Handbook for Solemnizing Officers in the Philippines

1

1

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

Administrative Order No. 1Series of 2007

Subject: IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE REGISTRATION OF AUTHOR-ITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH THE CIV-IL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BISHOPS, HEADS/FOUNDERS OF RELIGIONS AND RELIGIOUS SECTS, PRIESTS, RABBIS, IMAMS, RELIGIOUS MINISTERS, TRIBAL HEADS/LEADERS/CHIEF-TAINS, COMMUNITY ELDERS, AND OTHER DES-IGNATED AUTHORITIES.

Pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines which took effect on 3 August 1988, the following rules and regulations governing the registration of authority to solemnize marriage by bishops, heads of religions and religious sects, priests, rabbis, imams and other religious ministers and their registration with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General are hereby promulgated for the information, guidance and compliance of all concerned.

Pertinent provisions of marriage laws governing Muslim Filipinos and Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), under P.D. 1083 and R.A. 8371 respectively are likewise incorporated in these rules.

RULE 1 — GENERAL PROVISION

The National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) through the Civil Registrar General (CRG) is the authority having technical control and supervision on the civil registration in the Philippines.

The Administrator of the NSO, concurrently the CRG, is vested with authority to issue rules and regulations in carrying out

HANDBOOK FOR SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS IN THE PHILIPPINES

2

the provisions of Act 3753 (entitled: “An Act to Establish a Civil Register”) and other laws on civil registration including those on the registration of the authority to solemnize marriages.

Prior to the enactment of Civil Registry Law on February 27, 1931, the system of civil registration was purely a local government affair. Section 2 of said Act provides, among others that “The Director of the National Library shall be the Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. Thus, the system became centralized because all rules and regulations pertaining to civil registration emanates from the CRG”.

When Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted on August 19, 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now NSO). Section 2 (f) of this law mandated the NSO to carry out and administer the provisions of Act 3753.

On August 3, 1988, with the enactment of the Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, the function of registering the authority of priests or ministers of any church and religious sect to solemnize marriage is vested upon the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General [Art. 7 (2)].

NOTE:

It is important to know the new provisions contained in A.O. No.1 S.2007 since it is a deviation from OCRG Administrative Order No.1, of 17 October 1988. It is a welcome innovation, for it provides a concrete premise on the relation of the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) vis-à-vis functions of Solemnizing Offi cers as embodied in the Family Code of the Philippines.

RULE 2 — CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Unless otherwise given another meaning elsewhere in these rules, each of these terms shall mean and be understood in accordance with the following working concepts and defi nitions:

NOTE:

Concepts and defi nitions are paramount in understanding the meaning, roles and functions of stakeholders which are repeatedly discussed and mentioned in the succeeding provisions of the herein Administrative Order.

3

2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG)

The head of the NSO which is the national agency mandated to carry out and administer the provisions of Act No. 3753 and other laws on civil registration.

NOTE:

To know the role of Civil Registrar General (CRG) better, it is necessary to look into its historical background, legal basis, functions and duties and powers which are presented below.

Historical Background

The Civil Registrar General (CRG) is the same person as the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO). Prior to 27 February 1931, there was no CRG, as the system of civil registration was purely local government affairs. It was only when Act No. 3753 took effect on 27 February 1931 that the system was centralized with the Director of the National Library being designated as the Civil Registrar General. Section 2 of Act No. 3753 provides among others that “The Director of the National Library shall be Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act.”

However, when Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted on 19 August 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now, NSO). Section 2(f) of this law provides that one of the powers, functions and duties of the Bureau of the Census and Statistics is “to carry out and administer the provisions of Act No. 3753, entitled An Act to Establish a Civil Register.” (Manual of Instructions, R.A. No. 9048 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations, pp. 6-7).

Likewise, The Civil Registry Law Act No. 3753 “An Act to Establish a Civil Register” Sec. 2. Civil Registrar General: His Duties and Powers. The Director of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) shall be Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The (Director of the National Library), in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue, with the approval of the (Secretary of Justice) (now under the Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority), regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and to prepare and order printed the necessary forms for its compliance. In the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the Director of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) shall

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALAdministrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007


4

have the power to give orders and instructions to the local civil registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be the duty of the Director of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) to report any violation of the provisions of this Act and all irregularities, negligence or incompetence of the part of the offi cers designated as local civil registrars to the Chief of the Executive Bureau or the Director of the Non-Christian Tribes (now Department of Interior and Local Government or National Commission on Indigenous People), as the case may be, who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders. (Manual of Instructions, Unregistered Child Project 1, p. 52).

The Civil Registrar General shall have the technical control and supervision on civil registrars and offi cials mentioned in Rule 3 (1). In the exercise of this technical and supervisory function, the Civil Registrar General shall have the power to declare ultra vires any act of civil registrars inconsistent with the prescribed standards, criteria and procedures mentioned in this implementing rules and regulations and other pertinent laws on civil registration. (Rule 4, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993).

LEGAL BASIS GOVERNING REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH OCRG

Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines states “Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, (underscoring ours) acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing offi cer’s church or religious sect.”

Civil Code of the Philippines Art. 92. Every priest, or minister, or rabbi authorized by his denomination, church, sect, or religion to solemnize marriage shall send to the proper government offi ce a sworn statement setting forth his full name and domicile, and that he is authorized by his denomination, church, sect or religion to solemnize marriage, attaching to said statement a certifi ed copy of his appointment. The director of the proper government offi ce, upon receiving such sworn statement containing the information required, and being satisfi ed that the denomination, church, sect, or religion of the applicant operates in the Philippines, shall record the name of such priest or minister in a suitable register and issue to him

5

an authorization to solemnize marriage. Said priest or minister or rabbi shall be obliged to exhibit his authorization to the contracting parties, to their parents, grandparents, guardians, or person in charge demanding the same. No priest or minister not having the required authorization may solemnize marriage. (Amended by Article 7(2) of the Family Code of the Philippines).

The “proper government offi ce” referred to in Art. 92 is the Bureau of Public Libraries, formerly the Philippine National Library, (now Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, Art. 7(2) of the Family Code), which under Section 34 of Act 3613 discharged the duties of issuing authorizations to priests and ministers to solemnize marriage. The second paragraph of Section 34 which reads: “The authorization shall be renewable on or before the fi rst of May of each year, upon payment of the required fee,” is not found in Article 92. The provision was deleted because, as the authority of the solemnizing offi cer is now an essential requisite of marriage (Art. 53), it was feared that many marriages might be held void due to the negligence or oversight of priests, ministers or rabbis to renew their authorization on time (1 Capistrano, Civil Code p. 108). However, the provisions on renewal are retained in Section 10 of the regulations promulgated in 1951 by the Director of Public Libraries.

MEMORANDUM RE LEGAL BASIS OF CRG’S DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OVER CITY/MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRARS

Issues:

1. Whether or not the power to direct and supervise the City/Municipal Civil Registrars in the country by the Civil Registrar General has been removed by Section 479 of the Local Government Code?

2. Whether or not City/Municipal Civil Registrars can still perform their duties to administer oath?



6

21 June 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : C/MCRS ARE UNDER THE DIRECTION AND

SUPERVISION OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, AND C/MCRS ARE AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS (DOJ Opinion No. 26, Series of 2001)

Attached is a copy of Opinion No. 26, S. 2001 which was issued by the Secretary of Justice on 17 May 2001. Here are the salient points from this opinion:

1. The Local Government Code of 1999 did not amend or repeal Section 2 of Act No. 3753 pertaining to the powers and duties of the Civil Registrar General. The Civil Registrar General continues to exercise the power of “direction and supervision” over the City/Municipal Civil Registrars. The Secretary of Justice defi ned “supervision” as overseeing or the power or authority of an offi cer to see that subordinate offi cers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglect to fulfi ll them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform these duties. On the other hand, “direction” was defi ned as an instruction or series of instructions for doing something; a command; authoritative instruction; information as to the method, route, etc; and in another sense, it is nearly synonymous with instruction.

2. The power of City/Municipal Civil Registrars to administer oath as provided in Section 12(g) of Act No. 3753 still exists. This power is suffi ciently within the purview of the general clause in Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which states that the civil registrar shall “Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance”. However, as stated in the Civil Registry Law, the power of local civil registrars to administer oath shall be limited to civil registry matters and the same must be free of charge.

(SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTAOIC-Civil Registrar General

7

DOJ OPINION RE AUTHORITY OF OCRG OVER LCRs AND THE LCR’s DUTY TO ADMINISTER OATH

OPINION NO. 26 S. 2001

May 17, 2001Administrator Tomas P. AfricaCivil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceEDSA corner Times St.West Triangle, Quezon City 1104

S i r:

Subject of herein request for opinion are the following queries, to wit:

1. Whether or not the power to control and supervise local civil registry offi ces in the country by the Civil Registrar General has been removed by Section 479 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. In connection therewith, are City/Municipal Registrars no longer under the control and supervision of the Civil Registrar General; and

2. Whether or not the City/Municipal Civil Registrars can still perform their duty to administer oath.

The fi rst query, it appears, was precipitated by the view expressed by some quarters that Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991, which defi nes the “Qualifi cations, Powers and Duties” of the local civil registrar, repealed Act No. 3753, otherwise known as the Civil Registry Law of the Philippines.

It is the contention of that Offi ce, however, that Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed only Section 12 of the Civil Registry Law which pertains to the duties of local civil registrars and not Section 2 which pertains to the powers and duties of the Civil Registrar General. It is stated that if it were true that the Civil Registrar General has no more power to control and supervise local civil registry offi ces, there would be chaos in the implementation of the laws on civil registration as there would be no more single and higher authority to give uniform orders and instructions to them, and to enforce the provisions of the Civil Registry Law; that in such



8

a case, the 1,607 City/Municipal Registrars would be having his or her own rules and regulations governing civil registration in his or her local government units, thereby creating the possibility, that one vital event may not be acceptable for registration in one municipality, but a similar vital event can be registered in another municipality. It is the belief of the Offi ce that removing or diminishing the power of the Civil Registrar General “to control and supervise” local civil registry offi ces were never intended by Congress in enacting the Local Government Code of 1991.

The second query, on the other hand, was raised in view of the absence of an expressed provision in the Local Government Code of 1991 allowing local civil registrars to administer oath. It is the position of that Offi ce, however, that local civil registrars can still administer oath based on the provisions of the Family Code which expressly or impliedly give such authority to them. Cited in particular is Article 24 which expressly authorizes the local civil registrar to administer oath to all interested parties mentioned therein.

The crux of the fi rst query lies on whether the Civil Registrar General exercises supervision and control over local civil registrars.

We answer in the negative. Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991 did not remove the power “to control and supervise local civil registry offi ces’’ from the Civil Registrar General, because there was nothing to remove in the fi rst place.

Obviously, the fi rst query refl ects a misreading or misappre-hension of Act No. 3753 entitled “An Act to Establish a Civil Register”. It must be stressed that even under the said Act, the Civil Registrar General has only “direction and supervision” over local civil registrars and not “control and supervision” as claimed. The Civil Registry Law, as amended, is clear and categorical:

Section 2 — Civil Registrar General: His duties and powers. — The Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce shall be the Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce, in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and to prepare and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance. In the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce shall have the power to give orders and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be the

9

duty of the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce to report any violation of the provisions of this Act and all irregularities, negligence or in competency of the city/municipal civil registrars to the City or Municipal Mayors, as the case may be, who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.

SECTION 3 — City/Municipal Civil Registrars — The City/Municipal Civil Registrar appointed by the City/Municipal Mayor shall be under the direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar General.” (Emphasis supplied)

The power of “control and supervision” is not the same as the power of “direction and supervision”, which is the power expressly granted by the Civil Registry Law (see Sec. 3, supra.) to the Civil Registrar General over the City/Municipal Civil Registrars.

“Supervision and control” means and shall include authority to act directly whenever a specifi c function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate offi cials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and program; and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs (Section 38[1] Chapter 7, Book IV, E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987.

“Supervision”, on the other hand, as defi ned in the case of Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 (1955), means overseeing or the power or authority of an offi cer to see that subordinate offi cers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfi ll them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform these duties, while “direction” is an instruction or series of instructions for doing something; a command (Webster’s New Dictionary and Roget’s Thesaurus); authoritative instruction; information as to the method, route, etc. (Webster’s New International Dictionary [Second Edition]; and in another sense, it is nearly synonymous with instruction (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).

Applying the afore quoted defi nitions to the instant case, the Civil Registrar General cannot modify, reverse or annul the acts and decisions of the city or municipal civil registrars for that would be an exercise of the power of control which he does not possess. What he can only do is to see to it that the city or municipal civil registrars perform their duties in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations on civil registration. And this is completely in line with the powers expressly granted to the Civil Registrar General under



10

Section 2 of the Civil Registry Law, which is the “power to give orders and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such” and “to report any violation and all irregularities, negligence or in competency of the City/Municipal registrars to the City/Municipal Mayors who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.” To stress, it is the city or municipal mayor concerned, acting upon the report of the Civil Registrar General, who shall take disciplinary action against any local civil registrar found to have violated the provisions of the Civil Registry Law. (See Sec. 2, Act 3753, as amended).

In any case, Act No. 3753, as amended, a special law, is not among the laws expressly and explicitly repealed by Section 534 of the Local Government Code of 1991, a general law. This can only mean that there was no such intent on the part of the legislature to abrogate the power of direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar General over local civil registrars in the country. For if repeal of particular or specifi c law or laws is intended, the proper step is to so express it. (Agujetas vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17) Neither is there an implied repeal. It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored (Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction [Third Edition], p. 322, citing Valdez vs. Tuason, 40 Phil. 943 [1920]; Phil. American Management Co., Inc. vs. Phil. American Management Employees Assn., 49 SCRA 194 [1973]; Villegas vs. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 [1971]; De Jesus vs. People, 120 SCRA 760 [1983]). The presumption against implied repeal is stronger when, of two laws, one is special, and the other general, as obtaining in the instant case; and this rule applies even though the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the matter covered by the special statute (Ibid., citing Manila Railroad Co vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil. 224 [1919]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487 [1992]).

Anent the second query, we believe that the power of local civil registrars to administer oath as provided in Section 12(g) of the Civil Registry law still exists. Section 12(g) provides:

SECTION 12 — Duties of local civil registrars — Local Civil Registrars shall x x x (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil register purposes.”

The power of local civil registrars to administer oath under the afore quoted provision is suffi cient within the purview of the general clause in Section 479 of the Local Government of 1991 which states

11

that the local civil registrar shall “exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance” (see par [3]). However, as stated in the Civil Registry Law (see Sec. 12 (g), supra., the power of local civil registrars to administer oath shall be limited to civil registry matters and the same must be free of charge.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) HERNANDO B. PEREZSecretary

DOJ OPINION RE THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRARS

Opinion No. 128 S. 1979

The Civil Registrar General as head of offi ce or agency may, pursuant to Section 38 of P.D. No. 807 (The Civil Service Decree), initiate, motu proprio and even without the complaint of a third party, administrative proceedings against the Local Civil Registrar who has been a party to a violation of Art. 66 of the Civil Code, a provision of law in which he has the duty to implement. The basis of this is the inherent right of the head of a department, offi ce or agency to discipline his subordinates. (Decision, Civil Service Board of Appeals. In Re: Administrative Case vs. Filomeno L. Pacis, respondent-appellant, 58 O.G. No. 26, pp. 4726-4727).

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON A MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE PART OF OCRG TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATION TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES TO SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS PENDING COURT DECISION

Mons. Juan Jamias, petitioner vs. Eulogio B. Rodriguez, Director of Public Libraries, And Manuel V. Gallego, Secretary of Education, respondents.

Isidoro A. Vera for petitioner.Assistant Solicitor-General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. for respondents.Claro M. Recto and Jose Nava for intervenor I. de los Reyes.Ferdinand E. Marcos as amicus curiae.



