11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

G.R. No. 182438. July 2, 2014.*

RENE RONULO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.

Criminal Law; Performing Illegal Marriage Ceremony; Article 352 of

the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, penalizes an authorized
solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony.—Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, penalizes an authorized
solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony. The elements of this crime are as follows: (1) authority of the
solemnizing officer; and (2) his performance of an illegal marriage
ceremony. In the present case,

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

676

676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

the petitioner admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage.

Hence, the only issue to be resolved is whether the alleged “blessing” by the
petitioner is tantamount to the performance of an “illegal marriage
ceremony” which is punishable under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
Same; Same; While Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended, does not specifically define a “marriage ceremony” and what
constitutes its “illegal” performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of the Family
Code are clear on these matters.—While Article 352 of the RPC, as
amended, does not specifically define a “marriage ceremony” and what
constitutes its “illegal” performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of the Family Code
are clear on these matters. These provisions were taken from Article 55 of
the New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3 of the
Marriage Law with no substantial amendments. Article 6 of the Family
Code provides that “[n]o prescribed form or religious rite for the
solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for
the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal
age that they take each other as husband and wife.”
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Prosecution of Offenses; A judge
may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory
questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth.—The
petitioner’s allegation that the court asked insinuating and leading questions
to Florida fails to persuade us. A judge may examine or cross-examine a
witness. He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of
the witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and
material testimony though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the
position taken by one or the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the
clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths that tend
to destroy the theory of one party.
Civil Law; Family Code; Marriages; No prescribed form or religious rite
for the solemnization of marriage is required.—We also do not agree with
the petitioner that the principle of separation of church and State precludes
the State from qualifying the church “blessing” into a marriage ceremony.
Contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, this principle has been duly preserved
by Article 6 of the

677

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 677

Ronulo vs. People

Family Code when it provides that no prescribed form or religious rite for
the solemnization of marriage is required. This pronouncement gives any
religion or sect the freedom or latitude in conducting its respective marital
rites, subject only to the requirement that the core requirements of law be
observed.
Constitutional Law; Marriages; Article 15 of the Constitution
recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and that our family
law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social
institution in which the State is vitally interested.—We emphasize at this
point that Article 15 of the Constitution recognizes marriage as an inviolable
social institution and that our family law is based on the policy that marriage
is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally
interested. The State has paramount interest in the enforcement of its
constitutional policies and the preservation of the sanctity of marriage. To
this end, it is within its power to enact laws and regulations, such as Article
352 of the RPC, as amended, which penalize the commission of acts
resulting in the disintegration and mockery of marriage.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Reynaldo A. Corpuz for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

BRION, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] filed by
petitioner Fr. Rene Ronulo challenging the April 3, 2008 decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR No.

_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-26.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and concurred in by Associate
Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.; id., at pp. 28-55.

678

678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

31028 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court,

(RTC) Branch 18, Batac, Ilocos Norte.
The Factual Antecedents
The presented evidence showed that[3] Joey Umadac and Claire
Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on March 29, 2003 at
the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.
However, on the day of the wedding, the supposed officiating priest,
Fr. Mario Ragaza, refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning
that the couple failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse,
Joey, who was then dressed in barong tagalog, and Claire, clad in a
wedding gown, together with their parents, sponsors and guests,
proceeded to the Independent Church of Filipino Christians, also
known as the Aglipayan Church. They requested the petitioner, an
Aglipayan priest, to perform a ceremony to which the latter agreed
despite having been informed by the couple that they had no
marriage certificate.
The petitioner prepared his choir and scheduled a mass for the
couple on the same date. He conducted the ceremony in the presence
of the groom, the bride, their parents, the principal and secondary
sponsors and the rest of their invited guests.[4]
An information for violation of Article 352 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), as amended, was filed against the petitioner before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte for allegedly
performing an illegal marriage ceremony.[5]

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

[3] From the testimonies of Joseph Yere, id., at pp. 89-90; Mary Anne Yere, id., at
pp. 182-183; the petitioner, id., at pp. 118-123, 129 and 133-136; Joey Umadac, id., at
pp. 145-153; and Dominador Umadac, id., at pp. 166-167.
[4] Id., at p. 30.
[5] Id., at p. 29.

