Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

THIRD DIVISION

GERBERT R. CORPUZ, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 186571

Present:

CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, versus BERSAMIN, *ABAD, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

* Designated additional Member of the Third Division, in view of the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.

DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR GENERAL,

Promulgated:

August 11, 2010 Respondents. -x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION BRION, J.:

Before the Court is a direct appeal from the decision1[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 11, elevated via a petition for review on certiorari2[2] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (present petition).

Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization on November 29, 2000. 3 [3] On

January 18, 2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City.4[4] Due to work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines sometime in
1[1] Dated October 30, 2008, penned by Judge Perla B. Querubin; rollo, pp. 24-31. 2[2] Id. at 3-20. 3[3] Id. at 27. 4[4] Marriage Certificate, id. at 37.

April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with another man. Hurt and disappointed, Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted Gerberts petition for divorce on December 8, 2005. The divorce decree took effect a month later, on January 8, 2006.5[5]

Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved on and has found another Filipina to love. Desirous of marrying his new Filipina fiance in the Philippines, Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyns marriage certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistics Office (NSO) informed Gerbert that the marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law; to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982.6[6]

Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved (petition) with the RTC. Although summoned, Daisylyn did not file any responsive pleading but submitted instead a notarized letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered no opposition
5[5] Certificate of Divorce, id. at 38. 6[6] Id. at 47-50; the pertinent portion of NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982, states:
It would therefore be premature to register the decree of annulment in the Register of Annulment of Marriages in Manila, unless and until final order of execution of such foreign judgment is issued by competent Philippine court.

to Gerberts petition and, in fact, alleged her desire to file a similar case herself but was prevented by financial and personal circumstances. She, thus, requested that she be considered as a party-in-interest with a similar prayer to Gerberts.

In its October 30, 2008 decision,7[7] the RTC denied Gerberts petition. The RTC concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code,8[8] in order for him or her to be able to remarry under Philippine law.9[9] Article 26 of the Family Code reads:

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

This conclusion, the RTC stated, is consistent with the legislative intent behind the enactment of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, as determined

7[7] Supra note 1. 8[8] Executive Order No. 209, enacted on July 6, 1987. 9[9] Rollo, p. 31.

by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III;10[10] the provision was enacted to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.11[11]

THE PETITION

From the RTCs ruling,12[12] Gerbert filed the present petition.13[13]

Gerbert asserts that his petition before the RTC is essentially for declaratory relief, similar to that filed in Orbecido; he, thus, similarly asks for a determination of his rights under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. Taking into account the rationale behind the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, he contends that the provision applies as well to the benefit of the alien spouse. He claims that the RTC ruling unduly stretched the doctrine in Orbecido by limiting the standing to file the petition only to the Filipino spouse an interpretation he claims to be contrary to the essence of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. He considers himself as a proper party, vested with
10[10] G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 114. 11[11] Id. at 121. 12[12] Gerberts motion for reconsideration of the RTCs October 30, 2008 decision was denied in an order
dated February 17, 2009; rollo, p. 32.

13[13] Supra note 2.

sufficient legal interest, to institute the case, as there is a possibility that he might be prosecuted for bigamy if he marries his Filipina fiance in the Philippines since two marriage certificates, involving him, would be on file with the Civil Registry Office. The Office of the Solicitor General and Daisylyn, in their respective Comments,14[14] both support Gerberts position.

Essentially, the petition raises the issue of whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

THE COURTS RULING

The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse

The resolution of the issue requires a review of the legislative history and intent behind the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

14[14] Rollo, pp. 79-87 and 125-142, respectively.

The Family Code recognizes only two types of defective marriages void15[15] and voidable16[16] marriages. In both cases, the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. Divorce, on the other hand, contemplates the dissolution of the lawful union for cause arising after the marriage.17[17] Our family laws do not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino citizens.18[18]

Recognizing the reality that divorce is a possibility in marriages between a Filipino and an alien, President Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution,19[19] enacted Executive Order No. (EO) 227, amending Article 26 of the Family Code to its present wording, as follows:

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. 15[15] The void marriages are those enumerated under Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 53 in relation to
Article 52 of the Family Code.

16[16] The voidable marriages are those enumerated under Article 45 of the Family Code. 17[17] Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 437, 452. 18[18] Ibid. See A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume One,
with the Family Code of the Philippines (2004 ed.), p. 262.

19[19] Proclamation No. 3, issued on March 25, 1996.

Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, EO 227 effectively incorporated into the law this Courts holding in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.20[20] and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera.21[21] In both cases, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien spouses assertion of marital rights after a foreign courts divorce decree between the alien and the Filipino. The Court, thus, recognized that the foreign divorce had already severed the marital bond between the spouses. The Court reasoned in Van Dorn v. Romillo that:

To maintain x x x that, under our laws, [the Filipino spouse] has to be considered still married to [the alien spouse] and still subject to a wife's obligations x x x cannot be just. [The Filipino spouse] should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to [the alien spouse]. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.22[22]

As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was included in the law to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.23[23] The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. Essentially,

20[20] G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 139. 21[21] G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989, 174 SCRA 653. 22[22] Van Dorn v. Romillo, supra note 20 at 144. 23[23] Republic v. Orbecido, supra note 10 at 121.

the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry.24[24] Without the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond;25[25] Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

Additionally, an action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage.
24[24] The capacity of the Filipino spouse to remarry, however, depends on whether the foreign divorce decree
capacitated the alien spouse to do so.