12

SYLLABUS

MANDAMUS; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES; MINISTE-RIAL DUTY TO ISSUE AUTHORIZATIONS TO SOLEMNIZE MAR-RIAGES; CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO FACTIONS OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH; PENDENCY OF JUDICIAL DECISION; CASE AT BAR. — There is nothing of record to show that the Philippine Independent Church or its faction headed by Bishop J. J. does not fulfi ll the “good repute” condition obligating respondent director, under section 34 of Act No. 3613, to issue the authorization to solemnize marriages, or that said church or faction has lost said qualifi cation as a result of which, according to section 35 of the same law, the authorization may be cancelled. The second ground provided by same section 35 cannot be considered in this case because the confl ict between the two factions in said church involving the question as to who are the lawful authorities of said church is yet to be settled in the pending litigation before the Court of First Instance of Manila. There is no allegation or pretense to the effect that the bishops and priests of the faction headed by petitioner have disqualifi ed themselves from continuing to solemnize marriages.

Held, That until the pending litigation as to who is who within the Philippine Independent Church is fi nally decided, the respondent Director of Public Libraries has a ministerial duty to issue authorization to solemnize marriages to the bishops and priests of the group headed by Bishop J. J. as bishops and priests of the Philippine Independent Church.

D E C I S I O N

PERFECTO, J p:

Alleging to be the Bishop Maximus of the Philippine Independent Church, petitioner seeks a peremptory order to compel respondents, the Director of the Bureau of Public Libraries and the Secretary of Education, to immediately issue to Bishops Leopoldo A. Ruiz and Juan T. Kijano, of said church, authorizations to solemnize marriages. It is alleged that on January 11, 1948, petitioner, as duly elected Bishop Maximus of said church, fi led with the respondent Director of Public Libraries an application for removal of the authority to solemnize marriages issued in favor of Bishop Leopoldo A. Ruiz, which authority, as granted by said respondent expired on April 30, 1948, said application having been accomplished as

13

required by law and accompanied by a tender of payment of the legal fee. It is also alleged that sometime prior to January 11, 1948, Bishop Juan T. Kijano was duly authorized by respondent Director of Public Libraries to solemnize marriages as a bishop of the Philippine Independent Church, which authority, however, was later withdrawn or cancelled when said bishop refused to recognize Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., as the supreme head of the church. On January 11, 1948, petitioner fi led an application for authority to solemnize marriages for Bishop Juan T. Kijano.

On January 22, 1948, respondent Director of Public Libraries turned over to petitioner a letter stating that renewal of the authorization to solemnize marriages in favor of Bishop Leopoldo A. Ruiz “may be granted provided that Mons. Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. is recognized as Supreme Head of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, in accordance with the administrative decision of the Secretary of Education of June 23, 1947 . . . it must be shown in the application of Mons. Kijano that he recognizes Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as the Supreme Head of the Church.”

The administrative decision of respondent Secretary of Education dated June 23, 1947, provides that Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., “is hereby recognized, for administrative purposes, as the sole Head of the said religious organization. Applications of priests of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente for permits to solemnize marriages may be granted provided that it is shown thereon that they recognize Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as the Obispo Maximo of the Church they represent.”

On July 12, 1947, the Secretary of Education addressed to respondent Director of Public Libraries a memorandum to the effect that the authorization given to the bishops and priests of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente under Juan Jamias, was a misinterpretation of the ruling of the Department dated June 23, 1947, but it appearing that the permits were already renewed since May, 1947, said permits are declared valid up to May 1, 1948. Petitioner complains that respondent Secretary of Education, in recognizing Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., as the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, has gravely abused his power and has committed a clear case of contempt of court, the question as to who is the Bishop Maximus or Supreme Head of the church being the subject of litigation in civil case No. 72138 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled “Iglesia Filipina Independiente, et al. versus Santiago A. Fonacier.” Petitioner complains also that respondents are guilty of



14

downright discrimination in favor of the faction headed by Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., and against the faction headed by petitioner, for while authorization to solemnize marriages is allowed to Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. faction, the same is denied to those of petitioner and, furthermore, that the action of the Secretary of Education is a fl agrant violation of the following constitutional provision that guarantees freedom of religion:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religion profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” (Sec. 1, Cl. 7, Art. III of the Constitution).

Petitioner alleges also that respondents’ action is contrary to a legal opinion of the Department of Justice dated June 3, 1946, where it is stated:

“As a matter of principle, and in order to avoid confl icts of decisions, offi cers pertaining to the executive department refrain from deciding questions pending decision before the courts of justice. Adhering to this principle, and following well-established precedents, the Department of Justice has consistently declined to render opinion on questions which are subjudice. Similarly, it would seem advisable, therefore, that the Department of Instruction refrain from passing upon the question referred to in the fi rst endorsement thereon.”

The present case is one of the aftermaths of a schism within the Philippine Independent Church, where the members have been divided into two opposing groups, one formerly headed by Bishop Santiago A. Fonacier, who is now substituted by petitioner Bishop Juan Jamias, and the other headed by Bishop Gerardo P. Bayaca, now substituted by Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr.

The former charges the members of the second with having merged themselves with the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America and having abandoned the teachings, tenets, and rituals of the Philippine Independent Church as originally founded by Bishop Gregorio Aglipay. The members of the second group deny that they have joined the Protestant Episcopal Church and allege that the granting of apostolic succession by the Episcopal Church of America to the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, through the reconsecration of its bishops, does not mean the absorption of the said Iglesia Filipina Independiente by, or its merger with,

15

the said Episcopal Church and, as alleged by respondents, Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. and his faction have neither seceded from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente nor effected a fusion with the American Episcopal Church “the truth on the matter, as disclosed by the records in the offi ce of the Director of Public Libraries, being that the negotiations and/or agreement had between the two religious groups were for the purpose of securing the reconsecration of the Bishops of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente by those of the Protestant Episcopal Church in order to erase any doubt in the validity of the consecration and ordination of the bishops and priests of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, but in no way to incorporate or fuse, much less to subordinate the Iglesia Filipina Independiente to the American Episcopal Church. “We are not concerned here with the above controversy between the two groups. That controversy, especially the question as to who is the legitimate Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church and is entitled to represent it, is directly raised in civil case No. 72138 of the Court of First Instance of Manila. To elide the contrary allegation of respondents, it is enough to peruse the complaint, the amended complaint and the answer in said case. Said pleadings will show that the controversies in the case hinge on the question as to who should be recognized as the Bishop Maximus of the Philippine Independent Church.

The question that we have to decide is whether respondents, pending fi nal decision of the suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila, can refuse to issue in favor of the bishops and priests headed by the petitioner Juan Jamias the authorization provided by law to solemnize marriages.

The pertinent legal provisions are those of sections 34 and 35 of Act No. 3613, which read as follows:

“SEC. 34. Authorization of priests and ministers. — Every priest or minister authorized by his church, sect, or religion to solemnize marriage shall send to the Philippine National Library a sworn statement setting forth his full name and domicile, and that he is authorized by his church, sect, or religion to solemnize marriage, attaching to said statement a certifi ed copy of his appointment. The director of the Philippine National Library, upon receiving such sworn statement containing the information required, and being satisfi ed that the church, sect, or religion of the applicant operates in the Philippine Islands and is in good repute, shall record the name of such priest or minister in a suitable register and issue to him an authorization to solemnize marriage. Said priest or minister



16

shall be obliged to exhibit his authorization to contracting parties, to their parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons in charge of demanding the same. No priest or minister not having the required authorization may solemnize marriage. “The authorization shall be renewed on or before the fi rst day of May of each year, upon payment of the required fee.

“SEC. 35. Cancellation of authorization. — The Director of the Philippine National Library shall cancel the authorization issued to a bishop, chief, priest, pastor or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church, sect, or religion, on his own initiative or at the request of any interested party, upon showing that the church, sect, or religion whose ministers have been authorized to solemnize marriage is no longer of good repute. The cancellation of the authorization granted to a priest, pastor, or minister shall likewise be ordered upon the request of the bishop, chief, or lawful authorities of the church, sect, or religion to which he belongs.”

There is nothing of record to show that the Philippine Independent Church or its faction headed by Bishop Juan Jamias does not fulfi ll the “good repute” condition obligating respondent Director, under section 34 of Act No. 3613, to issue the authorization to solemnize marriages, or that said church or faction has lost said qualifi cation as a result of which, according to section 35 of the same law, the authorization may be cancelled. The second ground provided by same section 35 cannot be considered in this case because the question as to who are the lawful authorities of said church is yet to be settled in the pending litigation before the Court of First Instance of Manila.