679

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 679

Ronulo vs. People

The petitioner entered the plea of “not guilty” to the crime

charged on arraignment.
The prosecution’s witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne Yere,
testified on the incidents of the ceremony. Joseph was the veil
sponsor while Mary Anne was the cord sponsor in the wedding.
Mary Anne testified that she saw the bride walk down the aisle. She
also saw the couple exchange their wedding rings, kiss each other,
and sign a document.[6] She heard the petitioner instructing the
principal sponsors to sign the marriage contract. Thereafter, they
went to the reception, had lunch and took pictures. She saw the
petitioner there. She also identified the wedding invitation given to
her by Joey.[7]
Florida Umadac, the mother of Joey, testified that she heard the
couple declare during the ceremony that they take each other as
husband and wife.[8] Days after the wedding, she went to the
municipal local civil registrar of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte with
Atty. Mariano R. Nalupta Jr. where she was given a certificate that
no marriage license was issued to the couple.[9]
The petitioner, while admitting that he conducted a ceremony,
denied that his act of blessing the couple was tantamount to a
solemnization of the marriage as contemplated by law.[10]
The MTC’s Judgment
The MTC found the petitioner guilty of violation of Article 352
of the RPC, as amended, and imposed on him a P200.00 fine
pursuant to Section 44 of Act No. 3613. It held that the

_______________
[6] Id., at p. 35.
[7] Id., at pp. 36-37.
[8] Id., at pp. 85-86 (TSN dated August 5, 2004 of Florida Umadac, p. 14).
[9] Id., at p. 31.
[10] Id., at pp. 49-50.

680

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

petitioner’s act of giving a blessing constitutes a marriage ceremony

as he made an official church recognition of the cohabitation of the
couple as husband and wife.[11] It further ruled that in performing a
marriage ceremony without the couple’s marriage license, the
petitioner violated Article 352 of the RPC which imposes the
penalty provided under Act No. 3613 or the Marriage Law. The
MTC applied Section 44 of the Marriage Law which pertinently
states that a violation of any of its provisions that is not specifically
penalized or of the regulations to be promulgated, shall be punished
by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment of
not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The RPC is a law subsequent to the Marriage Law, and provides
the penalty for violation of the latter law. Applying these laws, the
MTC imposed the penalty of a fine in the amount of P200.00.[12]
The RTC’s Ruling
The RTC affirmed the findings of the MTC and added that the
circumstances surrounding the act of the petitioner in “blessing” the
couple unmistakably show that a marriage ceremony had transpired.
It further ruled that the positive declarations of the prosecution
witnesses deserve more credence than the petitioner’s negative
statements.[13] The RTC, however, ruled that the basis of the fine
should be Section 39, instead of Section 44, of the Marriage Law.
The CA’s Decision
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling. The CA observed
that although there is no prescribed form or religious rite for the
solemnization of marriage, the law provides mini-

_______________
[11] Id., at pp. 60-61.
[12] Id., at pp. 62-63.
[13] Id., at p. 68.

681

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 681

Ronulo vs. People

mum standards in determining whether a marriage ceremony has

been conducted, viz.: (1) the contracting parties must appear
personally before the solemnizing officer; and (2) they should
declare that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence
of at least two witnesses of legal age.[14] According to the CA, the
prosecution duly proved these requirements. It added that the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

presence of a marriage certificate is not a requirement in a marriage

ceremony.[15]
The CA additionally ruled that the petitioner’s criminal liability
under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is not dependent on
whether Joey or Claire were charged or found guilty under Article
350 of the same Code.[16]
The CA agreed with the MTC that the legal basis for the
imposition of the fine is Section 44 of the Marriage Law since it
covers violation of regulations to be promulgated by the proper
authorities such as the RPC.
The Petition
The petitioner argues that the CA erred on the following grounds:
First, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, is vague and does not
define what constitutes “an illegal marriage ceremony.” Assuming
that a marriage ceremony principally constitutes those enunciated in
Article 55 of the Civil Code and Article 6 of the Family Code, these
provisions require the verbal declaration that the couple take each
other as husband and wife, and a marriage certificate containing the
declaration in writing which is duly signed by the contracting parties
and attested to by the solemnizing officer.[17] The petitioner likewise
maintains that the prosecution failed to prove that

_______________
[14] Id., at p. 46.
[15] Id., at p. 51.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Id., at pp. 12-14.

682

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other
as husband and wife.[18]
Second, under the principle of separation of church and State, the
State cannot interfere in ecclesiastical affairs such as the
administration of matrimony. Therefore, the State cannot convert the
“blessing” into a “marriage ceremony.”[19]
Third, the petitioner had no criminal intent as he conducted the
“blessing” in good faith for purposes of giving moral guidance to the
couple.[20]
Fourth, the nonfiling of a criminal case against the couple in
violating Article 350 of the RPC, as amended, should preclude the
filing of the present case against him.[21]

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

Finally, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not provide

for a penalty. The present case is not covered by Section 44 of the
Marriage Law as the petitioner was not found violating its
provisions nor a regulation promulgated thereafter.[22]

The Court’s Ruling

We find the petition unmeritorious.

The elements of the crime

punishable under Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended, were proven by the
prosecution

Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, penalizes an authorized

solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are as follows: (1)
authority of the solemnizing officer; and (2) his performance of an
illegal marriage ceremony.

_______________
[18] Id., at p. 15.
[19] Id., at pp. 15-16.
[20] Id., at p. 18.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Id., at p. 19.

683

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 683

Ronulo vs. People

In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he has

authority to solemnize a marriage. Hence, the only issue to be
resolved is whether the alleged “blessing” by the petitioner is
tantamount to the performance of an “illegal marriage ceremony”
which is punishable under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not specifically
define a “marriage ceremony” and what constitutes its “illegal”
performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of the Family Code are clear on
these matters. These provisions were taken from Article 55[23] of the
New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3[24] of the
Marriage Law with no substantial amendments.
Article 6[25] of the Family Code provides that “[n]o prescribed
form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

[23] Art.  55. No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required, but
the parties with legal capacity to contract marriage must declare, in the presence of
the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age, that they take
each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be set forth in an instrument in
triplicate, signed by signature or mark by the contracting parties and said two
witnesses and attested by the person solemnizing the marriage.
[24] Mutual Consent.—No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is
required, but the parties with legal capacity to contract marriage must declare, in the
presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age,
that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be set forth in an
instrument in triplicate, signed by signature or mark by the contracting parties and
said two witnesses and attested by the person solemnizing the marriage.
[25] Art.  6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the
marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to
appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not
less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.
This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be

684

684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to

appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in
the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they
take each other as husband and wife.”[26]
Pertinently, Article 3(3)[27] mirrors Article 6 of the Family Code
and particularly defines a marriage ceremony as that 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.
Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended, the rule was clear that no prescribed form of
religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required.
However, as correctly found by the CA, the law sets the minimum
requirements constituting a marriage ceremony: first, there should
be the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a
solemnizing officer; and second, their declaration in the presence of
not less than two witnesses that they take each other as husband and
wife.
As to the first requirement, the petitioner admitted that the parties
appeared before him and this fact was testified to

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the
solemnizing officer.
[26] This provision was taken from Article 55 of the New Civil Code which was,
in turn, a reproduction of Section 3 of the Marriage Law.
[27] 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.

685

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 685

Ronulo vs. People

by witnesses. On the second requirement, we find that, contrary to

the petitioner’s allegation, the prosecution has proven, through the
testimony of Florida, that the contracting parties personally declared
that they take each other as husband and wife.
The petitioner’s allegation that the court asked insinuating and
leading questions to Florida fails to persuade us. A judge may
examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory
questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the
truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony
though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position
taken by one or the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the
clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths
that tend to destroy the theory of one party.[28]
At any rate, if the defense found the line of questioning of the
judge objectionable, its failure to timely register this bars it from
belatedly invoking any irregularity.
In addition, the testimonies of Joseph and Mary Anne, and even
the petitioner’s admission regarding the circumstances of the
ceremony, support Florida’s testimony that there had indeed been the
declaration by the couple that they take each other as husband and
wife. The testimony of Joey disowning their declaration as husband
and wife cannot overcome these clear and convincing pieces of
evidence. Notably, the defense failed to show that the prosecution
witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne, had any ill motive to testify
against the petitioner.
We also do not agree with the petitioner that the principle of
separation of church and State precludes the State from qualifying
the church “blessing” into a marriage ceremony. Contrary to the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