25[25] See Article 17 in relation to Article 15 of the Civil Code:

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. xxxx Art. 17. x x x Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree), whose status and legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.26[26]

Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and the purpose of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the RTC was correct in limiting the applicability of the provision for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.

The foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the party with legal interest to petition for its recognition in this jurisdiction

We qualify our above conclusion i.e., that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens with the complementary statement that this conclusion is not sufficient basis to dismiss Gerberts petition before the RTC. In other words, the unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip

26[26] Parenthetically, we add that an aliens legal capacity to contract is evidenced by a certificate issued by his
or her respective diplomatic and consular officials, which he or she must present to secure a marriage license (Article 21, Family Code). The Filipino spouse who seeks to remarry, however, must still resort to a judicial action for a declaration of authority to remarry.

Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the aliens national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. This Section states:

SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows: (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of the thing; and In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

(b)

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we have declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or her national law.27[27]

27[27] Garcia v. Recio, supra note 17 at 447; citing Van Dorn v. Romillo, supra note 20.

The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country.28[28] This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the aliens applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.29[29] The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.

In Gerberts case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

28[28] Remedial Law, Volume II, Rules 23-56 (2007 ed.), p. 529. 29[29] Republic v. Orbecido III, supra note 10 at 123 and Garcia v. Recio, supra note 17 at 448; see also Bayot v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008, 570 SCRA 472.

The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates proving its authenticity,30[30] but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce.31[31] Under this situation, we can, at this point, simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.

We deem it more appropriate to take this latter course of action, given the Article 26 interests that will be served and the Filipina wifes (Daisylyns) obvious conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a petitioners presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata32[32] between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.33[33]

30[30] Rollo, pp. 38-41. 31[31] The foreign divorce decree only stated that the marriage between Gerbert and Daisylyn was dissolved by
the Canadian court. The full text of the courts judgment was not included.

32[32] Literally means a thing adjudged, Blacks Law Dictionary (5th ed.), p. 1178; it establishes a rule that a
final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits, on points and matters determined in the former. Supra note 28 at 462.

33[33] See Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 102,
110, where the Court said:

In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same effect, as discussed above, will not obtain for the Filipino spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides.

Considerations beyond the recognition of the foreign divorce decree

As a matter of housekeeping concern, we note that the Pasig City Civil Registry Office has already recorded the divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyns marriage certificate based on the mere presentation of the decree.34[34] We consider the recording to be legally improper; hence, the need to draw attention of the bench and the bar to what had been done.

While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary for this purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment. What is essential is that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.

34[34] On the face of the marriage certificate, the word DIVORCED was written in big, bold letters; rollo, p. 37.

Article 407 of the Civil Code states that [a]cts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. The law requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching upon a persons legal capacity and status, i.e., those affecting all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or not.35[35]

A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one, affecting a persons legal capacity and status that must be recorded. In fact, Act No. 3753 or the Law on Registry of Civil Status specifically requires the registration of divorce decrees in the civil registry:

Sec. 1. Civil Register. A civil register is established for recording the civil status of persons, in which shall be entered: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) births; deaths; marriages; annulments of marriages; divorces; legitimations; adoptions; acknowledgment of natural children; naturalization; and changes of name. xxxx 35[35] Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007, 537 SCRA 373, 390, citing Beduya v. Republic,
120 Phil. 114 (1964).

Sec. 4. Civil Register Books. The local registrars shall keep and preserve in their offices the following books, in which they shall, respectively make the proper entries concerning the civil status of persons: (1) Birth and death register; (2) Marriage register, in which shall be entered not only the marriages solemnized but also divorces and dissolved marriages. (3) Legitimation, acknowledgment, adoption, change of name and naturalization register.

But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decrees registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect. In the context of the present case, no judicial order as yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Thus, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office acted totally out of turn and without authority of law when it annotated the Canadian divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyns marriage certificate, on the strength alone of the foreign decree presented by Gerbert.

Evidently, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office was aware of the requirement of a court recognition, as it cited NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982,36[36] and Department of Justice Opinion No. 181, series of 198237[37] both of which
36[36] Rollo, pp. 47-50. 37[37] Id. at 51.

required a final order from a competent Philippine court before a foreign judgment, dissolving a marriage, can be registered in the civil registry, but it, nonetheless, allowed the registration of the decree. For being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any legal effect.

Another point we wish to draw attention to is that the recognition that the RTC may extend to the Canadian divorce decree does not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry.

Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial order. The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, among others, that the verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located;38[38] that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties to the

38[38] Section 1, Rule 108, Rules of Court.

proceedings;39[39] and that the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.40[40] As these basic jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the present case, we cannot consider the petition Gerbert filed with the RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding 41 [41] by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the October 30, 2008 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag

39[39] Section 3, Rule 108, Rules of Court. 40[40] Section 4, Rule 108, Rules of Court. 41[41] When the entry sought to be corrected is substantial (i.e., the civil status of a person), a Rule 108 proceeding
is deemed adversarial in nature. See Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 420, 430.

City, Branch 11, as well as its February 17, 2009 order. We order the REMAND of the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with our ruling above. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Civil Registrar General. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 191425, September 07, 2011] ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case G.R. No. 191425 is a petition for review[1] assailing the Decision[2] promulgated on 30 September 2009 as well as the Resolution[3] promulgated on 23 February 2010 by the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31538. The appellate court affirmed the 19 November 2007 Decision[4] of Branch 215 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (trial court) in Criminal Case No. Q-04-129031.

