mamerto O.
Yambao (Yambao) and Amelia B. Parado (Parado). The 2015 QCCR
Certification does not dispel the possibility that Lovelle and Henry obtained a
marriage license with a different number. 16 Further, the CA treated as
uncorroborated and self-serving Lovelle's testimony that she and Henry did
not apply for a marriage license. 17
Lovelle filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied through
the assailed Resolution 18 dated July 4, 2019. Lovelle received a copy of the
assailed Resolution on July 22, 2019. 19
On August 5, 2019, Lovelle filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review on Certiorari 20 requesting an additional period of fifteen
(15) days from August 6, 2019, or until August 21, 2019 within which to file
the her Petition.
This Petition was filed on August 20, 2019. 21
Here, Lovelle maintains that she was able to prove that her marriage
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 with Henry was solemnized without a valid marriage license. She insists that
the 2015 QCCR Certification is sufficient to prove such fact, pursuant to
Section 28, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules. Lovelle further argues that in
previous cases, the Court has found similarly worded certifications sufficient
to overcome the presumption of validity of marriage, particularly, in Republic
v. Court of Appeals and Castro 22 (Castro) and Abbas v. Abbas 23 (Abbas). 24
For its part, the Republic, through the OSG, contends that in order to
declare a marriage null and void on the ground of absence of a valid
marriage license, such absence must be apparent on the face of the
marriage contract, or, at the very least, supported by a certification to this
effect. In this connection, the OSG argues that prevailing jurisprudence
requires that the certification issued by the local civil registrar concerned
categorically state that the license in question does not exist in their
records, or could not be found despite diligent search. 25 The Republic
argues that Lovelle's 2015 QCCR Certification fails to meet this standard.
More, the Republic avers that Lovelle's testimony to the effect that she
and Henry never applied for a marriage license readily shows that Lovelle
came to court with unclean hands. Hence, she should not be allowed to
benefit from such failure by obtaining a declaration of nullity of their
marriage. 26
The Issue
The sole issue submitted for the Court's resolution is whether the CA
erred in affirming the dismissal of the Nullity Petition on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is granted.
Lovelle and Henry wed on November 10, 2000. Thus, the Family Code
governs their marriage. As to the essential and formal requisites for the
validity of marriage, Articles 2 to 4 of the Family Code state:
ART. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential
requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a
male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing
officer.
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 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.
ART. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
(Emphasis supplied)
The provisions of the Family Code are clear — the absence of a valid
marriage license renders the marriage void ab initio, except when the
marriage is among those exempted from the license requirement, as set
forth in Chapter 2, Title I of the Family Code.
There is no dispute that none of the exceptions apply here.27 Hence, a
valid marriage license is an indispensable requirement to the validity of
Lovelle and Henry's marriage since it is the marriage license that grants the
solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize the marriage and give it legal
effect. 28
For a marriage to be considered void due to the lack of a marriage
license, the absence of such license must be apparent on the marriage
contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil
registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties. 29
Here, Lovelle hinges her Nullity Petition on the 2015 QCCR Certification
issued by ACCR Carino of the CRD-QC. This Certification states that the
marriage license indicated in the Certificate of Marriage evidencing her
marriage with Henry was actually issued to another couple namely, Yambao
and Parado. To reiterate, the 2015 QCCR Certification is worded as follows:
This is to certify that as per Registry Records of Marriage
License files in this office, there is no record of Marriage License
No. 131078 dated November 9, 2000 allegedly issued in favor
of HENRY G. CARIAGA and LOVELLE F. SAPLARAN . The said
Marriage License No. 131078 dated November 9, 2000 was issued to
MAMERTO O. YAMBAO, a resident of 187th St. Goodrich Village and
AMELIA B. PARADO, a resident of 4-A Illinois St., Cubao, Quezon City,
valid until March 1, 2001. 30 (Emphasis supplied)
To properly assess the sufficiency of the 2015 QCCR Certification, it is
necessary to first discuss and understand the duties of the local civil
registrar, as well as the procedure governing the issuance of marriage
licenses and the registration of marriages.
The duties of the local civil registrar vis-
à-vis the registration of applications for
marriage license and certificates of
marriage
The duties of the local civil registrar are primarily set forth under
Section 12 of Act No. 3753. 31 It states:
SECTION 12. Duties of local civil registrar. — Local civil
registrars shall (a) file registrable certificates and documents
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 presented to them for entry; (b) compile the same monthly and
prepare and send any information required of them by the Civil
Registrar-General; (c) issue certified transcripts or copies of any
certificate or document registered upon payment of proper fees; (d)
order the binding, properly classified, of all certificates or documents
registered during the year; (e) send to the Civil Registrar-General,
during the first ten days of each month, a copy of the entries made
during the preceding month for filing; (f) index the same to facilitate
search and identification in case any information is required, and (g)
administer oaths, free of charge, for civil register purposes.
Subsequently, the National Statistics Office 32 (NSO) issued
Administrative Order No. 1-93 prescribing the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Act No. 3753 and Other Laws on Civil Registration
(Implementing Rules). These Implementing Rules, issued on December 18,
1992, further detailed the functions of the local civil registrars under Act No.
3753, and incorporated the additional duties imposed upon them by
subsequent laws, particularly, the Family Code and the Local Government
Code, thus:
RULE 5. Duties of the Civil Registrar. — The civil registrar
shall take charge of the office of the civil registry and shall:
a) file registrable certificates and documents presented to
them for entry;
b) compile the same monthly and prepare and send any
information required of them by the Civil Registrar-General;
c) issue certified transcripts or copies of any certificate or
document registered, upon payment of the proper fees;
d) order the binding, properly classified, of all certificates or
documents registered during the year;
e) send to the Civil Registrar-General, (through his
designated representative) during the first ten days of each
month, a copy of entries made during the preceding
month, for filing;
f) index the same to facilitate search and identification in
case any information is required;
g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil register purposes;
xxx
h) accept all registrable documents and judicial
decrees/orders affecting the civil status of persons;
i) file, keep and preserve in a secured place the books
required by law;
j) transcribe and enter immediately upon receipt all
registrable documents and judicial decrees affecting the
civil status of persons in the appropriate civil registry
books;
k) receive applications for the issuance of a marriage
license and after determining that the requirements
and supporting certificates and publication thereof
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 for the prescribed period have been complied with,
shall issue the license upon payment of the
authorized fee to the treasurer; aScITE

