Alcantara v Alcantara  Article 58, New Civil Code: Save
G.R. No. 167746 marriages of an exceptional character
August 28, 2007
Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario
Belenzo, Group 5
Petitioner: Restituto Alcantara
Respondent: Rosita Alcantara and Hon. Court of
Appeals
Facts & Procedural History
Relevant Doctrine and/or Laws/Provisions:
 Article 53, New Civil Code: No marriage
shall be solemnized unless all these
requisites are complied with: (1) Legal
capacity of the contracting parties; (2)
Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority
of the person performing the marriage; and
(4) A marriage license, except in a
marriage of exceptional character (Sec. 1a,
art. 3613).
 Article 80, New Civil Code: The following
marriages shall be void from the
beginning: (1) Those contracted under the
ages of sixteen and fourteen years by the
male and female respectively, even with
the consent of the parents; (2) Those
solemnized by any person not legally
authorized to perform marriages; (3)
Those solemnized without a marriage
license, save marriages of exceptional
character; (4) Bigamous or polygamous
marriages not falling under article 83,
number 2; (5) Incestuous marriages
mentioned in article 81; (6) Those where
one or both contracting parties have been
found guilty of the killing of the spouse of
either of them; (7) Those between
stepbrothers and stepsisters and other
marriages specified in article 82. (n)
registrar to cancel the marriage
contract and its entry on file.
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. (7a)
 Petitioner Restituto Alcantara filed a
petition for annulment of marriage
against respondent Rosita Alcantara
alleging that without securing the
required marriage license, they went to
the Manila City Hall for the purpose of
looking for a person who could arrange a
marriage for them.
 A person who, for a fee, arranged their
wedding before a certain Rev. Aquilino
Navarro, a Minster of the Gospel of the
CDCC BR Chapel and they got married
on the same day.
 Petitioner and Respondent went through
another marriage ceremony at the San
Jose de Manuguit Church which was
again celebrated without securing a
marriage license
 The respondent gave birth to their child
Rose Ann Alcantara, 3 years after the
marriage and after another 3 years, they
parted ways and lived separate lives.
 Petitioner said that their alleged marriage
license is a sham as it was procured in
Carmona Cavite, where neither of the
party was a resident of.
 Petitioner prayed that their marriage to be
declared as void and order the Civil
 Respondent asserts the validity of their
marriage and said that the petitioner
only filed the annulment of their
marriage to evade prosecution for
concubinage, which the respondent
filed against the petitioner.
 RTC dismissed the petition for lack of
merit and ordered the petitioner to pay
respondent the sum of PHP 20,000 per
month as a support for their two
children on the first five days of each
month.
 Court of appeals dismissed the
petitioner’s appeal and Motion for
Reconsideration
Issue:
 Whether or not the irregularities in the
issuance of the marriage license are
sufficient to render the marriage void.
Judgment:
 The petition was denied for lack of
merit and the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming the decision of the
RTC are affirmed
Holding:
 No, the irregularities in the issuance of
the marriage license are not sufficient
to render the marriage void.
◦ The marriage was solemnized prior
to the effectivity of the Family
Code so the Court look into Article
53 of the Civil code which said
that a valid marriage license is a
requisite of marriage and the
absence of which renders the
 marriage void ab initio, pursuant to
Article 80 in relation to Article 58 of
the same code.
◦ In this case, marriage contract between
the petitioner and respondent reflects a
marriage license number. A
certification from the Local Civil
Registrar was also presented as
evidence.
◦ Petitioner’s attempt to assert the
invalidity of the marriage license by
claiming that neither he nor the
respondent is a resident of Carmona,
Cavite, is not a sufficient basis to
annul the 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.
◦ The discrepancy between the marriage
license number can be assumed as
mere typographical error.
◦ Petitioner cannot benefit from his
action and be allowed to extricate
himself from the marriage bond at his
mere say-so when the situation is no
longer palatable to his taste or suited
his lifestyle