The trial court found accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. (Nollora) guilty of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment. Co-accused Rowena Geraldino (Geraldino) was acquitted for the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Facts The appellate court recited the facts as follows: On August 24, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Raymond Jonathan B. Lledo filed an Information against Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. ("Nollora") and Rowena P. Geraldino ("Geraldino") for the crime of Bigamy. The accusatory portion of the Information reads: "That on or about the 8th day of December 2001 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR., being then legally married to one JESUSA PINAT NOLLORA, and as said marriage has not been legally dissolved and still subsisting, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a subsequent or second marriage with her [sic] co-accused ROWENA P. GERALDINO, who knowingly consented and agreed to be married to her co-accused ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR. knowing him to be a married man, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party JESUSA PINAT NOLLORA." Upon his arraignment on April 18, 2005, accused Nollora assisted by counsel, refused to enter his plea. Hence, a plea of not guilty was entered by the Court for him. Accused Geraldino, on the other hand, entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned on June 14, 2005. On even date, pre-trial conference was held and both the prosecution and defense entered the following stipulation of facts: "1. the validity of the first marriage between Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. and Jesusa Pinat Nollora solemnized on April 6, 1999 at Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte; 2. that Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. contracted the second marriage with Rowena P. Geraldino on December 8, 2001 in Quezon City; 3. that in the Counter-Affidavit of Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., he admitted that he contracted the second marriage to Rowena P. Geraldino; 4. that Rowena P. Geraldino attached to her Counter-Affidavit the Certificate of Marriage with Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. dated December 8, 2001; 5. the fact of marriage of Rowena P. Geraldino with Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. as admitted in her Counter-Affidavit." The only issue thus proffered by the prosecution for the RTC's resolution is whether or not the second marriage is bigamous. Afterwards, pre-trial conference was terminated and the case was set for initial hearing. Thereafter, trial ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution As culled from the herein assailed Decision, the respective testimonies of prosecution witnesses were as follows: "xxx (W)itness Jesusa Pinat Nollora xxx testified that she and accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. met in Saudi Arabia while she was working there as a Staff Midwife in King Abdulah Naval Base Hospital. Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. courted her and on April 6, 1999, they got married at the [IE] MELIF Chruch [sic] in Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan (Exhibit `A'). While working in said hospital, she heard rumors that her husband has another wife and because of anxiety and emotional stress, she left Saudi Arabia and returned to the Philippines (TSN, October 4, 2005, page 10). Upon arrival in the Philippines, the private complainant learned that indeed, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. contracted a second marriage with co-accused Rowena P. Geraldino on December 8, 2001 (Exhibit `B') when she secured a certification as to the civil status of Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. (Exhibit `C') from the National Statistics Office (NSO) sometime in November 2003. Upon learning this information, the private complainant confronted Rowena P. Geraldino at the latter's workplace in CBW, FTI, Taguig and asked her if she knew of the first marriage between complainant and Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. to which Rowena P. Geraldino allegedly affirmed and despite this knowledge, she allegedly still married Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. because she loves him so much and because they were neighbors and childhood friends. Private complainant also knew that Rowena P. Geraldino knew of her marriage with Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., because when she (private complainant) was brought by Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. at the latter's residence in Taguig, Metro Manila and introduced her to Atilano O. Nollora, Jr.'s parents, Rowena P. Geraldino was there in the house together with a friend and she heard everything that they were talking about. Because of this case, private complainant was not able to return to Saudi Arabia to work as a Staff Midwife thereby losing income opportunity in the amount of P34,000.00 a month, more or less. When asked about the moral damages she suffered, she declared that what happened to her was a tragedy and she had entertained [thoughts] of committing suicide. She added that because of what happened to her, her mother died and she almost got raped when Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. left her alone in their residence in Saudi Arabia. However, she declared that money is not enough to assuage her sufferings. Instead, she just asked for the return of her money in the amount of P50,000.00 (TSN, July 26, 2005, pages 4-14). Prosecution witness Ruth Santos testified that she knew of the marriage between the private complainant and Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., because she was one of the sponsors in said wedding. Sometime in November 2003, she was asked by the private complainant to accompany the latter to the workplace of Rowena P. Geraldino in FTI, Taguig, Metro Manila. She declared that the private complainant and Rowena P. Geraldino had a confrontation and she heard that Rowena P. Geraldino admitted that she (Rowena) knew of the first marriage of Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. and the private complainant but she still went on to marry Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. because she loves him very much (TSN, October 24, 2005, pages 3-5). Evidence for the Defense

