J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0044: DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS V. BCA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION  (G.R. 210858, 29 JUNE 2016, CARPIO, J.) (SUBJECT/S: ARBITRATION; 9285, ITS IRR, AND THE SPECIAL ADR RULES; RA 876;  PRIVILEGED INFORMATION; RIGHT TO INFORMATION; DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE; CONFLICT OF LAWS) (BRIEF TITLE: DFA VS BCA INTERNATIONAL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, we resolve to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition and REMAND this case to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 146, to determine whether the documents and records sought to be subpoenaed are protected by the deliberative process privilege as explainedin this Decision. The Resolution dated 2 April 2014 issuing a Temporary Restraining Order is superseded by this Decision.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS JURISDICTION WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ARBITRATION AND WHAT GOVERNS IT?

ARBITRATION IS DEEMED A SPECIAL PROCEEDING AND GOVERNED BY THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF RA 9285, ITS IRR, AND THE SPECIAL ADR RULES.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF RA 9285.

RA 9285 IS THE GENERAL LAW APPLICABLE TO ALL MATTERS AND CONTROVERSIES TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS.

RA 9285 WAS ENACTED IN 2004. CAN IT APPLY TO PENDING ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS?

YES BECAUSE IT IS A PROCEDURAL LAW AND THUS HAS RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

WELL SETTLED IS THE RULE THAT PROCEDURAL LAWS ARE CONSTRUED TO BE APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS PENDING AND UNDETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THEIR PASSAGE, AND ARE DEEMED RETROACTIVE IN THAT SENSE AND TO THAT EXTENT.

BUT DOES THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL  LAWS NOT VIOLATE PERSONAL RIGHTS?

NO BECAUSE  NO VESTED RIGHT HAS YET ATTACHED NOR ARISEN FROM THEM.

IN THIS INSTANT CASE DOES RA 9285 AND ITS IRR APPLY?

YES BECAUSE THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN THE DFA AND BCA IS STILL PENDING, SINCE NO ARBITRAL AWARD HAS YET BEEN RENDERED.

MOREOVER, DFA DID NOT ALLEGE ANY VESTED RIGHTS IMPAIRED BY THE APPLICATION OF THOSE PROCEDURAL RULES.

DFA CONTENDS THAT THE RTC CANNOT ISSUE  SUBPOENAS BECAUSE RA 9285 AND THE SPECIAL ADR RULES DO NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE AND WHAT APPLY ARE THE 1976 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES. IS THIS CORRECT?

EVEN IF RA 9285 DOES NOT APPLY STILL RTC CAN ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

ESTABLISHED IN THIS JURISDICTION IS THE RULE THAT THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CONTRACT IS MADE GOVERNS, OR LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS.26 SINCE THERE IS NO LAW DESIGNATED BY THE PARTIES AS APPLICABLE AND THE AGREEMENT WAS PERFECTED IN THE PHILIPPINES, “THE ARBITRATION LAW,” OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 876 (RA 876), APPLIES.

RA 876 EMPOWERED ARBITRATORS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WHEN THE MATERIALITY OF THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO THEM.

DFA VIOLATED THE RA 9285, THE SPECIAL ADR RULES AND 1976 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BY DIRECTLY BRINGING THE CASE TO SC. THE RULES PROVIDE THAT THEY FIRST RESORT TO CA. IS IT PROPER FOR SC TO RESOLVE THE CASE ON THE MERITS?

YES. THE ENDS OF JUSTICE ARE BETTER SERVED WHEN

CASES ARE DETERMINED ON THE MERITS AFTER ALL PARTIES ARE GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO VENTILATE THEIR CAUSES AND DEFENSES RATHER THAN ON TECHNICALITY OR SOME PROCEDURAL IMPERFECTIONS.

THE RTC RULED THAT BASED ON CHAVEZ VS PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY ACTS, TRANSACTIONS OR DECISIONS ARE PRIVILEGED ONLY BEFORE A DEFINITE PROPOSITION IS REACHED BY THE AGENCY. SINCE, IN THIS CASE, DFA NOT ONLY MADE “A DEFINITE PROPOSITION” BY AWARDING THE BID BUT ALREADY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT THEN THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IS NO LONGER PRIVILEGED. IS RTC CORRECT?

NO.

THERE ARE EVIDENCES WHICH ARE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND PERSONS CANNOT BE COMPELLED BY SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY ON THEM. CHAVEZ VS PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY RECOGNIZE THIS. RTC MIS-APPLIED SAID CASE. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION DOES NOT COVER THESE PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

WHAT ARE THESE PRIVILEGED  INFORMATION?

EXAMPLE ARE MATTERS RECOGNIZED AS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION UNDER THE SEPARATION OF POWERS  SUCH AS PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS, CORRESPONDENCES, OR DISCUSSIONS DURING CLOSED-DOOR CABINET MEETINGS, INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER COLLEGIATE COURTS, OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS. THESE  ARE RECOGNIZED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

ALSO, MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC SECRETS, INFORMATION AFFECTING NATIONAL SECURITY, AND INFORMATION ON INVESTIGATIONS OF CRIMES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BEFORE THE PROSECUTION OF THE ACCUSED, WHICH COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

THE RIGHT MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO OTHER LIMITATIONS THAT CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE BY LAW.