l) coordinate with the Office of the Civil Registrar-General

[NSO] in conducting educational campaigns for vital
registration and assist in the preparation of demographic
and other statistics for the local government unit
concerned; x x x
m) file, keep and preserve civil registry records as per
archival system mandated by the Local Government Code;
xxx
n) submit status reports on the condition of civil registry
documents filed in the civil registry office whenever there
are changes of the previous status of files;
o) reconstruct destroyed civil registry records upon
compliance with the requirements following the procedures
established by the Office of the Civil Registrar-General; and
p) make available at all times the civil registry forms in his
office. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
Rule 7 of the Implementing Rules lists the registry books that local civil
registrars are required to maintain. Notably, the list includes separate
registry books for marriages and applications for marriage license.
RULE 7. Civil Registry Books . — (1) Every civil registrar shall
maintain, keep and preserve in a secured place in his office the
following registry books where he shall properly enter the acts,
events, and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons:
a) Register of Births;
b) Register of Foundlings;
c) Register of Deaths;
d) Register of Marriages;
e) Register of Court Decrees/Orders;
f) Register of Legal Instruments; and
g) Register of Applications for Marriage License x x x.
(Emphasis supplied)
In turn, the procedure for the registration of applications for marriage
license is detailed under Title Six of the Implementing Rules. The relevant
portions thereof state:
RULE 47. Reglementary Period and Place of Registration . —
(1) Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting
parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with
the proper local civil registrar x x x which shall specify the following:
a) Full name of the contracting party;
b) Place of birth;
c) Age and date of birth;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 d) Civil status;
e) If previously married, how, when and where the previous
marriage was dissolved or annulled;
f) Present residence and citizenship;
g) Degree of relationship of the contracting parties;
h) Full name, residence and citizenship of the father;
i) Full name, residence and citizenship of the mother; and
j) Full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian or
person having charge, in case the contracting party has
neither father nor mother and is under the age of twenty-
one years. x x x
(2) The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all
applications for marriage licenses filed with him in a registry
book strictly in the order in which the same are received. He
shall record in said book the names of the applicants, the
date on which the marriage license was issued, and such
other data as may be necessary. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, a separate procedure for the registration of
certificates of marriage is prescribed under Title Five, thus:
RULE 40. Marriage. — Marriage is a special contract of
permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.
It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution
whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix
the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided
by this Code. x x x
RULE 41. Reglementary Period and Place of Registration . —
In ordinary marriage, the time for submission of the Certificate of
Marriage is within fifteen (15) days following the solemnization of
marriage while in marriage exempt from license requirement, the
prescribed period is thirty (30) days, at the place where the marriage
was solemnized.
RULE 42. Person Responsible to Report the Event . — The
solemnizing officer has the duty to report the marriage to the Office
of the Civil Registrar where the marriage was solemnized.
RULE 43. Number of Copies to be Accomplished for
Distribution. — It shall be the duty of the person concerned to
accomplish and send four (4) copies of the Certificate of Marriage to
the civil registrar for registration. After the registration, the civil
registrar shall distribute copies of the document bearing the civil
registry number within five (5) days from receipt thereof as follows:
first copy to the contracting parties; second copy to the Office of the
Civil Registrar-General; third copy shall be retained for filing; and
fourth copy to the solemnizing officer.
Prior to registration of documents in the civil registry, the
Implementing Rules require the local civil registrar to see to it that: (i) the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 appropriate form is used; (ii) the form is properly and completely filled in;
(iii) all entries are correct; and (iv) all proper attachments are submitted. The
documents in question shall only be accepted for correction once the entries
therein are complete and verified to be correct. This much is clear from Rule
9 of the Implementing Rules:
RULE 9. Operative Act of Registration. — (1) The civil
registrar shall see to it that: a) appropriate form is used; b) form is
properly and completely filled up; c) entries are correct; and d) proper
attachments are submitted.
(2) In case the entries are found incomplete or incorrect, the
