Kho Vs Republic

G.R. 187462 June 1, 2016

FACTS :
Raquel Kho contention that; On the afternoon of May 31, 1972 Raquel Kho’s parents
summoned Eusebio Colongon a clerk at the municipals office to prepare all the
necessary requirements for marriage of Raquel Kho (petitioner) and Veronica Borata
(respondent) which took place around midnight of June 1, 1972 so as to exclude the
public from witnessing the ceremony where they exchange vows at around 3:00 before
dawn and also that Kho has never gone to the local civil registrar to apply for a marriage
license. Among the evidence presented by Kho, Local Civil Registrar has neither record
nor a copy of marriage license issued to Kho and Borata. Borata contended that the
petition be dismissed claiming that they both appeared before the civil registrar.
wherefore the RTC ruled in favor of Kho to declare the contract of marriage null and
void. Consequently, Borata filed an appeal with CA where it reversed and set aside the
decision and deemed the marriage still valid on grounds that PRESUMPTION OF
MARRIAGE LICENSE prevails and the case is a mere defect in formal requisites. CA then
denied Kho’s motion for reconsideration hence the petition on the SC on grounds that
*CA erred in reversing the decision of nullity of marriage for absence of marriage
license.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the the marriage of Kho should be held null and void.
HELD:
Yes. The marriage was celebrated on June 1, 1972 which is prior to the effectivity of
family code hence civil code governs their union where in civil code marriage license is an
ESSENTIAL REQUISITE. The presumption that a marriage license was issued have been
overcome by the evidence that there is no registry in civil registrar coupled with testimony
of the former civil registrar as well as the certificate of marriage issued by the priest does
not contain any entry regarding the said marriage license, hence it now becomes the
burden of Borata to prove their marriage is valid. Another note of the court is that NEITHER
one of the witnesses of Borata and Borata herself testified that a marriage license was
issued. The court finds that this is not a simple defect but an absence of requirement that
affects the validity of marriage in spite the fact that the civil registrar conducted a diligent
search of the said marriage license. To be considered void on ground of absence marriage
license the law requires that the absenceww of such marriage license must be apparent on
marriage contract or the very least supported by a certificate from the local civil registrar.
WHEREFORE the instant petition is granted to reverse the decision of the CA, the
decision of the trial court is REINSTATED