The defense's version of facts, as summarized in the herein assailed Decision, is as follows: "Accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. admitted having contracted two (2) marriages, the first with private complainant Jesusa Pinat and the second with Rowena P. Geraldino. He, however, claimed that he was a Muslim convert way back on January 10, 1992, even before he contracted the first marriage with the private complainant. As a [M]uslim convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry four (4) wives as allowed under the Muslim or Islam belief. To prove that he is a Muslim convert even prior to his marriage to the private complainant, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. presented a Certificate of Conversion dated August 2, 2004 issued by one Hadji Abdul Kajar Madueo and approved by one Khad Ibrahim A. Alyamin wherein it is stated that Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. allegedly converted as a Muslim since January 19, 1992 (Exhibit `2,' `3' and `4'). Aside from said certificate, he also presented a Pledge of Conversion dated January 10, 1992 issued by the same Hadji Abdul Kajar Madueo and approved by one Khad Ibrahim A. Alyamin (Exhibit `7'). He claimed that the private complaint knew that he was a Muslim convert prior to their marriage because she [sic] told this fact when he was courting her in Saudi Arabia and the reason why said private complainant filed the instant case was due to hatred having learned of his second marriage with Rowena P. Geraldino. She [sic] further testified that Rowena P. Geraldino was not aware of his first marriage with the private complainant and he did not tell her this fact because Rowena P. Geraldino is a Catholic and he does not want to lose her if she learns of his first marriage. He explained that in his Marriage Contract with Jesusa Pinat, it is indicated that he was a `Catholic Pentecostal' but that he was not aware why it was placed as such on said contract. In his Marriage Contract with Rowena P. Geraldino, the religion `Catholic' was also indicated because he was keeping as a secret his being a Muslim since the society does not approve of marrying a Muslim. He also indicated that he was `single' despite his first marriage to keep said first marriage a secret (TSN, January 30, 2006, pages 2-13). Defense witness Hadji Abdul Qasar Madueo testified that he is the founder and president of Balik Islam Tableegh Foundation of the Philippines and as such president, he has the power and authority to convert any applicant to the Muslim religion. He alleged that sometime in 1992, he met accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. in Mabini (Manila) who was then going abroad. Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. applied to become a Muslim (Exhibit `14') and after receiving the application, said accused was indoctrinated regarding his obligations as a Muslim. On January 10, 1992, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. embraced the Muslim faith. He was then directed to report every Sunday to monitor his development. In the year 2004, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. visited him and asked for a certification because of the filing of the instant case. On October 2, 2004, he issued a Certificate of Conversion wherein it is stated that Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. is a Muslim convert since January 10, 1992. Apart from the above-mentioned document, their `Imam' also issued a Pledge of Conversion (Exhibit `7'). He declared that a Muslim convert could marry more than one according to the Holy Koran. However, before marrying his second, third and fourth wives, it is required that the consent of

the first Muslim wife be secured. Thus, if the first wife is not a Muslim, there is no necessity to secure her consent (TSN, October 9, 2006, pages 2-12). During his cross-examinations, he declared that if a Muslim convert gets married not in accordance with the Muslim faith, the same is contrary to the teachings of the Muslim faith. A Muslim also can marry up to four times but he should be able to treat them equally. He claimed that he was not aware of the first marriage but was aware of the second. Since his second marriage with Rowena P. Geraldino was not in accordance with the Muslim faith, he advised Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. to re-marry Rowena P. Geraldino in accordance with Muslim marriage celebration, otherwise, he will not be considered as a true Muslim (TSN, June 25, 2007, pages 37). Accused Rowena P. Geraldino alleged that she was only a victim in this incident of bigamous marriage. She claimed that she does not know the private complainant Jesusa Pinat Nollora and only came to know her when this case was filed. She insists that she is the one lawfully married to Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., having been married to the latter since December 8, 2001. Upon learning that Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. contracted a first marriage with the private complainant, she confronted the former who admitted the said marriage. Prior to their marriage, she asked Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. if he was single and the latter responded that he was single. She also knew that her husband was a Catholic prior to their marriage but after she learned of the first marriage of her husband, she learned that he is a Muslim convert. She also claimed that after learning that her husband was a Muslim convert, she and Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., also got married in accordance with the Muslim rites. She also belied the allegations of the private complainant that she was sought by the private complainant and that they had a confrontation where she admitted that she knew that Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. was married to the private complainant and despite this knowledge, she went on to marry him because she loved him very much. She insisted that she only came to know the private complainant when she (private complainant) filed this case (TSN, August 14, 2007, pages 2-8)."[5] The Trial Court's Ruling In its Decision[6] dated 19 November 2007, the trial court convicted Nollora and acquitted Geraldino. The trial court stated that there are only two exceptions to prosecution for bigamy: Article 41[7] of the Family Code, or Executive Order No. 209, and Article 180[8] of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, or Presidential Decree No. 1083. The trial court also cited Article 27 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, which provides the qualifications for allowing Muslim men to have more than one wife: "[N]o Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can deal with them in equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic Law and only in exceptional cases." In convicting Nollora, the trial court's Decision further stated thus: The principle in Islam is that monogamy is the general rule and polygamy is allowed only to meet urgent needs. Only with the permission of the court can a Muslim be permitted to have a second wife subject to certain requirements. This is because having plurality of wives is merely

