1. Navarro v. Domagtoy 2. Kho v.

Republic
 Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo  The present petition arose from a Petition for
G. Navarro filed a complaint on two specific acts Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by herein
committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court petitioner with the RTC of Oras, Eastern Samar.
Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of gross Pertinent portions of the Petition allege as follows:
misconduct, ineffiency in offce and ignorance of the  Sometime in the afternoon of May 31, 1972,
law. petitioner's parents summoned one Eusebio
Colongon, now deceased, then clerk in the office of
the municipal treasurer, instructing said clerk to
 It was alleged that Domagtoy solemnized marriage of arrange and prepare whatever necessary papers
Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borja on September 27, were required for the intended marriage between
1994 despite the knowledge that the groom has a petitioner and respondent supposedly to take place at
subsisting marriage with Ida Penaranda and that they around midnight of June 1, 1972 so as to exclude the
are merely separated. public from witnessing the marriage ceremony
 Petitioner and Respondent thereafter exchanged
marital vows in a marriage ceremony which actually
 It was told that Ida left their conjugal home in took place at around 3:00 o'clock before dawn of June
Bukidnon and has not returned and been heard for 1, 1972, on account that there was a public dance
almost seven years. held in the town plaza which is just situated adjacent
to the church whereas the venue of the wedding, and
the dance only finished at around 2:00 o'clock of
 The said judge likewise solemnize marriage of same early morning of June 1, 1972;
Floriano Dadoy Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario  Petitioner has never gone to the office of the Local
outside his court’s jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Civil Registrar to apply for marriage license and had
not seen much less signed any papers or documents
in connection with the procurement of a marriage
 The judge holds his office and has jurisdiction in the license;
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta Monica-Burgos,  Considering the shortness of period from the time the
Surigao del Norte but he solemnized the said wedding aforenamed clerk of the treasurer's office was told to
at his residence in the municipality of Dapa located 40 obtain the pertinent papers in the afternoon of May
to 50 km away. 31, 1972 so required for the purpose of the
forthcoming marriage up to the moment the actual
marriage was celebrated before dawn of June 1,
 ISSUE: Whether or not the marriages solemnized 1972, no marriage license therefore could have been
were void. Void. validly issued, thereby rendering the marriage
solemnized on even date null and void for want of the
most essential requisite;
 The court held that the marriage between Tagadan  For all intents and purposes, thus, Petitioner's and
and Borja was void and bigamous there being a Respondent's marriage aforestated was solemnized
subsisting marriage between Tagadan and sans the required marriage license, hence, null and
Penaranda. void from the beginning and neither was it performed
under circumstances exempting the requirement of
such marriage license;
 Albeit, the latter was gone for seven years and the  Among the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner
spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent is a Certification5 issued by the Municipal Civil
spouse was dead, Tagadan did not institute a Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar which attested to
summary proceeding as provided in the Civil Code for the fact that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has
the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, neither record nor copy of a marriage license issued
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the to petitioner and respondent with respect to their
absent spouse. marriage celebrated on June 1, 1972.
 On September 25, 2000, the RTC rendered its
Decision granting the petition. WHEREFORE, in view
 With regard to the marriage of Sumaylo and Del of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the
Rosario, the latter only made the written request marriage contracted between Raquel G. Kho and
where it should have been both parties as stated in Veronica Borata on June 1, 1972 null and void ab
Article 8 of the Family Code. Their non-compliance initio, pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Code and
did not invalidate their marriage however, Domagtoy Articles 4 and 5 of the Family Code.
may be held administratively liable.  The foregoing is without prejudice to the application of
Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.The RTC found
that petitioner's evidence sufficiently established the
absence of the requisite marriage license when the
marriage between petitioner and respondent was
celebrated. As such, the RTC ruled that based on
Articles 53(4), 58 and 80(3) of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the absence of the said marriage license
rendered the marriage between petitioner and
respondent null and void ab initio.
  Respondent then filed an appeal with the CA in Cebu As stated above, petitioner was able to present a Certification
City. On March 30, 2006, the CA promulgated its issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern
assailed Decision, disposing thus: WHEREFORE, in Samar attesting that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar "has
view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 25 no record nor copy of any marriage license ever issued in favor
September 2000 of Branch 2 of the Regional Trial of Raquel G. Kho [petitioner] and Veronica M. Borata
Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, is REVERSED [respondent] whose marriage was celebrated on June 1,
and SET ASIDE. The marriage between the 1972."21 Thus, on the basis of such Certification, the
petitioner-appellee Raquel Kho and Veronica Kho is presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent
declared valid and subsisting for all intents and has been overcome and it becomes the burden of respondent
purposes.The CA held that since a marriage was, in to prove that their marriage is valid as it is she who alleges
fact, solemnized between the contending parties, such validity. As found by the RTC, respondent was not able to
there is a presumption that a marriage license was discharge that burden.
