CASE 2016-0037: RAQUEL G. KHO VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA G. KHO (G.R. 187462, 01 JUNE 2016, PERALTA J.)(SUBJECT/S: MARRIAGE LICENSE; EXCEPTIONAL MARRIAGES; EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT SC MUST ONLY RESOLVE  QUESTIONS OF LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: KHO VS. REPUBLIC)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the marriage contracted between Raquel G. Kho and Veronica Borata on June 1, 1972 null and void ab initio pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Family Code.  The foregoing is without prejudiced to the application of Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

 

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern, Samar for proper registration of this decree of nullity of marriage.

 

So ordered.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

OSG ARGUES THAT THE ISSUES ARE FACTUAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT PROPER FOR SC TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. IS OSG CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

THE ISSUES INVOLVE A DETERMINATION AND APPLICATION OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE INTERTWINED WITH A QUESTION OF FACT: WHETHER A MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PARTIES PRIOR TO MARRIAGE.

 

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT SC SHALL NOT ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS OF FACT?

 

THERE ARE 10:

 

( 1) WHEN THE CONCLUSION IS A FINDING GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES;

 

(2) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD OR IMPOSSIBLE;

 

(3) WHERE THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

 

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

 

(5) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONFLICTING;

 

(6) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

 

(7) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARC CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT; (8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED; /D.ATL5. T?1

 

 (9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE PETITIONERS’ MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS;

 

AND (I 0) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ON THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RCCORD.11

 

IS THIS PRESENT CASE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE?

 

YES.

 

BECAUSE  THE FINDINGS OF THE RTC AND THE CA ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INDEED A MARRIAGE LICENSE ARE CONFLICTING.

 

WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE  LAW  ON MARRIAGE LICENSE?

 

ARTICLE 53 OF THE CIVIL CODE SPELLS OUT THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE AS A CONTRACT. IT READS:

 

ART. 53. NO MARRIAGE SHALL  BE SOLEMNIZED  UNLESS ALL THESE  REQUISITES ARE COMPLIED WITH:

 

(1) LEGAL CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES;

 

(2) THEIR CONSENT, FREELY GIVEN;

 

(3) AUTHORITY OF THE PERSON PERFORMING THE MARRIAGE; AND

 

(4) A MARRIAGE LICENSE, EXCEPT IN A MARRIAGE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER.13

 

WHAT ARE MARRIAGES OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER?

 

THESE MARRIAGES ARE:

 

(I) MARRIAGES IN ARTICULO MORTIS OR AT THE POINT OF DEATH DURING PEACE OR WAR;

 

(2) MARRIAGES IN REMOTE PLACES;

 

(3) CONSULAR MARRIAGES;

 

( 4) RATIFICATION OF MARITAL COHABITATION;

 

(5) RELIGIOUS RATIFICATION OF A CIVIL MARRIAGE;

 

(6) MOHAMMEDAN OR PAGAN MARRIAGES; AND

 

(7) MIXED MARRIAGES. PETITIONER’S AND RESPONDENT’S MARRIAGE DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONS.

 

SUPPOSE A MARRIAGE IS PERFORMED WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE. IS IT VALID?


IT IS VOID PER ART. 80 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

 

WHY IS MARRIAGE LICENSE NECESSARY?

 

BECAUSE IT IS THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE STATE TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, AFTER THE PROPER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAS INQUIRED INTO THEIR CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE.

 

THE REQUIREMENT AND ISSUANCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE IS THE STATE’S DEMONSTRATION OF ITS INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN EVERY MARRIAGE, IN THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS INTERESTED.

 

OSG ARGUES THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE AND THAT ANY DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED TO SUSTAIN SUCH VALIDITY. IS THEIR ARGUMENT CORRECT?

 

YES BUT NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT. EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT NO MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PARTIES.

 

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. 20

 

AS STATED ABOVE, 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 [PETITIONER] AND VERONICA M. BORATA [RESPONDENT] WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS CELEBRATED ON JUNE 1, 1972.”21

 

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, RESPONDENT WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THAT BURDEN.

 

RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER  HAND FAILED TO PRESENT COPY OF THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE LICENSE.

 

BUT PETITIONER’S MOTIVE WHICH IS TO LEGITIMIZE HIS ILLICIT AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IS NOT PURE. WILL THIS FACT NOT BE CONSIDERED?

 

NO.

 

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.

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0037-KHO

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.