civil registrar shall require the person concerned to fill up the
document completely or to correct the entries, as the case may be.
(3) When the document is accepted for registration, the
date of receipt shall be recorded in the space provided or it shall be
stamped on the upper right hand margin, in document where no
space is provided, properly signed by the person receiving the same.
(4) The documents received for the day shall be entered
immediately in the appropriate civil registry book, assigning therein
the corresponding registry number. A document which hears no
registry number is presumed not registered. However, when such
document bears the date of receipt, name and signature of the civil
registrar, it is deemed registered, in which case the civil registrar or
his authorized personnel shall be liable for damages sustained by any
party as a result of the non-registration of the document.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the issuance of a valid marriage
license presupposes the submission of a sworn application duly verified and
entered by the local civil registrar in the Register of Applications for Marriage
License. In other words, no valid marriage license can be issued unless the
requisite application is properly filed and entered in the Register of
Applications for Marriage License of the locality where the application is filed.
The absence of the proper entry in the Register of Applications for
Marriage License necessarily implies the absence of a marriage
license.
Similarly, a Certificate of Marriage can only be deemed duly registered
and entered in the Register of Marriages when it is presented to and
thereafter accepted by the local civil registrar for registration after the
completeness and correctness of the entries therein are verified.
In cases where a certification issued by
the local civil registrar is presented to
prove the absence of a marriage
license, courts must not solely rely on
the language employed therein.
Rather, courts must take a holistic
approach in assessing its sufficiency.
At this juncture, the Court takes the opportunity to disabuse the bench
and the bar of the erroneous notion that the resolution of actions for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of absence of a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 marriage license hinges solely on the language of the certification issued by
the local civil registrar concerned.
Section 28, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules 33 provides how lack of record
may be proved. It states:
Sec. 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.
(Underscoring in the original)
To be sure, the aforesaid rule provides the matters which the written
statement must certify in order to establish the absence of the record in
question. Nevertheless, the rule does not mandate the use of specific
language as a requisite for the admissibility of the written statement as
sufficient proof of lack of record.
In this connection, it is worthy to note that no specific language and/or
format is prescribed by the Implementing Rules for statements and
certifications issued by the local civil registrars. These authorized officers are
thus left to use such language as they may deem necessary and appropriate
when issuing statements and certifications on matters within the scope of
their authority. Thus, in the absence of a prescribed form, requesting parties
are bound by the language which the concerned local civil registrar chooses
to employ. Requesting parties are therefore left to contend with these
statements and certifications as they are written.
Hence, in cases where the action is hinged on a certification issued by
the local civil registrar (as is the case for actions for declaration of nullity
based on absence of marriage license), the Court has adopted a holistic
approach in assessing such certifications, giving due regard to the attendant
circumstances, the totality of evidence on record, as well as the law and
procedure relevant to the case in question.
In Castro, the Court held that a certification issued by the Senior Civil
Registry Officer of Pasig City, to the effect that the marriage license
referenced in the Certificate of Marriage of respondent therein "cannot be
located as said license x x x does not appear from our records" 34 was
adequate to prove its non-issuance, as the certification was unaccompanied
by any circumstance of suspicion. 35
In Castro, the certification along with the testimony of the respondent
were taken as sufficient evidence to prove the nullity of the marriage in
question. The Court held:
Petitioner posits that the certification of the local civil registrar
of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the effect that
marriage license no. 3196182 was issued to the parties is not
adequate to prove its non-issuance.
We hold otherwise. The presentation of such certification in
court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. x x
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 x
xxx xxx xxx
The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to
certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not
exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was
not to be found in a register. 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. DETACa