There is no allegation or pretense to the effect that the bishops and priests of the faction headed by petitioner have disqualifi ed themselves from continuing to solemnize marriages. The confl ict between the two factions, until fi nally decided by the competent court, cannot have the effect of automatically divesting the members of one group or the other of their legal rights as bishops and priests of the Philippine Independent Church. Until the litigation is fi nally decided, both groups are entitled to represent themselves as members of the same church to which they belonged before the confl ict has arisen. The question as to who is who within the Philippine Independent Church is undoubtedly a judicial question and both parties have agreed to settle that question in the proper court. Respondents have misstepped their offi cial function when, without waiting for the competent judicial decision on the question, they have decided to recognize Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as

17

the Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, thereby materially effecting the ouster of the bishops and priests of the faction headed by Bishop Juan Jamias. There is no provision of law that authorizes respondents to make such decision and much less to steal the show from the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Until the pending litigation is fi nally decided, respondent Director of Public Libraries has a ministerial duty to issue authorization to solemnize marriages to the bishops and priests of the group headed by Bishop Juan Jamias as bishops and priests of the Philippine Independent Church. The followers of said faction, in the meantime, should not be deprived of the means of satisfying one of their fundamental necessities, that their marriages be solemnized by bishops and priests they recognize as true representatives of their religion in whom they have faith. To compel them against their conviction to have their marriages solemnized by the bishops and priests of the opposing faction or of other religions is to violate their freedom of worship. There is a strong reason of public policy why the bishops and priests under petitioner Juan Jamias should be granted immediately the corresponding authorizations to solemnize marriages. The members of said religious group who want to be married should not be kept waiting for an indefi nite period pending fi nal decision of the litigation. All inducements for concubinage and illicit relationship should be avoided. It is not easy to keep under control for a long time natural impulses, such as the sexual urge.

The orders of respondent Secretary of Education dated June 23 and July 12, 1947, are set aside and, as prayed for, respondent Director of Public Libraries is ordered to issue to Bishops Leopoldo A. Ruiz and Juan I. Kijano the corresponding authorizations to continue solemnizing marriages, without costs. Considering the urgent nature of the case, this decision shall be immediately executory upon promulgation.

Feria, Pablo, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.Paras, Actg. C.J., concurs in the result.Separate Opinions

BENGZON, J., concurring:

In agreeing to the decision, I do not wish to be understood as denying to the administrative authorities their duty and power to determine in the fi rst instance the reputation and standing of the sect or church



18

of the minister requesting for authorization to solemnize marriages. Such power must be acknowledged; and their determination must be accorded all the presumptions of correctness to which executive rulings are entitled. But in this particular case, the error is so patent and the need for appropriate remedy so urgent that nothing less than mandamus will do. Let it be issued.

Rule 2.2 Solemnizing Offi cer (SO)

An offi cer vested with the authority to solemnize or offi ciate the marriage of a man and a woman in accordance with law or with the rites, practices, and ceremonies as prescribed or granted by their religion/religious sect or tribe or ethnic aggrupation.

These include:

a. Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction; as provided in the Family Code of the Philippines;

b. Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the CRG, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing offi cer’s church or religious sect;

c. Any ship captain or airplane chief only in cases of marriage in articulo mortis;

d. Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military operation, likewise in cases of marriage in articulo mortis;

e. Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul, in cases of marriage between Filipino citizens abroad;

f. City or Municipal Mayors within their area of jurisdiction under R.A. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of the Philippines;

As provided in Article 18, Section 1, Chapter II Book Two of Presidential Decree 1083:

19

g. proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be wedded;

h. any person who is competent under Muslim Law upon authority of the proper wali; or

i. judge of the Shari’a District Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifi able reason, to authorize the solemnization.

As provided by OCRG Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004, otherwise known as “Rules and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning the Civil Status of Indigenous Peoples”, marriages between members of ethnic cultural communities or indigenous peoples may be solemnized by:

j. community elders;

k. tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio political structures certifi ed by National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); or

l. Authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal communities who perform and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the community.

NOTE:

PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES


Any incumbent member of the Judiciary is authorized to solemnize civil marriage. This includes even Shari’a or Muslim Judges. The only exception or limitation to their authority is that the judge concerned must do so within his territorial jurisdiction as defi ned by the Supreme Court. (Justice Jainal D. Rasul. Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and the Muslim Code. p. 57)



20

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE BY A MEMBER OF JUDICIARY OUTSIDE COURT’S JURIS-DICTION

Navarro vs. Judge Domagtoy A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996

Facts:

Mayor Rodolfo G. Navarro fi led an administrative complaint against Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy, a Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge of the municipalities of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte and Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The complaint alleges that Judge Domagtoy solemnized the wedding between Gaspar Tagadar and Arlyn Borga, despite having knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his wife. Likewise, it is alleged that Judge Domagtoy performed the marriage between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside his court’s jurisdiction in his residence in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte which does not fall within his jurisdictional area of the municipalities of M and B.

Judge Domagtoy seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the marriage of Gaspar, a married man separated from his wife, and Arlyn by stating that he relied on the affi davit issued by the Municipal Trial Court Judge of the municipality of Basey, Samar, confi rming that Gaspar and his wife have not seen each other for almost seven years.

With respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemnizing the marriage between Floriano and Gemma, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Code which states that: “Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the Judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction,” and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.

Issue:

Did Judge Domagtoy comply with the requirements of Article 8 of the Family Code on the public solemnization of marriage?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court said that Judge Domagtoy’s reliance on Article 8 of the Family Code and its exceptions is misplaced.

21

Under said article, a marriage can be held outside of the judge’s courtroom or chambers only in the following instances: 1) at the point of death; 2) in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of the Family Code; and 3) upon request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. Neither Floriano nor Gemma del Rosario was at the point of death or in a remote place. The written request was made only by Gemma del Rosario. The law requires that both parties should make the written request.

The Supreme Court further ruled that Article 8 of the Family Code is merely directory referring only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not qualify or alter the authority of the solemnizing offi cer. Thus, non-compliance therewith does not invalidate the marriage but subjects the solemnizing offi cer to administrative liability.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A MEMBER OF A JUDICIARY WHO CELEBRATED MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE AND OUTSIDE OF COURT’S JURISDICTION

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaFIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390 April 11, 2002(Formerly IPI No. 01-1049-MTJ)Mercedita Mata Arañes, petitioner,

vs.

Judge Salvador M. Occiano, respondent.

PUNO, J.:

Petitioner Mercedita Mata Arañes charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law via a sworn Letter-Complaint dated 23 May 2001. Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that on 17 February 2000, respondent judge solemnized her marriage to her late groom Dominador B. Orobia without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction.



22

They lived together as husband and wife on the strength of this marriage until her husband passed away. However, since the marriage was a nullity, petitioner’s right to inherit the “vast properties” left by Orobia was not recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the pensions of Orobia, a retired Commodore of the Philippine Navy.

Petitioner prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge for his illegal acts and unethical misrepresentations which allegedly caused her so much hardships, embarrassment and sufferings.

On 28 May 2001, the case was referred by the Offi ce of the Chief Justice to then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño for appropriate action. On 8 June 2001, the Offi ce of the Court Administrator required respondent judge to comment.

In his Comment dated 5 July 2001, respondent judge averred that he was requested by a certain Juan Arroyo on 15 February 2000 to solemnize the marriage of the parties on 17 February 2000. Having been assured that all the documents to the marriage were complete, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. However, on 17 February 2000, Arroyo informed him that Orobia had a diffi culty walking and could not stand the rigors of traveling to Balatan which is located almost 25 kilometers from his residence in Nabua. Arroyo then requested if respondent judge could solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded.

Respondent judge further avers that before he started the ceremony, he carefully examined the documents submitted to him by petitioner. When he discovered that the parties did not possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested it’s resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the infl ux of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void. Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent judge that they would give the license to him in the afternoon of that same day. When they failed to comply, respondent judge followed it up with Arroyo but the latter only gave him the same reassurance that the marriage license would be delivered to his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur.

23

Respondent judge vigorously denies that he told the contracting parties that their marriage is valid despite the absence of a marriage license. He attributes the hardships and embarrassment suffered by the petitioner as due to her own fault and negligence.