issued for that purpose and that petitioner failed to
overcome such presumption. The CA also ruled that It is telling that respondent failed to present their alleged
the absence of any indication in the marriage marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. In addition, the
certificate that a marriage license was issued is a Certificate of Marriage22 issued by the officiating priest does
mere defect in the formal requisites of the law which not contain any entry regarding the said marriage license.
does not invalidate the parties' marriage. Respondent could have obtained a copy of their marriage
 The marriage of petitioner and respondent was contract from the National Archives and Records Section,
celebrated on June 1, 1972, prior to the effectivity of where information regarding the marriage license, i.e., date of
the Family Code.12 Hence, the Civil Code governs issuance and license number, could be obtained. However,
their union. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Civil Code she also failed to do so. The Court also notes, with approval,
spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a the RTC's agreement with petitioner's observation that the
contract, to wit: statements of the witnesses for respondent, as well as
respondent herself, all attest to the fact that a marriage
ART 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these ceremony was conducted but neither one of them testified that
requisites are complied with: a marriage license was issued in favor of petitioner and
respondent. Indeed, despite respondent's categorical claim
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; that she and petitioner were able to obtain a marriage license,
(2) Their consent, freely given; she failed to present evidence to prove such allegation. It is a
(3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of
(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.23
character.
Based on the Certification issued by the Municipal Civil
Article 58 of the Civil Code makes explicit that no marriage Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with
shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the respondent's failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage
local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting license or of any evidence to show that such license was ever
party habitually resides, save marriages of an exceptional issued, the only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid
character authorized by the Civil Code, but not those under marriage license was, in fact, issued. Contrary to the ruling of
Article 75.14 Under the Civil Code, marriages of exceptional the CA, it cannot be said that there was a simple defect, not a
character are covered by Chapter 2, Title 111, comprising total absence, in the requirements of the law which would not
Articles 72 to 79. affect the validity of the marriage. The fact remains that
respondent failed to prove that the subject marriage license
These marriages are: (1) marriages in articulo mortis or at the was issued and the law is clear that a marriage which is
point of death during peace or war; (2) marriages in remote performed without the corresponding marriage license is null
places; (3) consular marriages; (4) ratification of marital and void.
cohabitation; (5) religious ratification of a civil marriage; (6)
Mohammedan or pagan marriages; and (7) mixed marriages. Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is a
Petitioner's and respondent's marriage does not fall under any disputable presumption that an official duty has been regularly
of these exceptions. performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the
contrary. We held, "The presumption of regularity of official
Article 80(3) of the Civil Code also makes it clear that a acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
marriage performed without the corresponding marriage failure to perform a duty." No such affirmative evidence was
license is void, this being nothing more than the legitimate shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing
consequence flowing from the fact that the license is the her duty of checking the records of their office, thus the
essence of the marriage contract.15 The rationale for the presumption must stand.
compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil
Code is that it is the authority granted by the State to the From these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered
contracting parties, after the proper government official has void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law
inquired into their capacity to contract marriage.16Stated requires that the absence of such marriage license must be
differently, the requirement and issuance of a marriage license apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least,
is the State's demonstration of its involvement and participation supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no
in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general such marriage license was issued to the parties.32
public is interested.17
Indeed, all the evidence cited by the CA to show that a Niñal, with her specially so when at the time of the
wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract filing of this instant suit, their father Pepito G. Niñal
was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid is already dead
marriage license.33 As cited above, Article 80(3) of the Civil
Code clearly provides that a marriage solemnized without a Ruling:
license is void from the beginning, except marriages of
exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the same
Code. As earlier stated, petitioner's and respondent's marriage  On the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived
cannot be characterized as among the exceptions. together as husband and wife for five years without
the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should
As to the motive of petitioner in seeking to annul his marriage be computed on the basis of cohabitation as “husband
to respondent, it may well be that his motives are less than and wife” where the only missing factor is the special
pure - that he seeks a way out of his marriage to legitimize his contract of marriage to validate the union.
alleged illicit affair with another woman. Be that as it may, the  In other words, the five-year common
same does not make up for the failure of the respondent to law cohabitation period, which is counted back from
prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the weight the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period
of evidence presented by petitioner. The law must be applied. of legal union had it not been for the absence of the
As the marriage license, an essential requisite under the Civil marriage.
Code, is clearly absent, the marriage of petitioner and  The five-year period should be the years immediately
respondent is void ab initio.chanrobleslaw before the day the marriage and it should be a period
of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity—meaning
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision no third party was involved at any time within the five
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, dated years, and continuity—that is, unbroken.