petitioner’s allegation, this principle has been duly preserved by

Article 6 of the Family Code when it pro-

_______________
[28] People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 115; 338 SCRA 420, 460 (2000).

686

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

vides that no prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization

of marriage is required. This pronouncement gives any religion or
sect the freedom or latitude in conducting its respective marital rites,
subject only to the requirement that the core requirements of law be
observed.
We emphasize at this point that Article 15[29] of the Constitution
recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and that our
family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere
contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally
interested. The State has paramount interest in the enforcement of its
constitutional policies and the preservation of the sanctity of
marriage. To this end, it is within its power to enact laws and
regulations, such as Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, which
penalize the commission of acts resulting in the disintegration and
mockery of marriage.
From these perspectives, we find it clear that what the petitioner
conducted was a marriage ceremony, as the minimum requirements
set by law were complied with. While the petitioner may view this
merely as a “blessing,” the presence of the requirements of the law
constitutive of a marriage ceremony qualified this “blessing” into a
“marriage ceremony” as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the Family
Code and Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
We come now to the issue of whether the solemnization by the
petitioner of this marriage ceremony was illegal.
Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the essential
requisites of marriage is the presence of a valid marriage certificate.
In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he knew that the
couple had no marriage license, yet he conducted the “blessing” of
their relationship.

_______________
[29] Section  1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the
nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.
Section 2. Marriage, an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

687

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 687

Ronulo vs. People

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony

despite knowledge that the essential and formal requirements of
marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage ceremony,
therefore, was illegal. The petitioner’s knowledge of the absence of
these requirements negates his defense of good faith.
We also do not agree with the petitioner that the lack of a
marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the present case.
For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has been
conducted, a marriage certificate is not included in the requirements
provided by Article 3(3) of the Family Code, as discussed above.
Neither does the nonfiling of a criminal complaint against the
couple negate criminal liability of the petitioner. Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended, does not make this an element of the crime.
The penalty imposed is proper
On the issue on the penalty for violation of Article 352 of the
RPC, as amended, this provision clearly provides that it shall be
imposed in accordance with the provision of the Marriage Law. The
penalty provisions of the Marriage Law are Sections 39 and 44
which provide as follows:
Section 39 of the Marriage Law provides that:

Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of Marriage.—Any priest or minister

solemnizing marriage without being authorized by the Director of the
Philippine National Library or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses to
exhibit the authorization in force when called upon to do so by the parties or
parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons having charge and any bishop
or officer, priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect the regulations
and practices whereof require banns or publications previous to the
solemnization of a marriage in accordance with section ten, who authorized
the immediate solemni-

688

688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ronulo vs. People

zation of a marriage that is subsequently declared illegal; or any officer,

priest or minister solemnizing marriage in violation of this act, shall be
punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two
years, or by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than two
thousand pesos. [emphasis ours]

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

On the other hand, Section 44 of the Marriage Law states that:

Section 44. General Penal Clause.—Any violation of any
provision of this Act not specifically penalized, or of the
regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion
of the court. [emphasis ours]
From a reading of the provisions cited above, we find merit in the
ruling of the CA and the MTC that the penalty imposable in the
present case is that covered under Section 44, and not Section 39, of
the Marriage Law.
The penalized acts under Section 39 of Act No. 3613 do not
include the present case. As correctly found by the MTC, the
petitioner was not found violating the provisions of the Marriage
Law but Article 352 of the RPC, as amended. It is only the
imposition of the penalty for the violation of this provision which is
referred to the Marriage Law. On this point, Article 352 falls
squarely under the provision of Section 44 of Act No. 3613 which
provides for the penalty for any violation of the regulations to be
promulgated by the proper authorities; Article 352 of the RPC, as
amended, which was enacted after the Marriage Law, is one of such
regulations.
Therefore, the CA did not err in imposing the penalty of fine of
P200.00 pursuant to Section 44 of the Marriage Law.

689

VOL. 728, JULY 2, 2014 689

Ronulo vs. People

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and affirm the decision

of the Court of Appeals dated April 3, 2008 in C.A.-G.R. CR No.
31028.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe,

JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
11/7/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 728

that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not
less than two witnesses of legal age. (Abbas vs. Abbas, 689 SCRA
646 [2013])
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. (Id.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f960538a364b90ac3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13