tolerated, not encouraged, under certain circumstances (Muslim Law on Personal Status in the Philippines by Amer M. Bara-acal and Abdulmajid J. Astir, 1998 First Edition, Pages 64-65). Arbitration is necessary. Any Muslim husband desiring to contract subsequent marriages, before so doing, shall notify the Shari'a Circuit Court of the place where his family resides. The clerk of court shall serve a copy thereof to the wife or wives. Should any of them objects [sic]; an Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If said council fails to secure the wife's consent to the proposed marriage, the Court shall, subject to Article 27, decide whether on [sic] not to sustain her objection (Art. 162, Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines). Accused Atilano Nollora, Jr., in marrying his second wife, co-accused Rowena P. Geraldino, did not comply with the above-mentioned provision of the law. In fact, he did not even declare that he was a Muslim convert in both marriages, indicating his criminal intent. In his converting to the Muslim faith, said accused entertained the mistaken belief that he can just marry anybody again after marrying the private complainant. What is clear, therefore, is [that] a Muslim is not given an unbridled right to just marry anybody the second, third or fourth time. There are requirements that the Shari'a law imposes, that is, he should have notified the Shari'a Court where his family resides so that copy of said notice should be furnished to the first wife. The argument that notice to the first wife is not required since she is not a Muslim is of no moment. This obligation to notify the said court rests upon accused Atilano Nollora, Jr. It is not for him to interpret the Shari'a law. It is the Shari'a Court that has this authority. In an apparent attempt to escape criminal liability, the accused recelebrated their marriage in accordance with the Muslim rites. However, this can no longer cure the criminal liability that has already been violated. The Court, however, finds criminal liability on the person of accused Atilano Nollora, Jr., only. There is no sufficient evidence that would pin accused Rowena P. Geraldino down. The evidence presented by the prosecution against her is the allegation that she knew of the first marriage between private complainant and Atilano Nollora, Jr., is insufficient[,] being open to several interpretations. Private complainant alleged that when she was brought by Atilano Nollora, Jr., to the latter's house in Taguig, Metro Manila, Rowena P. Geraldino was there standing near the door and heard their conversation. From this incident, private complainant concluded that said Rowena P. Geraldino was aware that she and Atilano Nollora, Jr., were married. This conclusion is obviously misplaced since it could not be reasonably presumed that Rowena P. Geraldino understands what was going on between her and Atilano Nollora, Jr. It is axiomatic that "(E)very circumstance favoring accused's innocence must be taken into account, proof against him must survive the test of reason and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment" (People vs. Austria, 195 SCRA 700). This Court, therefore, has to acquit Rowena P. Geraldino for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: a) Finding accused ATILANO O. NOLLORA, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. This court hereby renders judgment imposing upon him a prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum of his indeterminate sentence, to eight (8) years and one (1)

day of prision mayor, as maximum, plus accessory penalties provided by law. b) Acquitting accused ROWENA P. GERALDINO of the crime of Bigamy for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Costs against accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. SO ORDERED.[9] Nollora filed a notice of appeal and moved for the allowance of his temporary liberty under the same bail bond pending appeal. The trial court granted Nollora's motion. Nollora filed a brief with the appellate court and assigned only one error of the trial court: The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[10] The Appellate Court's Ruling On 30 September 2009, the appellate court dismissed Nollora's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.[11] The appellate court rejected Nollora's defense that his second marriage to Geraldino was in lawful exercise of his Islamic religion and was allowed by the Qur'an. The appellate court denied Nollora's invocation of his religious beliefs and practices to the prejudice of the non-Muslim women who married him pursuant to Philippine civil laws. Nollora's two marriages were not conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, hence the Family Code of the Philippines should apply. Nollora's claim of religious freedom will not immobilize the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare. In a Resolution[12] dated 23 February 2010, the appellate court denied Nollora's motion for reconsideration. The allegations in the motion for reconsideration were a mere rehash of Nollora's earlier arguments, and there was no reason for the appellate court to modify its 30 September 2009 Decision. Nollora filed the present petition for review before this Court on 6 April 2010. The Issue The issue in this case is whether Nollora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy. The Court's Ruling Nollora's petition has no merit. We affirm the rulings of the appellate court and of the trial court. Elements of Bigamy

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 349. Bigamy. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. The elements of the crime of bigamy are: 1. That the offender has been legally married. 2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code. 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage. 4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.[13]

The circumstances in the present case satisfy all the elements of bigamy. (1) Nollora is legally married to Pinat;[14] (2) Nollora and Pinat's marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage; (3) Nollora admitted the existence of his second marriage to Geraldino;[15] and (4) Nollora and Geraldino's marriage has all the essential requisites for validity except for the lack of capacity of Nollora due to his prior marriage.[16] The marriage certificate[17] of Nollora and Pinat's marriage states that Nollora and Pinat were married at Sapang Palay IEMELIF Church, Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan on 6 April 1999. Rev. Jonathan De Mesa, Minister of the IEMELIF Church officiated the ceremony. The marriage certificate[18] of Nollora and Geraldino's marriage states that Nollora and Geraldino were married at Max's Restaurant, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, Metro Manila on 8 December 2001. Rev. Honorato D. Santos officiated the ceremony. A certification dated 4 November 2003 from the Office of the Civil Registrar General reads: We certify that ATILANO JR O. NOLLORA who is alleged to have been born on February 22, 1968 from ATILANO M. NOLLORA SR and FLAVIANA OCLARIT, appears in our National Indices of Marriage for Groom for the years 1973 to 2002 with the following information: Date of Marriage a) April 06, 1999 a) December 08, 2001 Place of Marriage b) SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN b) QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA (2nd District)[19]

Before the trial and appellate courts, Nollora put up his Muslim religion as his sole defense. He alleged that his religion allows him to marry more than once. Granting arguendo that Nollora is indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages,[ 20] Nollora cannot deny that both marriage ceremonies were not conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, or Presidential Decree No. 1083. The applicable Articles in the Code of Muslim Personal Laws read:

Art. 14. Nature. - Marriage is not only a civil contract but a civil institution. Its nature, consequences and incidents are governed by this Code and the Shari'a and not subject to stipulation, except that the marriage settlements to a certain extent fix the property relations of the spouses. Art. 15. Essential Requisites. - No marriage contract shall be perfected unless the following essential requisites are complied with: (a) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (b) Mutual consent of the parties freely given; (c) Offer (ijab) and acceptance (qabul) duly witnessed by at least two competent persons after the proper guardian in marriage (wali) has given his consent; and (d) Stipulation of the customary dower (mahr) duly witnessed by two competent persons. Art. 16. Capacity to contract marriage. - (1) Any Muslim male at least fifteen years of age and any Muslim female of the age of puberty or upwards and not suffering from any impediment under the provisions of this Code may contract marriage. A female is presumed to have attained puberty upon reaching the age of fifteen. x x x. Art. 17. Marriage Ceremony. - No particular form of marriage ceremony is required but the ijab and the qabul in marriage shall be declared publicly in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and the two competent witnesses. The declaration shall be set forth in an instrument in triplicate, signed or marked by the contracting parties and said witnesses, and attested by the person solemnizing the marriage. One copy shall be given to the contracting parties and another sent to the Circuit Registrar by the solemnizing officer who shall keep the third. Art. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. - Marriage maybe solemnized: (a) By the proper wali by the woman to be wedded; (b) Upon the authority of the proper wali, by any person who is competent under Muslim law to solemnize marriage; or (c) By the judge of the Shari'a District Court or Shari'a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifiable reason, to authorize the solemnization. Art. 19. Place of solemnization. - Marriage shall be solemnized publicly in any mosque, office of the Shari'a judge, office of the Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or at any other suitable place agreed upon by the parties. Art. 20. Specification of dower. - The amount or value of dower may be fixed by the contracting parties (mahr-musamma) before, during or after the celebration of marriage. If the amount or the

value thereof has not been so fixed, a proper dower (mahr- mithl) shall, upon petition of the wife, be determined by the court according to the social standing of the parties. Indeed, Article 13(2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that "[i]n case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the [Family Code of the Philippines, or Executive Order No. 209, in lieu of the Civil Code of the Philippines] shall apply." Nollora's religious affiliation is not an issue here. Neither is the claim that Nollora's marriages were solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus, regardless of his professed religion, Nollora cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.[21] Nollora asserted in his marriage certificate with Geraldino that his civil status is "single." Moreover, both of Nollora's marriage contracts do not state that he is a Muslim. Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage certificate is not an essential requirement for marriage, such omissions are sufficient proofs of Nollora's liability for bigamy. Nollora's false declaration about his civil status is thus further compounded by these omissions. [ATTY. CALDINO:] Q: In your marriage contract, Mr. Witness, with Jesusa Pinat, you indicated here as your religion, Catholic Pentecostal, and you were saying that since January 10, 1992, you are already a [M]uslim convert. . . you said, Mr. Witness, that you are already a [M]uslim convert since January 10, 1992. However, in your marriage contract with Jesusa Pinat, there is no indication here that you have indicated your religion. Will you please go over your marriage contract? [NOLLORA:] A: When we got married, they just placed there Catholic but I didn't know why they did not place any Catholic there. xxx Q: Now, Mr. Witness, I would like to call your attention with respect to your marriage contract with your co-accused in this case, Rowena Geraldino, x x x will you please tell us, Mr. Witness, considering that you said that you are already a [M]uslim convert on January 10, 1992, why in the marriage contract with Rowena Geraldino, you indicated there your religion as Catholic, Mr. Witness? A: Since I was a former Catholic and since I was then keeping, I was keeping it as a secret my being my Balik-Islam, that's why I placed there Catholic since I know that the society doesn't approve a Catholic to marry another, that's why I placed there Catholic as my religion, sir. Q: How about under the column, "civil status," why did you indicate there that you're single, Mr. Witness? A: I also kept it as a secret that I was married, earlier married. [22] (Emphasis supplied)

xxx [PROSECUTOR TAYLOR:] Q: Would you die for your new religion, Mr. Nollora? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: If you would die for your new religion, why did you allow that your faith be indicated as Catholic when in fact you were already as you alleged [M]uslim to be put in your marriage contract? xxx [A:] I don't think there is anything wrong with it, I just signed it so we can get married under the Catholic rights [sic] because after that we even got married under the [M]uslim rights [sic], your Honor. xxx Q: Under your Muslim faith, if you marry a second wife, are you required under your faith to secure the permission of your first wife to get married? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Did you secure that permission from your first wife, Jesusa Nollora? A: I was not able to ask any permission from her because she was very mad at me, at the start, she was always very mad, ma'am.[ 23] In his petition before this Court, Nollora casts doubt on the validity of his marriage to Geraldino. Nollora may not impugn his marriage to Geraldino in order to extricate himself from criminal liability; otherwise, we would be opening the doors to allowing the solemnization of multiple flawed marriage ceremonies. As we stated in Tenebro v. Court of Appeals:[24] There is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise would render the State's penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment. WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31538 promulgated on 30 September 2009 and the Resolution promulgated on 23 February 2010 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Bigamy in Criminal Case No. Q-04-129031 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of

imprisonment with a term of two years, four months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum of his indeterminate sentence, as well as the accessory penalties provided by law. Costs against petitioner Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. SO ORDERED. Brion, Peralta,* Perez, and Mendoza,** JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 167746

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, - versus CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and

REYES, JJ.