WHY ARE PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS, CORRESPONDENCES, OR DISCUSSIONS DURING CLOSED-DOOR CABINET MEETINGS WHICH, LIKE INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER COLLEGIATE COURTS, OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, CONSIDERED AS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND THUS CONFIDENTIAL>

 TO PROTECT THE INDEPENDENCE OF DECISION-MAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT.

WHAT IS MEANT BY DELIVERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE?

IT IS THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON DELIBERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT BODIES WHICH INVOLVE THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS OF REACHING A DECISION. IN THIS CASE DELIBERATIONS DURING THE EVALUATION OF THE BIDS CONDUCTED BY DFA.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

A FRANK EXCHANGE OF EXPLORATORY IDEAS AND ASSESSMENTS, FREE FROM THE GLARE OF PUBLICITY AND PRESSURE BY INTERESTED PARTIES, IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT THE INDEPENDENCE OF DECISION-MAKING OF THOSE TASKED TO EXERCISE PRESIDENTIAL, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWER.

THE RULES ON CONFIDENTIALITY WILL ENABLE THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT TO “FREELY DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITHOUT FEAR OF CRITICISM FOR HOLDING UNPOPULAR POSITIONS” OR FEAR OF HUMILIATION FOR ONE’S COMMENTS.

THE PRIVILEGE IS INTENDED “TO PREVENT THE ‘CHILLING’ OF DELIBERATIVE COMMUNICATIONS.”39

IN THIS INSTANT CASE WHAT IS COVERED BY THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVIDEDGE?

THE DELIBERATIONS BEFORE AWARD WAS MADE IN BIDDING.

IS DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE CONSIDERED PRIVILEGED INFORMATION?

YES.

IT IS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION.

DOES THE PRIVILEGED CHARACTER OF THE INFORMATION END WHEN AN AGENCY HAS ADOPTED A  DEFINITE PROPOSITION (MEANING THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED TO AWARD THE CONTRACT) OR WHEN A CONTRACT HAS BEEN PERFECTED OR CONSUMMATED

NO.

OTHERWISE, THE PURPOSE OF THE PRIVILEGE WILL BE DEFEATED.

WHEN DOES THE  DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE APPLIES?

IF ITS PURPOSE IS SERVED, THAT IS, “TO PROTECT THE FRANK EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND OPINIONS CRITICAL TO THE GOVERNMENT’S DECISION[-]MAKING PROCESS WHERE DISCLOSURE WOULD DISCOURAGE SUCH DISCUSSION IN THE FUTURE.”

WHAT DOES THE  DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE TYPICALLY COVERS?

RECOMMENDATIONS, ADVISORY OPINIONS, DRAFT DOCUMENTS, PROPOSALS, SUGGESTIONS, AND OTHER SUBJECTIVE DOCUMENTS THAT REFLECT THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE WRITER RATHER THAN THE POLICY OF THE AGENCY.

WHAT DOES THE  DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE EXEMPTS?

MATERIALS THAT ARE ‘PREDECISIONAL’ AND ‘DELIBERATIVE,’

WHAT DOES THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILDEGE EXCLUDE?

DISCLOSURE OF POLICY STATEMENTS AND FINAL OPINIONS ‘THAT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW OR EXPLAIN ACTIONS THAT AN AGENCY HAS ALREADY TAKEN.

CAN THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE BE INVOKED IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER RA 9285.

YES.

WHAT ARE THE POLICY BASES OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE?

FIRST, THE PRIVILEGE PROTECTS CANDID DISCUSSIONS WITHIN AN AGENCY;

SECOND, IT PREVENTS PUBLIC CONFUSION FROM PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF AGENCY OPINIONS BEFORE THE AGENCY ESTABLISHES FINAL POLICY;

AND THIRD, IT PROTECTS THE INTEGRITY OF AN AGENCY’S DECISION; THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT JUDGE OFFICIALS BASED ON INFORMATION THEY CONSIDERED PRIOR TO ISSUING THEIR FINAL DECISIONS.”52

STATED DIFFERENTLY, THE PRIVILEGE SERVES:

“TO ASSURE THAT SUBORDINATES WITHIN AN AGENCY WILL FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE THE DECISION[-]MAKER WITH THEIR UNINHIBITED OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT FEAR OF LATER BEING SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RIDICULE OR CRITICISM;

TO PROTECT AGAINST PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSED POLICIES BEFORE THEY HAVE BEEN FINALLY FORMULATED OR ADOPTED;

AND TO PROTECT AGAINST CONFUSING THE ISSUES AND MISLEADING THE PUBLIC BY DISSEMINATION OF DOCUMENTS SUGGESTING REASONS AND RATIONALES FOR A COURSE OF ACTION WHICH WERE NOT IN FACT THE ULTIMATE REASONS FOR THE AGENCY’S ACTION.”53

CAN THE RIGHT TO DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PREVILEGE  BE WAIVED?