On 12 September 2001, petitioner fi led her Affi davit of Desistance dated 28 August 2001 with the Offi ce of the Court Administrator. She attested that respondent judge initially refused to solemnize her marriage due to the want of a duly issued marriage license and that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he eventually solemnized the same. She confessed that she fi led this administrative case out of rage. However, after reading the Comment fi led by respondent judge, she realized her own shortcomings and is now bothered by her conscience.

Reviewing the records of the case, it appears that petitioner and Orobia fi led their Application for Marriage License on 5 January 2000. It was stamped in this Application that the marriage license shall be issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither petitioner nor Orobia claimed it.

It also appears that the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General issued a Certifi cation that it has no record of such marriage that allegedly took place on 17 February 2000. Likewise, the Offi ce of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur issued another Certifi cation dated 7 May 2001 that it cannot issue a true copy of the Marriage Contract of the parties since it has no record of their marriage.

On 8 May 2001, petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge so the latter could communicate with the Offi ce of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur for the issuance of her marriage license. Respondent judge wrote the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur. In a letter dated 9 May 2001, a Clerk of said offi ce, Grace T. Escobal, informed respondent judge that their offi ce cannot issue the marriage license due to the failure of Orobia to submit the Death Certifi cate of his previous spouse.

The Offi ce of the Court Administrator, in its Report and Recommendation dated 15 November 2000, found the respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction. A fi ne of P5,000.00 was recommended to be imposed on respondent judge.

We agree.



24

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P. 129, the authority of the regional trial court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confi ned to their territorial jurisdiction as defi ned by the Supreme Court.

The case at bar is not without precedent. In Navarro vs. Domagtoy, respondent judge held offi ce and had jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. However, he solemnized a wedding at his residence in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte which did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos. We held that:

“A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do so only within the area or diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specifi c jurisdictions may offi ciate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the offi ciating offi cial to administrative liability.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In said case, we suspended respondent judge for six (6) months on the ground that his act of solemnizing a marriage outside his jurisdiction constitutes gross ignorance of the law. We further held that:

“The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts, are at least, profi cient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary laymen. They should be skilled and competent in understanding and applying the law. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles like the ones involved in the instant case. x x x While magistrates may at times make mistakes in judgment, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of elementary provisions of law, in an area which has greatly prejudiced the status of married persons.”

In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His

25

act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.

Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license. In People vs. Lara, we held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing offi cer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.1âwphi1.nêt

Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affi davit of Desistance fi led by petitioner. This Court has consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from disciplinary action. Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court personnel, would be undermined. Disciplinary actions of this nature do not involve purely private or personal matters. They can not be made to depend upon the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. We cannot be bound by the unilateral act of a complainant in a matter which involves the Court’s constitutional power to discipline judges. Otherwise, that power may be put to naught, undermine the trust character of a public offi ce and impair the integrity and dignity of this Court as a disciplining authority.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur, is fi ned P5, 000.00 pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.



26

LIABILITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER WHO SIGNS MAR-RIAGE CONTRACT BEFORE THE MARRIAGE LICENSE IS OBTAINED

Negre vs. RiveraAdm. Matter No. 343- MJ.

June 22, 1976

If a Judge signs a marriage contract before the marriage license is obtained (and then postdates the marriage contract) on the request of the mother of the bride (who had been raped), he can be said to have acted imprudently, and should be admonished.

THE LEGALITY OF A CASE ON MARRIAGE WHERE THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER JUDGE WHO MERELY SAID “YOU ARE MARRIED”

Where the Judge who performed the marriage said nothing except “You are married.”, the court held that the marriage contract which was signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and the Judge, gives rise to the presumption that the offi cer solemnized the marriage in due form, unless the contrary is proved. The marriage is legal (Martinez vs. Tan, G.R. No. 4904, February 5, 1909).


A “priest,” according to lexicographers, means one especially consecrated to the service of a divinity and considered as the medium through whom worship, prayer, sacrifi ce, or other service is to be offered to the being worshipped, and pardon, blessing, deliverance, etc., obtained by the worshipper, as a priest of Baal or of Jehovah; a Buddhist priest. “Minister of the Gospel” means clergymen of all denomination and faith (Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. L-18081, March 3, 1922).

27

A “rabbi” means the chief religious offi cial of a synagogue trained usually in a theological seminary and duly ordained, who delivers the sermon at a religious service and performs ritualistic, pastoral, educational, and other functions in and related to his capacity as a spiritual leader of Judaism and the Jewish community. It is a title of respect for a Jewish scholar or teacher; a Jewish scholar qualifi ed to rule on questions of Jewish law; any of the Jewish scholars of the fi rst to sixth centuries A.D. who contributed to the writing, editing, or compiling of the Talmud. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language).

“Imam” means the offi ciating priest of a mosque; the title for a Muslim religious leader or chief; one of a succession of seven or twelve religious leaders, believed to be divinely inspired, of the Shiites. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary).

A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE WHERE BOTH CONTRACTING PARTIES DO NOT BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

Problem:

Rev. Pedro, a solemnizing offi cer solemnized the marriage between Ben and Lina in the church where he is assigned. Both Ben and Lina do not belong to the church to which Rev. Pedro belongs. Is their marriage valid?

Held:

It is admitted that the marriage is valid. The Family Code provides that “any irregularity in the essential or formal requisite does not invalidate the marriage but the person who is responsible for such irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. Moreover, the fact that Ben and Lina do not belong to the church of Rev. Pedro is only considered an irregularity which does not invalidate the marriage provided all the other requisites are present. However, the solemnizing offi cer shall be subject to civil, criminal and administrative liability. (Article 4, par. 3, Family Code of the Philippines).



28

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS FOR FAILURE OF THE PARISH PRIEST TO SUBMIT THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY (NOW LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR)

Madridejo vs. De Leon, et al.G.R. No. 32473October 6, 1930

Facts:

Flaviana Perez, a widow lived with Pedro Madridejo, a bachelor. The registry of births of their municipality shows that on June 1, 1917 a child was born to Flaviana and Pedro who was named Melencio Madridejo. On July 8, 1920, Flaviana, being at death’s door, was married to Pedro by the parish priest who failed to submit the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary. (now Local Civil Registrar) The following day Flaviana died. The validity of the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro was questioned on the ground that the parish priest who solemnized the marriage failed to submit the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary.

Issue:

Whether the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro solemnized in articulo mortis is invalid for failure of the parish priest to submit the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro is valid. The mere fact that the parish priest who solemnized the marriage between Flaviana and Pedro in articulo mortis failed to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary does not invalidate the marriage. It does not appear that in the celebration thereof all the requisites were not present, and the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certifi cate is not being one of the said requisites.

29

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A SOLEMNIZING OFFICER WHO PERFORMED MARRIAGE CEREMONY WHERE ONE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WAS UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT


ManilaEN BANC

G.R. No. L-8502 October 10, 1913THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

Domingo San Juan, defendant-appellant.Vicente Rodriguez for appellant.Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, convicting the accused of performing a marriage ceremony where one of the contracting parties was under the age of consent, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of four years of suspension from practicing his profession as a minister of the National Evangelical Church of the Philippines, to pay a fi ne of 1,500 pesetas and one-fi fth of the costs.

The information was originally fi led against the spouses, the two witnesses to the marriage, and the minister performing the ceremony. At the request of the prosecuting attorney the case was dismissed with respect to the defendant Antonio de la Llana, one of the witnesses to the marriage, in order that he might be used as a witness for the Government, under the provisions of section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With respect to the defendants, Florencio San Miguel and Eulogia Dizon, the spouses, and Teofi lo San Miguel, the other witness to the marriage, the case was also dismissed, under paragraph 2 of article 475 of the Penal Code, for the reason that Esteban Dizon, the father of Eulogia Dizon, the bride, having, subsequent to the ceremony, given his consent to the marriage. The only defendant remaining, therefore, is Domingo San Juan, the minister who performed the ceremony.