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. Unaccompanied by any circumstance
of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently
proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to
the contracting parties.
The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her
testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny
her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her
testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It
will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony
performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage is one of
those commonly known as a "secret marriage" — a legally non-
existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage
celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of
either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the
marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the
parents of the former. 36
Similarly, in Cariño v. Cariño 37 (Cariño), the Court found the
certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Manila stating
that the Office of the Civil Registrar has "no record of [the] marriage license"
of the late Santiago Cariño and therein petitioner Susan Cariño sufficient to
establish that the marriage between them was void ab initio. 38 As in Castro,
the Court lent credence to the certification in the absence of any
circumstance of suspicion, and any evidence tending to prove the contrary.
The Court held:
x x x Absent any circumstance of suspicion, as in the present
case, the certification issued by the local civil registrar 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.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 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 . 39 (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, in Sevilla v. Cardenas 40 (Sevilla), the counsel for
petitioner committed a typographical error in his letter requesting for a
certification regarding the existence of petitioner's marriage license,
erroneously indicating the number "2880792" instead of "2770792" as the
marriage license subject of the search. 41
As a result, three separate certifications were issued by the Local Civil
Registrar of San Juan, stating as follows:
The first Certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of San
Juan, Metro Manila, was dated 11 March 1994. It reads:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
No Marriage License Number 2770792 were (sic)
ever issued by this Office. With regards (sic) to Marriage
License Number 2880792, we exert all effort (sic) but we
cannot find the said number.
Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give
you our full force locating the above problem.
San Juan, Metro Manila
March 11, 1994
(SGD.) RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR.
Local Civil Registrar
The second [C]ertification was dated 20 September 1994 and
provides:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that no marriage license Number
2770792 were (sic) ever issued by this Office with regards
(sic) to Marriage License Number 2880792, we exert all
effort (sic) but we cannot find the said number.
Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give
you our full force locating the above problem.
San Juan, Metro Manila
September 20, 1994
(SGD.) RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR.
Local Civil Registrar
The third Certification, issued on 25 July 2000, states:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that according to the records of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 this office, no Marriage License Application was filed and
no Marriage License No. 2770792 allegedly dated May 19,
1969 was issued by this Office to MR. JAIME O. SEVI LLA
and MS. CARMELITA CARDENAS-SEVILLA.
This is to further certify that the said application
and license do not exist in our Local Civil Registry Index
and, therefore, appear to be fictitious.
This certification is being issued upon the request of
the interested party for whatever legal intent it may
serve.
San Juan, Metro Manila
July 25, 2000
(SGD.) RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR.
Local Civil Registrar 42
Petitioner in Sevilla presented these certifications as evidence to prove
that his marriage with respondent had been solemnized without a marriage
license.
Resolving the case, the Court held that petitioner failed to establish
that his marriage with respondent had been solemnized without a valid
marriage license. In so ruling, the Court held that the totality of evidence on
record shows that the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan failed to observe due
diligence when he conducted the search for the marriage license in question.
The Court explained:
Note that the first two certifications bear the statement that
"hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force
locating the above problem." It could be easily implied from the said
statement that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar could not exert
its best efforts to locate and determine the existence of Marriage
License No. 2770792 due to its "loaded work." Likewise, both
certifications failed to state with absolute certainty whether or not
such license was issued.
This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the
representative from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan,
Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated that they cannot locate the logbook
due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had
already retired. Further, the testimony of the said person was not
presented in evidence. It does not appear on record that the former
custodian of the logbook was deceased or missing, or that his
testimony could not be secured. This belies the claim that all
efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material contents
therein, had been exerted.
As testified to by Perlita Mercader:
Q Under the subpoena duces tecum, you were required to
bring to this Court among other things the register of
application of/or (sic) for marriage licenses received by the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Province of
Rizal, from January 19, 1969 to May 1969. Did you bring
with you those records?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 A I brought [M]ay 19, 1969, sir.
Q Is that the book requested of you under no. 3 of the request
for subpoena?
A Meron pang January. I forgot, January . . .
Q Did you bring that with you?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A I cannot locate the book. This is the only book.
Q Will you please state if this is the register of marriage of
marriage n applications that your office maintains as
required by the manual of the office of the Local Civil
Registrar?
COURT
May I see that book and the portion marked by the witness.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT
Why don't you ask her [a] direct question [-] whether
marriage license 2880792 is the number issued by their
office while with respect to license no. 2770792 the [O]ffice
of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan is very definite about
it[;] it was never issued. Then ask him how about no.
2880792 if the same was ever issued by their office. Did
you ask this 2887092, but you could not find the record?
But for the moment you cannot locate the books? Which is
which now, was this issued or not?
A The employee handling it is already retired, sir.
Given the documentary and testimonial evidence to the
effect that utmost efforts were not exerted to locate the
logbook where Marriage License No. 2770792 may have been
entered, the presumption of regularity of performance of
official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the
certifications is effectively rebutted.
xxx xxx xxx
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty is
disputable and can be overcome by other evidence as in the case at
bar where the presumption has been effectively defeated by the
tenor of the first and second certifications.
Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of
non-issuance of Marriage License No. 2770792. It can also mean, as
we believed true in the case at bar, that the logbook just cannot be
found. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the
said logbook, we cannot easily accept that absence of the same also
means non-existence or falsity of entries therein. 43 (Emphasis and
italics supplied; emphasis in the original omitted)
As a side note, it should be recognized that inSevilla, the Court held
that "[a] certification x x x issued by the [l]ocal [c]ivil [r]egistrar must