NO BECAUSE SUCH WAIVER IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.

RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVED IF IT IS CONTRARY TO LAW, PUBLIC ORDER, PUBLIC POLICY, MORALS, OR GOOD CUSTOMS, OR PREJUDICIAL TO A THIRD PERSON WITH A RIGHT RECOGNIZED BY LAW.

THERE IS A PUBLIC POLICY INVOLVED IN A CLAIM OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE -“THE POLICY OF OPEN, FRANK DISCUSSION BETWEEN SUBORDINATE AND CHIEF CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.”57

WHO HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF INVOKING THE DELIVERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE?

THE GOVERNMENT.

AS A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, THE BURDEN FALLS UPON THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY ASSERTING THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE TO PROVE THAT THE INFORMATION IN QUESTION SATISFIES BOTH REQUIREMENTS -PREDECISIONAL AND DELIBERATIVE. 59

 “THE AGENCY BEARS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE CHARACTER OF THE DECISION, THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS INVOLVED, AND THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE DOCUMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THAT PROCESS.”60

HOW CAN THIS BURDEN BE OVERCOME?

UPON A SHOWING THAT THE DISCOVERANT’S INTERESTS IN DISCLOSURE OF THE MATERIALS OUTWEIGH THE GOVERNMENT’S INTERESTS IN THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY.61

THE DETERMINATION OF NEED MUST BE MADE FLEXIBLY ON A CASE-BY-CASE, AD HOC BASIS,” AND THE “FACTORS RELEVANT TO THIS BALANCING INCLUDE: THE RELEVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, WHETHER THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THE DOCUMENTS MAY SHED LIGHT ON GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT, WHETHER THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAN BE OBTAINED WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE GOVERNMENT’S DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATERIAL TO THE DISCOVERANT’S CASE.”62

IN THIS INSTANT CASE IS THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED COVERED BY THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE?

IT IS NOT CLEAR BECAUSE BOTH BCA’S AND DFA’S ASSERTIONS OF SUBPOENA OF EVIDENCE AND THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE ARE BROAD AND LACK SPECIFICITY.

THUS, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO SPECIFY THEIR CLAIMS BEFORE THE RTC AND, THEREAFTER, THE RTC SHALL DETERMINE WHICH EVIDENCE IS COVERED BY THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE, IF THERE IS ANY, BASED ON THE STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THIS DECISION.

WHAT GUIDELINE TO BE OBSERVED?

IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DEMAND FOR THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT ITS PRODUCTION IS INJURIOUS TO THE CONSULTATIVE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF NON-DISCLOSURE PROTECTS.

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

SCD-2016-0045-BCA INTERNATIONAL

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”.

CASE 2016-0038: TAN SIOK1 KUAN and PUTECHING, VS. FELICISIMO “BOY” HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA,2 VICENTE M. SALAS, and LOLITA MALONZO, (G.R. 175085, 01 JUNE 2016, PEREZ J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; RES INTER ALIAS ACTA)  (BRIEF TITLE: KUAN ET AL. VS. HO ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed rulings, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 29, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 17, 2006 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED and the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners Tan Siu Kuan and Pute Ching against respondents Felicisimo “Boy” Ho, Rodolfo Returta, Vicente Salas, and Lolita Malonzo are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF RES INTER ALIAS ACTA?

IT STATES THAT THE RIGHT OF A PARTY CANNOT BE PREJUDICED BY AN ACT, DECLARATION OR OMISSION OF ANOTHER, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, AMONG WHICH ARE: (1) ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY, (2) ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT, (3) ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR, AND ( 4) ADMISSION BY PRIVIES.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND SAID PRINCIPLE?

ON  A PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AND MUTUAL CONVENIENCE, A MAN’S OWN ACTS ARE BINDING UPON HIMSELF, AND ARE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. SO ARE HIS CONDUCT AND DECLARATIONS. YET IT WOULD NOT ONLY BE RIGHTLY INCONVENIENT, BUT ALSO MANIFESTLY UNJUST, THAT A MAN SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE ACTS OF MERE UNAUTHORIZED STRANGERS; AND IF A PARTY OUGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE ACTS OF STRANGERS, NEITHER OUGHT THEIR ACTS OR CONDUCT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS FAILED  TO PROVE THAT LESSOR-LESSEE RELATIONSHIP EXIST. NO LEASE CONTRACT WAS PRESENTED. THERE WAS NO PROOF OF RENTAL PAYMENTS.

THUS PETIONERS APPEAR AS STRANGERS TO RESPONDENTS. THEIR ALLEGATIONS AS LESSORS WHICH WERE VEHEMENTLY DENIED BY RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST RESPONDENTS.

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

SCD-2016-0038-KUAN

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”.

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”.