30

General Orders, No. 68, section 7 (as amended by Act No. 1451), reads as follows:

SEC. VII. The person solemnizing a marriage must make and sign a certifi cate showing:

1. The real and full names of the parties and their places of residence.

2. Their ages.

3. The consent of the father, mother, or guardian, or of one having the charge of such person, if any such be given, if the male be under the age of twenty years or the female be under the age of eighteen years. For the purpose of ascertaining these facts, the person solemnizing the marriage is authorized to examine parties and witnesses on oath and receive affi davits, and he must state such facts in his certifi cate. The marriage shall not be performed in case of non-age, unless the consent herein before required shall be personally given by the parent or guardian or person having charge of the infant, or certifi ed in writing over his or her signature, attested by two or more subscribing witnesses and proved by the oath of one of them.”

There is no penalty in the General Orders attached to the solemnization of a marriage between persons under age. The prosecution must be sustained, therefore, if at all, under the Penal Code in connection with said General Orders.

Article 479 of the Penal Code reads as follows:

ART. 479. Any ecclesiastical or civil authority who shall perform or authorize the ceremony in any marriage prohibited by law, or barred by an impediment not capable of dispensation, shall suffer the penalties of suspension in its medium and maximum degrees and a fi ne of not less than 625 and not more than 6,250 pesetas.

If the impediment shall be subject to dispensation, the penalty shall be destierro in its minimum degree and a fi ne of not less than 325 and not more than 3,250 pesetas.”

Article 475 of that Code reads:

ART. 475. Any minor who shall marry without the consent of his or her parents, or other person standing in loco parentis, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees.

31

The offender shall be pardoned as soon as the parents or the persons referred to in the next preceding paragraph shall prove the marriage.”

In the case of the United States vs. Peñalosa (1 Phil. Rep. 109), this court held that “a minor who marries without parental consent in the false belief that she is of age is not criminally responsible,” and that, “it is not criminal negligence for a husband to rely upon his wife’s statement of her age nor for the wife to rely upon that of her father.” In that case the facts relative to the guilt of the husband, who was charged with a violation of article 475 of the Penal Code in that he had married a woman who at the time of the ceremony was under the age of consent, are stated by the court as follows:

As for the husband, it has been proved that two days before the marriage was celebrated he received a letter from the woman in which she said that she was 21 years of age. This letter the defendant showed to the clergyman who married them. The woman when the marriage ceremony was performed took an oath before the clergyman, in the presence of her husband, that she was 21 years of age. The defendant testifi es that he had no suspicion that the woman was a minor. This statement has not been contradicted and we consider that it suffi ces to demonstrate that the defendant acted under a mistake of fact, and in conformity with the principle laid down in this opinion he has not been guilty of a violation of article 475 in connection with article 13, No. 3, nor in any other manner.”

The principles referred to are as follows:

The accused were convicted in the lower court for the violation of this article, it appearing from the evidence adduced that the accused, Marcosa Peñalosa, was not 21 years of age on the 3rd day of May, 1901, when she married the co-defendant, and that she contracted the marriage without the consent of her father.

Should the judgment appealed from be affi rmed if the woman was in fact less than 21 years of age, without taking into consideration what was her belief concerning her age? Many instances can be called to mind in which there may exist an error in good faith concerning this point. A man who is about to marry and is ignorant of his exact age seeks and obtains a certifi ed copy of the registry of his baptism. From this it appears that he was born twenty-one years before the 1st day of June, let us say. He marries on the 15th day of June. It develops later that the person who took the copy of the registry of baptism read July as June, and as a matter of fact the man in



32

question did not complete his twenty-one years until the 1st day of July, fi fteen days after his marriage. Can such a one be convicted of a violation of article 475? It would seem that this case is included within those of the article. He was in fact a minor when he married, and he married without the consent of his parents. It is true that so far as the parent is concerned the offense has been committed, but can the same be said with reference to the State in the absence of a voluntary violation of the law? Article 1 of the Code does not contain the words ‘with malice’ that are to be found in the Code of 1822; nevertheless Pacheco, the eminent commentator, has said that those words are included in the word ‘voluntary’ (El Codigo Penal Concordado y Comentado, Vol. I, folio 74, third edition); and he states positively that crime cannot exist without intent.

Other commentators, without being in entire conformity with Pacheco, nevertheless are agreed up to a certain point. Groizard says: ‘Such is the general rule; so it is ordinarily.’ (Codigo Penal de 1870, Vol. I, folio 37.) Viada says that ‘in the majority of cases, in the absence of intent there has been no crime; but that there can exist in some cases the latter without the former.’ (Vol. I, Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870, folio 16.) Silvela says: ‘In effect it suffi ces to remember the fi rst article, which states that where there is no intent there is no crime, . . . in order to assert without fear of mistake that in our Code the substance of a crime does not exist if there is not a deed, an act which falls within the sphere of ethics, if there is not a moral wrong.’ (Vol. 2, Derecho Penal, folio 169.)

The theory that the absence of the words ‘with malice’ in the prevailing Code has this effect is supported by the provisions of article 568 which says: ‘He who by reckless negligence commits an act which would constitute a grave crime if malice were present shall be punished,’ etc.

The Supreme Court in several successive sentences has followed the same doctrine: ‘It is indispensable that this (action) in order to constitute a crime should carry with it all the malice which the volition and intention to cause the evil which may be the object of the said crime suppose.’ (Judgment of May 31, 1882)

“In a case for falsity the facts involved were that the defendant had married ‘before the municipal judge of the pueblo of Rubete without other ceremony than the simple manifestation and expression of his wishes and those of the woman Leonor with whom he married before said municipal judge; that relying upon that, on

33

account of his ignorance and lack of instruction, on the 27th of June, 1882, and the 5th of April, 1884, in the municipal court of the pueblo of Polopos he registered as legitimate children his sons, Jose and Emilio, the offspring of the illicit union of the defendant and Leonor Gonzales.’ For the crime of falsity committed by reckless negligence the Criminal Audiencia of Albuñol condemned the said defendant to the penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor. The Supreme Court annulled said sentence ‘considering that whatever might be the civil effects of the registration of his three sons entered by the accused in the Civil and Parochial Registers, it cannot partake of the nature of a crime for lack of the necessary element of volition or intent to offend, essential to every punishable act or omission; neither did he act with negligence.’ (Judgment of March 16, 1892).

In a case prosecuted against the Chinese Sy-Ticco and against Don Guillermo Partier, in the court of Quiapo, for falsifi cation of trademarks, the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia of Manila condemned the Chinaman to two years and some months of presidio correccional, and Partier to one year and some months of similar imprisonment. A writ of error was sued out in the name of Partier. The Supreme Court annulled this sentence, considering that the moral element of the crime, or, in other words, existence or nonexistence of intent and malice in the commission of an act designated and punished by the law as criminal is essentially a question of fact for exclusive judgment and determination of the trial court.

‘Considering that the act charged against the accused, Guillermo Partier, of having printed in his lithographic establishment the trademark of the cigarette packages of the Insular factory by virtue of a supposed order of the owner of said factory, to whose injury the Chinaman Abelardo Zacarias Sy-Ticco ordered him to do the said fraudulent printing, cannot be considered (from the facts declared proved in the fi nal sentence of acquittal of the Court of First Instance, accepted in its entirety and without any addition by the Appellate Court) as constituting intentional participation or cooperation in deed of falsifi cation and defraudation committed by the former, since it does not appear in any part of the sentence that Partier was in connivance with Sy-Ticco nor that he had any reason to suspect the true character of him who, styling himself the representative of Señor Santa Marina, the owner of the La Insular factory, gave him the order to print the trademark of this factory on the packages, which were to be used to hold cigarettes.’ (Judgment of December 30, 1896).



34

The judgment of October 4, 1893, is of the same tenor. It is not necessary to hold in this action that no crime mentioned in the Code can exist without intent. It suffi ces for the present to decide, as we do decide, that one cannot be convicted under article 475 when by reason of a mistake of fact there does not exist the intention to commit the crime.

In the case of the United States vs. De los Reyes (1 Phil. Rep. 375), it was held that “a woman who marries a second time under a bona fi de belief that her former spouse is dead is not guilty of bigamy,” the court saying:

We have recently held, in the United States vs. Marcosa Peñalosa and Enrique Rodriguez, decided January 27, 1902, that there can be no conviction under article 475 of the Penal Code, where by reason of a mistake of fact the intention to commit the crime does not exist, and we think the same principle must apply to this case. The defendant was therefore properly acquitted of the crime charged in the complaint.

This court having held that neither of the spouses can be convicted for a violation of article 475 if he acted in good faith and without the knowledge that the other was under the age of consent, the question naturally arises whether the person solemnizing the marriage may plead similar good faith in defense to an action brought against him under article 479. We are of the opinion that he may. This presents itself to us no reason why the rule applicable to the persons married should not be alike applicable to the person performing the ceremony which makes them man and wife. It is very easy to deceive an offi ciating clergyman as to the ages of the persons who present themselves for marriage — much easier than it is to deceive either of the spouses in relation to the same matter. Persons who are suffi ciently acquainted with each other to desire marriage are naturally presumed to know the age of each other. If a man desiring to marry a woman may be excused from criminal prosecution upon the ground that he has been deceived and mistaken as to her age, it would seem that the clergyman, who knows neither of the parties and who must of necessity depend upon an independent investigation in order to determine the ages of the parties, would be in a far better position to invoke the protection of the principle than would the husband.

Moreover, it is evident from the sections of General Orders, No. 68, above quoted, that it was the intention of the makers of that law

35

to permit the offi ciating clergyman or other person solemnizing the marriage to determine the fact of age or non-age upon the testimony of witnesses. To that end he is given the authority to examine on oath the persons who present themselves for marriage and any witnesses which they may produce or which he may desire to call relative to age. Having the right to determine a question upon the testimony of witnesses, it would seem strange indeed that he could be prosecuted criminally for a wrong determination of that question. The mere fact that two persons might differ as to the conclusion which ought to be reached upon a given state of facts or upon the testimony of certain witnesses is not suffi cient to justify the conclusion that the one whose conclusion is wrong is guilty of a crime, while he whose judgment is right is innocent. Both have exercised the same qualities, the same functions, and the same good faith. That the one may be wrong and the other right furnishes no reason for classifying the one as a criminal and the other as an innocent person.

There is some evidence in the record tending to show that the clergyman did not act in good faith in determining the question of age, one of the witnesses for the prosecution intimating that the accused was informed by one of the contracting parties that the girl was under eighteen, and that he, instead of refusing thereupon to go forward with the marriage, suggested to her that she declare herself to be eighteen or over and that he would obtain witnesses to substantiate her declaration. We have some diffi culty in fi nding the facts sought to be established by this testimony. The witnesses who testifi ed were those released from prosecution for that purpose. Such testimony, while under proper circumstances entirely acceptable, is at the outset always subject to suspicion and it requires only very little credible evidence to ripen that suspicion into a certainty. That additional evidence is found in this case in the form of written statements made by these witnesses and declared by them under oath to be true. These written statements are those prepared by the accused at the time of the ceremony and presented to the contracting parties and their witnesses for signature. They were duly signed and sworn to by those parties and witnesses. Although the oath is not in the form prescribed by General Orders, No. 68, nevertheless it contains all of the requisites essential to a valid declaration under that Act.

It appears in the record that the father of the girl gave his consent to her marriage some few days after the ceremony, and,



36

therefore, under Article 475 of the Penal Code, “pardoned” the offending parties. It is contended that this consent is retroactive and deprives the acts complained of all illegality, and that the accused should be acquitted for that reason. We do not fi nd it necessary to decide this question, as there are other grounds upon which the acquittal may be based. Nor do we decide the question whether, in fact, the marriage performed was one “prohibited by law,” under Article 479 of the Penal Code, above quoted. While this is, of course, a fundamental question and in all reason should be taken up and decided fi rst of all, there having been some difference of opinion on the court on the matter and the decision of the case being plain and unanimous along other lines, we have decided not to dispose of that question at this time.

It appearing clear to us that, even though it be admitted that the marriage complained of was illegal and that the subsequent consent of the parent did not relieve the defendant of liability for the part he had taken therein, the accused acted in good faith without criminal intent, and that he made the investigation required by law in a reasonably satisfactory manner, the conviction cannot stand.

The judgment is reversed and the accused acquitted of the crime charged. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A UCCP MINISTER WHO RESIGNED AND RAN FOR MAYOR

Pedro V. Villar vs. Gaudencio V. ParaisoG.R. No. L-8014March 14, 1955

Facts:

Pedro Villar and Gaudencio Paraiso were candidates for the offi ce of municipal mayor of a certain town. After the canvass was made, Villar obtained 1,467 votes while Paraiso garnered 1,509 votes. Consequently, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Paraiso as the duly elected mayor with a plurality of 41 votes.

Contending that Paraiso was ineligible to assume the offi ce as mayor for being an ecclesiastic, Villar instituted quo warranto

37

proceedings praying that Paraiso be declared ineligible to assume the offi ce and his proclamation be declared null and void. He prayed further that he be declared duly elected mayor in lieu of Paraiso.

Paraiso denied his ineligibility by claiming that he resigned as minister of UCCP; that his resignation was accepted by the cabinet of his church at a special meeting; and that even if he be declared ineligible to the offi ce, Villar could not be declared to take his place as mayor.

Issue:

Whether or not Paraiso has actually resigned as minister of UCCP making him eligible to assume the offi ce of mayor and his resignation was duly accepted removing his ineligibility.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Paraiso is ineligible to hold offi ce as mayor. He never ceased as minister of UCCP. The resignation he claims to have been fi led months before the election is but a mere scheme to circumvent the prohibition of the law regarding ecclesiastic who desires to run for municipal offi ce. If it is true that he sincerely intended to resign as minister of the religious organization to which he belonged to launch his candidacy, why did he not resign in due form and the acceptance of his resignation registered with the Bureau of Public Libraries (now Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General)? The importance of his resignation cannot be under-estimated. The purpose of resignation is to inform the public not only of the authority of the minister to discharge his functions, but also to inform it of any change in his religious status. This information is necessary for the protection of the public. This is especially so with regard to the authority to solemnize marriages, the registration of which is made mandatory by law. It is incumbent upon Paraiso to secure the cancellation of his registration. Furthermore, he failed to attach to his certifi cate of candidacy a copy of his alleged resignation as minister of UCCP knowing fully well that a minister is disqualifi ed by law to run for a municipal offi ce.


A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane



38

pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in fl ight, but also during stopovers at ports of call. (Article 31, Family Code).

A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS BY AN AIRPLANE PILOT

Problem:

Greg and Alma are on board a PAL airbus bound for USA. Suddenly, Greg became sick such that he is now at the point of death. They asked Capt. Rudy, the airplane pilot to solemnize their marriage but the pilot refused on the ground that there was no marriage license. Is the pilot correct?

Held:

No, the pilot is not correct because this is one of the exceptional cases where marriage can be solemnized without a marriage license. Under the Law, an airplane pilot can solemnize marriage in articulo mortis. Such marriage can be solemnized even if the plane is in fl ight or during stopovers at ports of call. (Art. 31, Family Code).

A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS BY A SHIP CAPTAIN

Problem:

Manuel and Jinky were engaged to be married. While they were on board on a boat bound for Cebu City, Manuel had a quarrel with a certain passenger who stabbed him. The physician on board the boat attested to the fact that Manuel would die at any time. So, Manuel and Jinky requested Melchor, the ship captain to solemnize their wedding. Is the marriage between Manuel and Jinky valid?

Held:

Yes, the marriage between Manuel and Jinky is valid. Under the law, a marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in fl ight, but also during stopovers at ports of call. (Article 31, Family Code)

39

d. Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military operation, in cases of marriage in articulo mortis;

A military Commander of a unit who is a commissioned offi cer, shall likewise has authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation, whether members of the armed forces or civilians. (Article 32, Family Code)

The requisites to be complied with in order that a military commander can validly solemnize marriage are as follows: 1) the marriage must be in articulo mortis; 2) only in the absence of the chaplain; 3) the military commander must be a commissioned offi cer; and 4) the marriage must be solemnized within the zone of military operation.

A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS SOLEMNIZED BY A MILITARY COMMANDER

Problem:

Rogelio, a soldier stationed at a camp in Cagayan de Oro City has girlfriend named Juliet. While on vacation in Bohol province, Rogelio contracted H-fever and was hospitalized to the point of death. Col. Santos, his military commander in Cagayan de Oro Camp and a personal friend, was summoned to proceed to Bohol to offi ciate the marriage ceremony of Rogelio and Juliet without the benefi t of a marriage license. Is their marriage valid?