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the
particular entry could not be found in the register despite diligent search." 44
This pronouncement appears to proceed from a misapplication of the Court's
ruling in Castro, as discussed above. To recall, in Castro, the Court held that
the certification presented therein was sufficient to establish the nullity of
respondent's marriage, even if the certification did not bear the categorical
statements adverted to in Sevilla.
Be that as it may, any doubt that may have been cast by the aforesaid
statement in Sevilla was subsequently clarified in the case of Abbas.
I n Abbas, the Court unequivocally held that the absence of the words
"despite diligent search" in the certification of the local civil registrar does
not, on its own, diminish its probative value. Thus:
The Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, where the
marriage license of Gloria and Syed was allegedly issued, issued a
certification to the effect that no such marriage license for
Gloria and Syed was issued, and that the serial number of the
marriage license pertained to another couple, Arlindo
Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. A certified machine copy of
Marriage License No. 9969967 was presented, which was issued in
Carmona, Cavite, and indeed, the names of Gloria and Syed do not
appear in the document.
In reversing the RTC, the CA focused on the wording of the
certification, stating that it did not comply with Section 28, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court.
The CA deduced that from the absence of the words
"despite diligent search" in the certification, and since the
certification used stated that no marriage license appears to
have been issued, no diligent search had been conducted and
thus the certification could not be given probative value.
To justify that deduction, the CA cited the case of
[Castro ]. It is worth noting that in that particular case, the
Court, in sustaining the finding of the lower court that a
marriage license was lacking, relied on the Certification
issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, which merely stated
that the alleged marriage license could not be located as the
same did not appear in their records. Nowhere in the
Certification was it categorically stated that the officer
involved conducted a diligent search, nor is a categorical
declaration absolutely necessary for Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court to apply.
Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is a
disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly
performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the contrary.
We held, "[t]he presumption of regularity of official acts may be
rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a
duty." No such affirmative evidence was shown that the Municipal
Civil Registrar was lax in performing her duty of checking the records
of their office, thus the presumption roust stand. In fact, proof does
exist of a diligent search having been conducted, as Marriage License
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 9969[9]67 was indeed located and submitted to the court. The
fact that the names in said license do not correspond to those of
Gloria and Syed does not overturn the presumption that the registrar
conducted a diligent search of the records of her office. 45 (Emphasis
supplied)
More importantly, in Abbas, the Court took a holistic approach in
assessing the probative value of the local civil registrar's certificate by
evaluating it in conjunction with the attendant circumstances and the totality
of evidence presented therein. The Court held:
It is telling that Gloria failed to present their marriage license or
a copy thereof to the court. She failed to explain why the marriage
license was secured in Carmona, Cavite, a location where,
admittedly, neither party resided. She took no pains to apply for the
license, so she is not the best witness to testify to the validity and
existence of said license. Neither could the other witnesses she
presented prove the existence of the marriage license, as none of
them applied for the license in Carmona, Cavite. Her mother, Felicitas
Goo, could not even testify as to the contents of the license, having
admitted to not reading all of its contents. Atty. Sanchez, one of the
sponsors, whom Gloria and Felicitas Goo approached for assistance in
securing the license, admitted not knowing where the license came
from. The task of applying for the license was delegated to a certain
Qualin, who could have testified as to how the license was secured
and thus impeached the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar
as well as the testimony of her representative. As Gloria failed to
present this Qualin, the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar
still enjoys probative value.
It is also noted that the solemnizing officer testified that the
marriage contract and a copy of the marriage license were submitted
to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. Thus, a copy of the marriage
license could have simply been secured from that office and
submitted to the court. However, Gloria inexplicably failed to do so,
further weakening her claim that there was a valid marriage license
issued for her and Syed. 46
In the cases following Abbas, the Court's holistic approach vis-à-vis
certifications on the non-existence of marriage licenses remained consistent.
Hence, in Vitangcol v. People 47 (Vitangcol), the Court found the
certification of the local civil registrar of Imus, Cavite inadequate to support
the petitioner's claim that his marriage with his first wife was null and void
due to the absence of a marriage license. Such was the Court's ruling even
as the certification in question categorically stated that "[a]fter a diligent
search on the files of Registry Book on Application for Marriage License and
License Issuance available in [the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus], no
record could be found on the alleged issuance of x x x Marriage License No.
8683519 in favor of [petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol] and this first wife Gina
M. Gaerlan]." 48
In so ruling, the Court took pains to distinguish the factual
circumstances attendant in Vitangcol from those in Castro and Cariño, and
laid out the particular circumstances which cast doubt on the veracity of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 local civil registrar's certification in Vitangcol, thus:
This Certification does not prove that petitioner's first marriage
was solemnized without a marriage license. It does not categorically
state that Marriage License No. 8683519 does not exist.
Moreover, petitioner admitted the authenticity of his signature
appearing on the marriage contract between him and his first wife,
Gina. The marriage contract between petitioner and Gina is a positive
piece of evidence as to the existence of petitioner's first marriage.
This "should be given greater credence than documents testifying
merely as to [the] absence of any record of the marriage[.]"
[Castro] was originally an action for the declaration of nullity of
a marriage. As part of its evidence, the plaintiff presented a
certification that states that the marriage license "cannot be located
as said license x x x does not appear from [the local civil registrar's]
records."
This Court held that "[t]he certification x x x enjoys probative
value, [the local civil registrar] being the officer charged under the
law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage
license." This court further said that "[u]naccompanied by any
circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court, a certificate of 'due search and inability to find'
sufficiently proved that [the local civil registrar] did not issue [a]
marriage license x x x to the contracting parties."
The circumstances in Castro and in this case are
different. Castro involved a civil case for declaration of nullity
of marriage that does not involve the possible loss of liberty.
The certification in Castro was unaccompanied by any
circumstance of suspicion, there being no prosecution for
bigamy involved. On the other hand, the present case
involves a criminal prosecution for bigamy. To our mind, this
is a circumstance of suspicion, the Certification having been
issued to Norberto for him to evade conviction for bigamy.
The appreciation of the probative value of the
certification cannot be divorced from the purpose of its
presentation, the cause of action in the case, and the context
of the presentation of the certification in relation to the other