Promulgated: ROSITA A. ALCANTARA and HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

August 28, 2007

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Restituto Alcantara assailing the Decision42[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66724 denying petitioners appeal and affirming the decision43[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, in Civil Case No. 97-1325 dated 14 February 2000, dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage.
42[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; rollo, p. 25-32. Penned by Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos; CA rollo, pp. 257-258.

43[2]

The antecedent facts are:

A petition for annulment of marriage44[3] was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and respondent, without securing the required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange a marriage for them. They met a person who, for a fee, arranged their wedding before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel.45[4] They got married on the same day, 8 December 1982. Petitioner and respondent went through another marriage ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. The alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said place. On 14 October 1985, respondent gave birth to their child Rose Ann Alcantara. In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives. Petitioner prayed that after due hearing, judgment be issued

44[3] 45[4]

Docketed as Civil Case No. 97-1325. Crusade of the Divine Church of Christ.

declaring their marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to cancel the corresponding marriage contract46[5] and its entry on file.47[6]

Answering petitioners petition for annulment of marriage, respondent asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. Contrary to petitioners representation, respondent gave birth to their first child named Rose Ann Alcantara on 14 October 1985 and to another daughter named Rachel Ann Alcantara on 27 October 1992.48[7] Petitioner has a mistress with whom he has three children.49[8] Petitioner only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage.50[9] Respondent, in fact, has filed a case for concubinage against petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.51[10] Respondent prays that the petition for annulment of marriage be denied for lack of merit.

46[5] 47[6] 48[7] 49[8] 50[9]

Annex A, Records, p. 5; Annexes B to C, Records, pp. 6-7. Rollo, pp. 33-36. Id. at 185. TSN, 14 October 1999, p. 34. Rollo, p. 39.

51[10] Id. at 46.

On 14 February 2000, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, rendered its Decision disposing as follows:

The foregoing considered, judgment is rendered as follows:

1.

The Petition is dismissed for lack of merit;

2. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the sum of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) per month as support for their two (2) children on the first five (5) days of each month; and

3.

To pay the costs.52[11]

As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the petitioners appeal. His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 6 April 2005.53[12]

The Court of Appeals held that the marriage license of the parties is presumed to be regularly issued and petitioner had not presented any evidence to overcome the presumption. Moreover, the parties marriage contract being a

52[11] Id. at 68-69. 53[12] Id. at 21.

public document is a prima facie proof of the questioned marriage under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.54[13]

In his Petition before this Court, petitioner raises the following issues for resolution:

a.

The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it ruled that the Petition for Annulment has no legal and factual basis despite the evidence on record that there was no marriage license at the precise moment of the solemnization of the marriage.

b.

The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it gave weight to the Marriage License No. 7054133 despite the fact that the same was not identified and offered as evidence during the trial, and was not the Marriage license number appearing on the face of the marriage contract.

c.

The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it failed to apply the ruling laid down by this Honorable Court in the case of Sy vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 127263, 12 April 2000 [330 SCRA 550]).

d.

The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it failed to relax the observance of procedural rules to protect and promote the substantial rights of the party litigants.55[14]

54[13] Sec. 44. Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. 55[14] Rollo, p. 206.

We deny the petition.

Petitioner submits that at the precise time that his marriage with the respondent was celebrated, there was no marriage license because he and respondent just went to the Manila City Hall and dealt with a fixer who arranged everything for them.56[15] The wedding took place at the stairs in Manila City Hall and not in CDCC BR Chapel where Rev. Aquilino Navarro who solemnized the marriage belongs.57[16] He and respondent did not go to

Carmona, Cavite, to apply for a marriage license. Assuming a marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was issued to them, neither he nor the respondent was a resident of the place. The certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weight because the certification states that Marriage License number 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario58[17] but their marriage contract bears the number 7054033 for their marriage license number.

56[15] 57[16] 58[17]

Id. at 209. Records p. 1. Id. at 15-a.

The marriage involved herein having been solemnized on 8 December 1982, or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law to determine its validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration.

A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3)59[18] in relation to Article 58 of the same Code.60[19]

Article 53 of the Civil Code61[20] which was the law applicable at the time of the marriage of the parties states:

59[18] (3) character.

Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional

60[19] Art. 58. Save marriages of an exceptional character authorized in Chapter 2 of this Title, but not those under article 75, no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides. 61[20] Now Article 3 of the Family Code.
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. Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35.

Art. 53. complied with:

No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are

(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.

The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the States demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested.62[21]

Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the validity of his marriage. The cases where the court considered the absence of a marriage license as a ground for considering the marriage void are clear-cut.

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45. 62[21] Nial v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661, 667-668 (2000).

In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,63[22] the Local Civil Registrar issued a certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the effect that Marriage License No. 3196182 was issued to the parties. The Court held that the certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Based on said certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the marriage void ab initio.

In Cario v. Cario,64[23] the Court considered the marriage of therein petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santiago S. Carino as void ab initio. The records reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license. Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly void ab initio.
63[22] G.R. No.103047, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 257, 262. 64[23] G.R. No.132529, 2 February 2001, 351 SCRA 127, 133.

In Sy v. Court of Appeals,65[24] the marriage license was issued on 17 September 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on 15 November 1973. The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license.

In all these cases, there was clearly an absence of a marriage license which rendered the marriage void.