March 30, 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA-  Otherwise, if that five-year cohabitation period
G.R. CV No. 69218, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The is computed without any distinction as to whether the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern parties were capacitated to marry each other during
Samar, Branch 2, dated September 25, 2000, in Civil Case No. the entire five years, then the law would be
464 is REINSTATED. sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to
__________ have common law relationships and placing them on
the same footing with those who lived faithfully with
their spouse.
3. Niñal vs. Bayadog  (b) The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to
declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable and void
 Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on marriages are not identical. Consequently, void
September 26, 1974. She was shot by Pepito marriages can be questioned even after the death of
resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. either party but voidable marriages can be assailed
only during the lifetime of the parties and not after
 One year and 8 months thereafter, Pepito and
death of either, in which case the parties and their
respondent Norma Badayog got married without any
offspring will be left as if the marriage had been
marriage license.
perfectly valid.
 In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an
affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they
had lived together as husband and wife for at least __________
five years and were thus exempt from securing a
marriage license. 4. Diaz-Salgado v. Anson
 On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident
 After their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for
 Luis Anson is the husband of Severina de Asis-
declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to
Anson. They had 1 daughter, Maria Luisa and she
Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for
was wed to Gaston Maya.
lack of a marriage license. The case was filed under
 Severina had an older daughter to a previous
the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the
relationship, Jo ann Diaz and she was also wed to
second marriage would affect petitioner’s
Gerard Salgado.
successional rights.
 Luis and Severina acquired several real properties
and according to him, since there was no marriage
 Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
settlement, the properties pertain to their conjugal
petitioners have no cause of action since they are not
partnership.
among the persons who could file an action
for annulment of marriage under Article 47 of the  But without his knowledge and consent, Severina
Family Code. executed 3 Unilateral Deeds of Sale transferring then
properties in favor of Jo ann.
 Issues:
 When Severina died, Maria Luisa executed a Deed of
Extra-Judcial Settlement of Estate Deceased
(a) Whether or not Pepito and Norma’ living together Severina adjudicating herself as the sole heir.
as husband and wife for at least five years exempts  Due to these acts, Luis filed a complaint for the
them from obtaining a marriage license under Article annulment of these Deeds against Sps Salgado and
34 of the Family Code of the Philippines. Sps Maya.
 The latter countered that they were not aware of any
(b) Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action marriage between Luis and their mother Severina but
against defendant in asking for the declaration of the they knew they cohabited as common-law couple and
nullity of marriage of their deceasedfather, Pepito G.
 that after their cohabitation, Luis went to the US and  Hence, Jose and Felisa’s marriage is void ab
married one Teresita. initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity of
 And due to Partition Agreement that divided their marriage is imprescriptible. The right to impugn
properties without court intervention, both Sps claim marriage does not prescribe and may be raised any
that the properties herewith are separate and time.
exclusive properties of Severina.
 Issue: W/N marriage between Severina and Luis is 6.
valid and the subject lands as conjugal
partnership
 Held: Court finds that their marriage is void ab initio
for lack of marriage license.
 Luis asserted that their marriage was an exceptional
one but he failed to justify the lack of marriage
license.
 He admitted that they did not seek to apply for it. The
Partition agreement is valid.
 Valdez v RTC Quezon City 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 Art 147
or Art 148 as the case may be, of the Family Code.
 Also, attesting that his marriage with Severina was
subsisting and valid, he knowingly contracted to a
subsequent marriage abroad, and the Court finds
such suspicious and fraudulent thereby tainting his
credibility.

5. Republic v. Dayot
 Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City
Hall on November 24, 1986.
 In lieu of a marriage license, they executed a sworn
affidavit that they had lived together for at least
5years.
 On August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with a
certain Rufina Pascual.
 They were both employees of the National Statistics
and Coordinating Board.
 Felisa then filed on June 1993 an action for bigamy
against Jose and an administrative complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman.
 On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint on July
1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of
marriage where he contended that his marriage with
Felisa was a sham and his consent was secured
through fraud.
 ISSUE: Whether or not Jose’s marriage with Felisa is
valid considering that they executed a sworn affidavit
in lieu of the marriage license requirement.
 CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have
not lived together for five years at the time they
executed their sworn affidavit and contracted
marriage. Jose and Felisa started living together only
in June 1986, or barely five months before the
celebration of their marriage on November 1986.
 Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding
in the Supreme Court.
 The solemnization of a marriage without prior license
is a clear violation of the law and invalidates a
marriage.
 Furthermore, “the falsity of the allegation in the sworn
affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisa’s
cohabitation, which would have qualified their
marriage as an exception to the requirement for a
marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it
refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely
required to be deposed and attested to by the parties
under oath”.