evidence presented in the case. We are not prepared to establish
a doctrine that a certification that a marriage license cannot be found
may substitute for a definite statement that no such license existed
or was issued. Definitely, the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus,
Cavite should be fully aware of the repercussions of those words. That
the license now cannot be found is not basis per se to say that it
could not have been issued.
A different view would undermine the stability of our legal order
insofar as marriages are concerned. Marriage licenses may be
conveniently lost due to negligence or consideration. The motivation
to do this becomes greatest when the benefit is to evade prosecution.
This case is likewise different from [ Cariño]. In Cariño, the
marriage contract between Santiago Cariño and his first wife, Susan
Nicdao, bore no marriage license number. In addition, the local civil
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 registrar certified that it has no record of any marriage license issued
to Santiago Cariño and Susan Nicdao. This court declared Santiago
Cariño's first marriage void for having been solemnized without a
marriage license.
In this case, there is a marriage contract indicating the
presence of a marriage license number freely and voluntarily signed
and attested to by the parties to the marriage as well as by their
solemnizing officer. The first marriage was celebrated on July 17,
1987. The second marriage was entered into on December 4, 1994.
Within a span of seven (7) years, four (4) months, and seventeen (17)
days, petitioner did not procure a judicial declaration of the nullity of
his first marriage. Even while the bigamy case was pending, no
decision declaring the first marriage as spurious was
presented. In other words, petitioner's belief that there was
no marriage license is rendered untrue by his own actuations.
This factual context makes the use and issuance of the
Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar suspect. x x
x
The parties clearly identified Marriage License No. 8683519 in
the marriage contract. There is no evidence to show that the number
series of that license is spurious or is not likely to have been issued
from its source. There is no proof as to whether the licenses issued
before or after the document in question still exists in the custody of
the civil registrar. There is no evidence that relates to the procedures
for safekeeping of these vital documents. This would have shown
whether there was unfettered access to the originals of the license
and, therefore, would have contributed to the proper judicial
conclusion of what the manifestation by the civil registrar implies. 49
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Finally, in the more recent case of Kho v. Republic, 50 the Court held
that "[b]ased on the Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with respondent's failure to produce a copy
of the alleged marriage license or of any evidence to show that such license
was ever issued, the only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid
marriage license was, in fact, issued." 51
Hence, lest there be any confusion, the Court here clarifies that in
cases where the absence of a marriage license is sought to be established
through a certification issued by the local civil registrar, courts must take a
holistic approach in resolving the case. To borrow the language in Vitangcol,
the appreciation of the probative value of the certification cannot be
divorced from the purpose of its presentation, the cause of action in the
case, and the context of the presentation of the certification in relation to the
other evidence presented in the case. 52 Accordingly, courts must assess the
sufficiency of the certification with due regard to applicable law and
procedure, the attendant facts, and the evidence on record.
The 2015 QCCR Certification, taken
together with applicable law and
procedure, the attendant facts, and the
evidence on record, serves as sufficient
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 basis to hold that Lovelle and Henry's
marriage was solemnized without a
valid marriage license.
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]" 53 appears. This corroborates Lovelle's
testimony to the effect that she never appeared before the CRD-QC to file an
application for 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 No. 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, namely: (i) the Application for Marriage License
filed by Yambao and Parado; (ii) the Marriage License and Fee Receipt issued
in favor of Yambao; (iii) the Sworn Statement that Advice of Parents or
Guardian Has Been Secured executed by Parado; and (iv) the Notice of
Application for Marriage License of Yambao and Parado. 54
Again, reference to Abbas is proper.
I n Abbas, petitioner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) presented, as proof of
non-issuance of marriage license, a certification issued by the Municipal Civil
Registrar of Carmona to the effect that "the marriage license number
appearing in the marriage contract [Syed] submitted x x x was the number
of another marriage license issued to a certain Arlindo Getalado and Myra
Mabilangan." 55 In addition, the certification stated that no marriage license
appears to have been issued to Syed and his wife Gloria Goo (Gloria) on
January 8, 1993, or the date of issuance indicated on their Certificate of
Marriage. 56
Gloria vehemently challenged the sufficiency of this certificate,
insisting that a marriage license had in fact been issued in their favor.
However, despite Gloria's assertions, the Court ruled in favor of Syed, as
follows:
It is telling that Gloria failed to present their marriage
license or a copy thereof to the court. She failed to explain why
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 the marriage license was secured in Carmona, Cavite, a location
where, admittedly, neither party resided. She took no pains to apply
for the license, so she is not the best witness to testify to the validity
and existence of said license. Neither could the other witnesses
she presented prove the existence of the marriage license, as
none of them applied for the license in Carmona, Cavite. Her mother,
Felicitas Goo, could not even testify as to the contents of the license,
having admitted to not reading all of its contents. Atty. Sanchez, one
of the sponsors, whom Gloria and Felicitas Goo approached for
assistance in securing the license, admitted not knowing where the
license came from. The task of applying for the license was delegated
to a certain Qualin, who could have testified as to how the license was
secured and thus impeached the certification of the Municipal Civil
Registrar as well as the testimony of her representative. As Gloria
failed to present this Qualin, the certification of the Municipal Civil
Registrar still enjoys probative value.
It is also noted that the solemnizing officer testified that the
marriage contract and a copy of the marriage license were submitted
to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. Thus, a copy of the marriage
license could have simply been secured from that office and
submitted to the court. However, Gloria inexplicably failed to
do so, further weakening her claim that there was a valid
marriage license issued for her and Syed.
In the case of [Cariño], following the case of [Castro], it was
held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office
had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-
issuance of said license. The case of Cariño further held that the
presumed validity of the marriage of the parties had been
overcome, and that it became the burden of the party
alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was
valid, and that the required marriage license had been
secured. Gloria has failed to discharge that burden, and the
only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid marriage
license was issued. It cannot be said that there was a simple
irregularity in the marriage license that would not affect the validity
of the marriage, as no license was presented by the respondent. No
marriage license was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed,
based on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona,
Cavite and Gloria's failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage
license. 57 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
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 allegations in Abbas, the OSG's
assertions regarding the insufficiency of the 2015 QCCR Certification are
unsubstantiated. aDSIHc

To recall, the Re public 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 records of CRD-QC. 58 This argument lacks merit.
As already 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. Thus, the fact that the 2015
QCCR Certification fails to specifically state that the marriage license in
question "does not exist" in their records, or could not be found "despite
diligent search," does not warrant its outright rejection. To reiterate, the
sufficiency of the 2015 QCCR Certification must be assessed with due regard
to applicable law and procedure, the attendant facts, and the evidence on
record.
Here, the allegations made by Lovelle before the CA suggest that the
CRD-QC exerted due diligence in trying to ascertain the existence of the
marriage license in question. As narrated by the CA:
Lovelle further explained that after the [RTC] Decision was
rendered, she returned to the [CRD-QC] purposely to request for the
issuance of another certification that would comply with what was
described in the [RTC Decision]. However, she was allegedly told that
"it could not issue a certification that no marriage license was issued
in the name of [Lovelle and Henry] because they could not retrieve all
the marriage licenses that its office had issued from the beginning";
and, that, "there is no basis to search for their file or record because
in the first place they did not apply for a marriage license. What they
could only issue is a certification as to whom marriage license
number 131078 was issued as it is the marriage license number
appearing in their Certificate of Marriage." Lovelle then attached to
her brief a Certification dated [November 7, 2017] issued anew by
[Assistant City Civil Registrar] Salvador G. Carino, Jr., which appears
to be similarly worded as the [2015 QCCR Certification] presented
and formally offered as Exhibit E. 59
The Republic further attempts to attack the sufficiency of the 2015
QCCR Certification by harping on the possibility that a marriage license
bearing a different number could have been issued in favor of Lovelle and
Henry, and that the erroneous marriage license number appearing on their
Certificate of Marriage could have been a typographical error.
However, this assertion, without more, is insufficient to support the
Republic's cause. In fact, the Republic's claim tends to cast doubt on the
veracity of the Certificate of Marriage, thereby bolstering Lovelle's claim.
Under the Implementing Rules, it is the duty of the solemnizing officer
to report each marriage to the office of the local civil registrar of the locality
where the marriage was solemnized. 60 For this purpose, the solemnizing
officer must accomplish four (4) identical copies of the Certificate of
Marriage and file them with the local civil registrar for entry in the Register of
Marriages. 61
As stated, the local civil registrar is then duty-bound to ensure that the
entries in each registrable document are correct. This duty on the part of the
local civil registrar necessarily implies that in cases of registration of
certificates of marriage, the local civil registrar is obliged to verify the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 correctness of the entries appearing thereon, including the marriage license
number, among others. Hence, if the solemnizing officer committed an error
in indicating the correct marriage license number on Lovelle and Henry's
Certificate of Marriage, as the Republic claims, then this error would have
been flagged and corrected by the local civil registrar prior to registration.
The fact that the Certificate of Marriage in question had been registered
despite the incorrect entry casts doubt on the veracity of the Certificate of
Marriage itself, and consequently, the validity of Lovelle and Henry's
marriage.
Thus, the 2015 QCCR Certification, when read in conjunction with
applicable law and regulations, as well as the testimonial and documentary
evidence forming part of the record, shows that Marriage License No.
131078, purportedly authorizing the solemnization of Lovelle and Henry's
marriage, was actually issued on the basis of an application for marriage
license filed by another couple. Based on these premises, the presumed
validity of Lovelle and Henry's marriage had been overcome. Here, as in
Abbas, the burden shifted to the Republic to prove that the marriage is valid
by establishing that Lovelle and Henry had, in fact, secured the required
marriage license. 62
To be sure, the Rep ublic had ample opportunity to examine the
evidence on record, including Lovelle and Henry's Certificate of Marriage.
The Republic, with all the powers given it, could have easily resorted to all
judicial processes and remedies available in order to ascertain: (i) whether a
marriage license with a different number had in fact been issued to Lovelle
and Henry; (ii) whether said license had been presented to the solemnizing
officer prior to the ceremony; and (iii) whether the incorrect reference to
Yambao and Parado's Marriage License No. 131078 on Lovelle and Henry's
Certificate of Marriage was a mere typographical error which was overlooked
by the local civil registrar when it was entered in the Register of Marriages.
However, the Republic's stance is to fault Lovelle for failing to call on
ACCR Carino as a witness to shed light on the statements he made in the
2015 QCCR Certification. As stated in the Republic's Comment:
x x x [T]he Certification fails to state that "despite diligent
search," no marriage license was found. More than that, it appears
from the [2015 QCCR Certification] that the search was, in fact,
limited to Marriage License No. 131078, which, as it turned out, was
issued to a different couple. That is markedly different from a search
of whether a marriage license was ever issued in the names of
[Lovelle and Henry].
x x x Perhaps, it would have been different if the individual who
made the [2015 QCCR Certification] were called to testify. Had he or
she been presented in court, then clarifications relating to the [2015
QCCR Certification] could have been made.
x x x Petitioner took a risk by confining her evidence to her
testimony and the certification, among others. Unfortunately, without
more, she has failed to present clear and convincing evidence to
show that there was no marriage license at the time of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 celebration of their marriage. 63