Clearly, from these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite.66[25] The certification moreover is precise in that it specifically identified the parties to whom the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara
65[24] 386 Phil. 760, 769 (2000). 66[25] Article 70 of the Civil Code, now Article 25 Family Code, provides: The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all applications for marriage licenses filed with him in a register book strictly in the order in which the same shall be received. He shall enter in said register the names of the applicants, the dates on which the marriage license was issued, and such other data as may be necessary.

and Rosita Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein.

The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of Carmona, Cavite, reads:

This is to certify that as per the registry Records of Marriage filed in this office, Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on December 8, 1982.

This Certification is being issued upon the request of Mrs. Rosita A. Alcantara for whatever legal purpose or intents it may serve.67[26]

This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done in the regular conduct of official business.68[27] The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. However, the presumption prevails until it is overcome by no less
67[26] Records, p. 15-a. 68[27] Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. x x x xxxx (m) Court.) That official duty has been regularly performed. (Rule 131, Rules of

than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and, in case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.69[28] Significantly, apart from these, petitioner, by counsel, admitted that a marriage license was, indeed, issued in Carmona, Cavite.70[29]

Petitioner, in a faint attempt to demolish the probative value of the marriage license, claims that neither he nor respondent is a resident of Carmona, Cavite. Even then, we still hold that there is no sufficient basis to annul petitioner and respondents marriage. Issuance of a marriage license in a city or

municipality, not the residence of either of the contracting parties, and issuance of a marriage license despite the absence of publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage.71[30] An irregularity in any of the formal requisites of marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly, criminally and administratively liable.72[31]

69[28] 70[29]

Magsucang v. Balgos, 446 Phil. 217, 224-225 (2003). TSN. 23 November 1999, p. 4.

71[30] Sta. Maria Jr., Persons and Family Relations Law, p. 125. 72[31] Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code, p. 8; Moreno v. Bernabe, 316 Phil. 161, 168 (1995).

Again, petitioner harps on the discrepancy between the marriage license number in the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar, which states that the marriage license issued to the parties is No. 7054133, while the marriage contract states that the marriage license number of the parties is number 7054033. Once more, this argument fails to sway us. It is not impossible to assume that the same is a mere a typographical error, as a closer scrutiny of the marriage contract reveals the overlapping of the numbers 0 and 1, such that the marriage license may read either as 7054133 or 7054033. It therefore does not detract from our conclusion regarding the existence and issuance of said marriage license to the parties.

Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands,73[32] petitioner cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party to the marriage celebration which he now insists took place without the requisite marriage license. Petitioner admitted that the civil marriage took place because he initiated it.74[33] Petitioner is an educated person. He is a mechanical engineer by profession. He knowingly and voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his action and be allowed to extricate himself from the

73[32] Abacus Securities Corporation v. Ampil, G.R. No. 160016, 27 February 2006, 483 SCRA 315, 337. 74[33] TSN, 1 October 1998, p. 96.

marriage bond at his mere say-so when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle. We cannot countenance such effrontery. His attempt to make a mockery of the institution of marriage betrays his bad faith.75[34]

Petitioner and respondent went through a marriage ceremony twice in a span of less than one year utilizing the same marriage license. There is no claim that he went through the second wedding ceremony in church under duress or with a gun to his head. Everything was executed without nary a whimper on the part of the petitioner.

In fact, for the second wedding of petitioner and respondent, they presented to the San Jose de Manuguit Church the marriage contract executed during the previous wedding ceremony before the Manila City Hall. This is confirmed in petitioners testimony as follows

WITNESS

As I remember your honor, they asked us to get the necessary document prior to the wedding.

75[34] Atienza v. Judge Brilliantes, Jr., 312 Phil. 939, 944 (1995).

COURT

What particular document did the church asked you to produce? I am referring to the San Jose de Manuguit church.

WITNESS

I dont remember your honor.

COURT

Were you asked by the church to present a Marriage License?

WITNESS

I think they asked us for documents and I said we have already a Marriage Contract and I dont know if it is good enough for the marriage and they accepted it your honor.

COURT

In other words, you represented to the San Jose de Manuguit church that you have with you already a Marriage Contract?

WITNESS

Yes your honor.

COURT

That is why the San Jose de Manuguit church copied the same marriage License in the Marriage Contract issued which Marriage License is Number 7054033.

WITNESS

Yes your honor.76[35]

The logical conclusion is that petitioner was amenable and a willing participant to all that took place at that time. Obviously, the church ceremony was confirmatory of their civil marriage, thereby cleansing whatever irregularity or defect attended the civil wedding.77[36]

Likewise, the issue raised by petitioner -- that they appeared before a fixer who arranged everything for them and who facilitated the ceremony before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC Br Chapel -will not strengthen his posture. The authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of any

76[35] TSN, 1 October 1998, pp. 33-35. 77[36] Ty v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 647, 662 2003).

showing to the contrary.78[37] Moreover, the solemnizing officer is not dutybound to investigate whether or not a marriage license has been duly and regularly issued by the local civil registrar. All the solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license has been issued by the competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled the duty to ascertain whether the contracting parties had fulfilled the requirements of law.79[38]

Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage.80[39] Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this

presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143 of Makati City, dated 14 February 2000, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

78[37] Goshen v. New Orleans, 18 US 950. 79[38] People v. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176, 180 (1929). 80[39] Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, 27 October 2004, 441 SCRA 422, 436; Sevilla v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, 31 July 2006, 497 SCRA 428, 443.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ B. NACHURA

ANTONIO EDUARDO

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice