REPUBLIC vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994
236 SCRA 257
FACTS
:Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were
married in
a civil ceremony without the knowledge of the
formers
parents. All the documents required for the
celebration of the marriage which includes
procurement of marriagelicense, was attended
by Cardenas. It was stated in themarriage
contract that marriage license no. 3196182
wasissued. The cohabitation of Castro and
Cardenas lastedonly for four (4) months after
which they parted ways.Castro sought the
advice of a lawyer for a possibleannulment of
her marriage with Cardenas before leavingfor
the States to follow her daughter who was
adopted byher brother with the consent of
Cardenas. The CivilRegistrar of Pasig issued a
certification stating that Castroand Cardenas
were allegedly married in the Pasay Court
onJune 21, 1970 under an alleged marriage
license no.3196182 which was allegedly issued
on June 20, 1970 butsuch cannot be located
since it does not appear in theirrecords. It was
then that she found out that there was
nomarriage license issued prior to the
celebration of hermarriage with
Cardenas.Castro filed a petition seeking a
judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage
with Edwin Cardenas. The RegionalTrial Cou
rt denied her petition. It ruled that inability of
the certifying official to locate the marriage
license is notconclusive to show that there was
no marriage license
issued.
Castro appealed to respondent appellate court
contendingthat the certification from the local
civil registrarsufficiently established the
absence of a marriage license.The respondent
appellate court reversed the ruling of thetrial
court declaring that the marriage between

thecontracting parties is null and void and

directed the CivilRegistrar of Pasig to cancel the
marriage contract.However, the Republic of the
Philippines, the petitionerherein, brought a
petition for review on certiorari whichalleged
that the certification and the
uncorroboratedtestimony of Castro are not
sufficient to overthrow thelegal presumption
regarding the validity of a marriage.
ISSUE
:Whether or not the documentary and
testimonialevidence presented by private
respondent are sufficient toestablish that no
marriage license was issued prior to
thecelebration of marriage.
RULING:
Yes. The Court ruled that the certification of
"due searchand inability to find" issued by the
civil registrar of Pasigenjoys probative value, he
being the officer charged underthe law to keep
a record of all data relative to the issuanceof a
marriage license.Unaccompanied by any
circumstance of suspicion andpursuant to
Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
acertificate of "due search and inability to find"
sufficientlyproved that his office did not issue
marriage license no.3196182 to the contracting
parties.The fact that private respondent Castro
offered only hertestimony in support of her
petition is, in itself, not aground to deny her
petition. The failure to offer any otherwitness to
corroborate her testimony is mainly due to
thepeculiar circumstances of the case.The
finding of the appellate court that the
marriagebetween the contracting parties is null
and void for lack of a marriage license does not
discount the fact that indeed,a spurious
marriage license, purporting to be issued by
thecivil registrar of Pasig, may have been
presented byCardenas to the solemnizing
officer.It was held that under the circumstances
of the case, thedocumentary and testimonial
evidence presented byprivate respondent
Castro sufficiently established theabsence of
the subject marriage license.Therefore, the
petition is DENIED there being no showingof
any reversible error committed by respondent
appellate court.