These assertions show the Republic's failure to recognize that, as

illustrated by the evidence on record, Lovelle had done all that could
reasonably be expected to be done by a private party whose capacity to
verify the civil registry books is limited by the mechanisms provided her by
prevailing law and regulations.
Notably, Lovelle had done precisely what Section 28, Rule 132 of the
1997 Rules requires her to do, that is, to procure a written statement from
the CRD-QC as proof of non-issuance of her marriage license. In fact, she had
done so on two different occasions — first, prior to the filing of the Nullity
Petition, and second, after the issuance of the RTC Decision. That the CRD-
QC issued the 2017 QCCR Certification bearing the same language as the
2015 QCCR Certification despite Lovelle's request to make the former
conform to the parameters of the RTC Decision further highlights how she
remains bound by the language which the CRD-QC had chosen to employ in
these certificates. Evidently, to require more from Lovelle would be to exact
more than what prevailing law and jurisprudence require.
It thus became incumbent upon the Republic, with its vast powers, to
verify the civil registry records and prove that the license necessary for the
validity of Lovelle and Henry's marriage had been issued. This could have
easily been done if only the Republic called ACCR Carino as its own witness
to prove its speculation that a typographical error could have been
committed. Its failure to do so is fatal to its cause.
To repeat, the presumption of validity of marriage had been overcome.
Thus, as between the 2015 QCCR Certification and the other documentary
and testimonial evidence on record which confirm that the marriage license
indicated on Lovelle and Henry's Certificate of Marriage was issued based on
an application filed by another couple, and the Republic's bare supposition
that another marriage license with a different number "could have been
issued" despite the absence of an application for marriage license in the
names of Lovelle and Henry in the registry book, the Court lends more
credence to the former.
A note on the doctrine of unclean
hands
As a final note, the Court recognizes that Lovelle's testimony to the
effect that she and Henry did not apply for a marriage license, and that they
acquiesced to their parents' advice to "assist with the documentary
requirements of their intended civil wedding," appears to show that she
willingly acceded to the possibility that a spurious marriage license had been
presented to the solemnizing officer during the ceremony.
That said, the Court also recognizes that in petitions to declare the
absolute nullity of marriage based on the absence of a valid marriage
license, testimony of this nature should not ipso facto preclude a finding of
nullity on the ground that parties who come to court must do so with clean
hands. To be sure, a marriage contracted despite the absence of a marriage
license necessarily implies some sort of irregularity. Nevertheless, such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 irregularity, as well as any liability resulting therefrom, must be threshed out
and determined in a proper case filed for the purpose. It is in that separate
proceeding where the party or parties responsible for the irregularity would
be ascertained. A contrary ruling would operate to validate marriages which
the law itself declares void.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The
December 17, 2018 Decision and July 4, 2019 Resolution issued by the Court
of Appeals Sixth Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 109998, as well as the July 25,
2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate City, Branch 48 in Civil
Case No. 7186 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Pursuant to Article 35 (3) of the Family Code, the marriage between
petitioner Lovelle S. Cariaga and private respondent Henry G. Cariaga is
declared void ab initio for having been solemnized without a valid marriage
license.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Lazaro-Javier, M.V. Lopez and J.Y. Lopez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Also "Henry S. Cariaga" in some parts of the rollo.
1. Rollo , pp. 10-28, excluding Annexes.

2. Id. at 30-41. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Rafael Antonio M.
Santos.
3. Id. at 43-44.
4. Id. at 30-32.

5. Id. at 32.
6. Id. at 32-33.
7. Id. at 33.
8. Id. at 14.

9. Id. at 15-16.
10. Id. at 16.
11. Id.

12. Id. at 34.

13. Id. Italics omitted.
14. Id.

15. Id. at 40.

16. Id. at 38.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 17. Id. at 39.
18. Supra note 3.
19. Id. at 11.

20. Id. at 3-6.

21. Id. at 10.
22. G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 257.

23. G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 646.
24. See rollo, pp. 18-22.
25. Id. at 74-75, citing Sevilla v. Cardenas , G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006, 497
SCRA 428.

26. Id. at 77-78.

27. These exceptions are set forth in Chapter 2 of the Family Code as follows:
ART. 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of
death, the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage
license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives.
ART. 28. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means
of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before
the local civil registrar, the marriage may be solemnized without the
necessity of a marriage license.
xxx xxx xxx

ART. 31. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew

members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane pilot
not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight, but also during
stopovers at ports of call.
ART. 32. A military commander of a unit, who is a commissioned officer, shall
likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between
persons within the zone of military operation, whether members of the
armed forces or civilians.
ART. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic
cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of a
marriage license, provided that they are solemnized in accordance with their
customs, rites or practices.
ART. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a
woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least
five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other.
The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before
any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer
shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the
contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.
(Emphasis supplied)
28. See Arañes v. Occiano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390 (Formerly IPI No. 01-1049-MTJ),
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 402, 407.
29. Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187462, June 1, 2016, 791 SCRA 604, 618.

30. Rollo , pp. 31-32.

31. AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A CIVIL REGISTER, otherwise known as LAW ON
REGISTRY OF CIVIL STATUS, November 26, 1930.
32. Now Philippine Statistics Authority.

33. As revised by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC (2019 Proposed Amendments to the

Revised Rules on Evidence, October 8, 2019) to incorporate gender-neutral
language. Prior to said revision, Section 28, Rule 132 read:

SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer

having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent
search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records
of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible
as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.

34. Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro, supra note 22, at 259. Italics omitted.
35. Id. at 261-262.
36. Id. Citations omitted.

37. G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 127.

38. Id. at 133-134.
39. Id.

40. Supra note 25.

41. See id. at 439.
42. Id. at 439-440.
43. Id. at 440-443.

44. Id. at 438. Emphasis supplied.

45. Abbas v. Abbas, supra note 23, at 660-661. Citations omitted.
46. Id. at 661-662.

47. G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016, 780 SCRA 598.
48. Id. at 608.
49. Id. at 608-611. Citations omitted.

50. Supra note 29.

51. Id. at 615.
52. See Vitangcol v. People , supra note 47, at 610.
53. Supra note 30.

54. See Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits as quoted in the Petition, rollo, p. 15.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 55. See Abbas v. Abbas, supra note 23, at 650.

56. Id.
57. Id. at 661-662. Citations omitted.
58. See OSG Comment, rollo p. 77.

59. Id. at 34.

60. IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF ACT NO. 3753 AND OTHER LAWS
ON CIVIL REGISTRATION, Rule 42.
61. Id., Rule 43.
62. See Abbas v. Abbas, supra note 23, at 662, citing Cariño v. Cariño , supra note
37, at 133.

63. Rollo , p. 77.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com