Kho V Republic GR 187462
Kho V Republic GR 187462
Republic
Topic/ Doctrine CC Art.4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Art 35
Facts of the Petitioner filed before the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
Case ground that their marriage was solemnized without the requisite marriage license. On
May 31, 1972, petitioner’s parents summoned one Eusebio Colongon, a clerk in the
office of the municipal treasurer, instructing him to arrange and prepare whatever
necessary papers were required for the intended marriage between the petitioner and
respondent. The actual marriage ceremony took place before dawn on June 1, 1972.
Petitioner has never gone to the office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for a
marriage license. Due to the shortness of the period of time to obtain the pertinent
papers, the marriage was still solemnized even without the required marriage license.
Issue/s Whether or not the petition for nullity of marriage must be granted
Lower Court RTC rendered its decision granting the petition, finding petitioner to have sufficiently
Decision established the absence of the requisite marriage license when their marriage was
solemnized.
Appellate Court On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that there is a presumption a
Decision marriage was issued in the absence of any indication in the marriage certificate on the
contrary.
Supreme Court Contrary to the ruling of the CA, the Court agrees with petitioner and finds no doubt to
Decision be resolved as the evidence is clearly in his favor. Petitioner was able to present a
Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar attesting
that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar "has no record nor copy of any marriage
license ever issued in favor of Raquel G. Kho. Thus, on the basis of such Certification,
the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been overcome
and it becomes the burden of respondent to prove that their marriage is valid as it is
she who alleges such validity. As found by the RTC, the respondent was not able to
discharge that burden. Despite respondent's categorical claim that she and petitioner
were able to obtain a marriage license, she failed to present evidence to prove such
allegation. It is a settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it
and a mere allegation is not evidence. The law must be applied. As the marriage
license, an essential requisite under the Civil Code, is clearly absent, the marriage of
petitioner and respondent is void ab initio.