Held:

No, the marriage is not valid because the marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. A military commander of a unit can solemnize a marriage in articulo mortis only within the zone of military operation. Since Bohol province is not part of the zone of military operation, the marriage is void. (Art. 32, Family Code of the Philippines).



40


Marriage between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by a consul-general, consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the Philippines. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing offi cer with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular offi cial. (Article 10, Family Code as cited in Paras, The Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 15th, p. 379).

Marriage between Filipino citizens abroad solemnized in Philippine diplomatic or consular offi ce shall comply with the requirements of the Philippine law. This is based on the legal principle that Philippine diplomatic or consular offi ce abroad is an extension of the Philippine territory. This is based on the principle of exterritoriality.

The consul general is an offi cial of the Department of Foreign Affairs who is issued a consular commission by the President and/or Secretary of Foreign Affairs. In a foreign -service establishment of the Philippines where there is no Consul-General, the civil registration function and duties under R.A. No. 9048 and its implementing rules and regulations shall be exercised and performed by the Consul or Vice Consul who should be similarly issued consular commission by the President and/or the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

Actually, the Consul-General is the civil registrar outside the Philippines. Under Article 5 (f) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), it is provided that one of the consular functions is “Acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of similar kind, and performing certain functions of an administrative nature, provided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws and regulations of the receiving state.” (Underscoring supplied).

Also, under Article 10 of the Family Code, it is provided: “Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by a consul-general, consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the Philippines. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing offi cer with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular offi cial.” (Manual of Instructions, RA No. 9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, pp. 4-5).

41

REASON WHY AMBASSADOR CANNOT SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

Consuls-general, Consuls, Vice-consuls — A person must be designated as consul-general, consul, or vice-consul of the Republic in some foreign post in order to have authority to solemnize marriages. An ambassador, even if he is the head of a diplomatic mission, has no authority. The reason for this is that, while an ambassador takes care of the relations between the Philippines and the country to which he is assigned, the consuls take care of matters affecting Filipino citizens in the area of their responsibility. (See Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence with the Family Code, Vol. 1, p. 243).

MARRIAGE OF FILIPINOS ABROAD

A marriage license is required for marriages of Filipinos abroad by Philippine Consuls-general, consuls or vice-consuls. The license is issued by the consular offi cials.

The contracting parties need not be permanent residents or immigrants in the foreign country where they are married. They may be only temporarily there.

Philippine laws are applicable to marriages of Filipinos abroad under this article. The marriage must therefore comply with the requisites provided by the Family Code. (See Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence with the Family Code, Vol. 1, p. 245).


Under the Family Code, governors, mayors, and ambassadors are not authorized to perform marriages. (Inclusio unius exclusio est alterius — What the law does not include, it excludes.)

Under the Local Government Code, however, mayors are now authorized to perform marriages within their jurisdiction. (See Secs. 444-455, Local Government Code of the Philippines).

Acting mayor or acting as mayor has authority to solemnize marriage once he assumes the offi ce of the mayor (People vs. Bustamante, 56 O.G. 1169).



42

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE CONCERNING AN ISSUE OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND THE LACK OF AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

Cristina Vergara vs. Reynaldo PascuaCivil Case No. 351-(95)

Regional Trial Court, Branch 66Capas, Tarlac

Facts:

Cristina Vergara and Reynaldo Pascua, together with their parents and witnesses went to the town mayor on October 12, 1992 to have their marriage solemnized. The mayor was however absent. The secretary of the mayor advised them to apply for a marriage license and return for the wedding ceremonies after 10 days. Cristina Vergara and Reynaldo Pascua wanted to be married right away, so they decided to proceed to another municipality to have their marriage solemnized there. The mayor was out of town, so they went to the offi ce of the vice mayor who instructed his personnel to prepare the documents and they were told to go to a certain offi ce to pay a certain amount.

Thereafter, the vice mayor solemnized their marriage and made them sign, together with their sponsors, a blank marriage contract, and they were told to come back on November 3, 1992 for their marriage papers. They lived together as husband and wife at Cristina Vergara’s parents’ house until May 1993 when she went to Saipan to work leaving her husband behind in her parents’ house.

From May 1993 to August 1993, Cristina Vergara’s and Reynaldo Pascua exchanged letters. However in September 1993, Reynaldo Pascua stopped writing letters and Cristina Vergara was informed by her parents that her husband left their home and never returned. She wrote letters to her parents-in-law but she was informed that they did not know his whereabouts. When she returned home for vacation, she learned from friends that her husband is living with another woman in Manila. Hence, she fi led a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of her marriage with Reynaldo Pascua.

43

Issue:

Whether or not Cristina Vergara’s marriage with Reynaldo Pascua can be declared null and void on the ground that the solemnizing offi cer is not authorized by law to solemnize marriage and they had no marriage license at the time of the marriage despite their knowledge of these grounds at the time of the marriage.

Ruling:

The trial court said that “a mere cursory examination of the marriage certifi cate between Cristina Vergara and Reynaldo Pascua shows that it is in compliance with all the essential and formal requisites of the law on marriage.’’ Therefore, it is presumed to be valid.

The courts look upon the presumption of marriage with great favor as it is founded on the following rationale: “The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but is a new relation and institution the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony.” (Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43 quoted in Alvarado vs. City Government of Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230; Mariataqui vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 337).

Article 4 of the Family Code provides: “An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.”

The trial court notes with signifi cance Cristina Vergara’s testimony that she and her husband insisted to get married right away, even if advised of the necessity of marriage license.

Article 1411 of the Civil Code provides: “When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract and the article constitutes an offense, both the parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no action against each other and both shall be prosecuted.”

Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code punishes persons contracting marriage against the provisions of the laws.

Article 50 — Marriage Contracted Against the Provision of Law – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon who without being included in the



44

provision of the next preceding article shall contract marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment.

From the above provisions of the law, Cristina Vergara has no remedy against Reynaldo Pascua. The doctrine of in pari delicto provides: The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement and it leaves them where they are. (Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In pari delicto est conditio defendatis.)

One is expected to come to court with clean hands. One is not allowed to seek redress from the law which he himself openly violated. Cristina Vergara was a party to the illegal marriage. She cannot claim that she is an injured party. Hence, her petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Reynaldo Pascua should be dismissed.

As provided in Article 18, Section 1, Chapter 11 Book Two of Presidential Decree 1083:

g. proper Wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be wedded;

h. any person who is competent under Muslim Law upon authority of the proper wali; or

i. judge of the Shari’a District Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifi able reason, to authorize the solemnization.

From the above provision of the Muslim Code, the emphasis is on the authority to solemnize which means license to solemnize marriage. By implication, therefore, in Islamic marriage, license is not needed or required for two reasons: Firstly, Article 18 of the Muslim Code, which is predicated on Islamic jurisprudence, impliedly clothes or covers those specifi ed or enumerated persons with authority or license to solemnize marriage. It is not, therefore, necessary to exert further effort in securing one, which may be considered a loss of valued time. Secondly, in Islamic jurisprudence, law is personal in its application to Muslims. That is to say, it is not affected by the constitution of a political society. The authority of law, according to Islamic Theory, is primarily based on men’s conscience and not on political force. Thus, if a Muslim goes from one state to another, he is bound by the same personal or family laws which

45

apply to his conscience wherever he goes. It is for this reason that marriage license is intertwined or ingrained with the very authority of the person authorized to solemnize marriage and consequently, with the validity of such marriage, according to Islamic laws and traditions. (Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code, Justice Jainal D. Rasul, pp. 66-67).

DOJ OPINION RE COVERAGE OF MUSLIM SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS TO REGISTER THEIR AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH OCRG

February 28, 2005

Ms. CARMELITA N. ERICTAAdministratorNational Statistics Offi ceP.O. Box 779 Manila

Madam:

This has reference to your request for opinion on the queries stated herein relating to the effect/s, if any, of the provisions of Article 7 of Executive Order No. 209, as amended, upon the pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1083. Article 7 of E.O. No. 209, as amended, in part reads:

Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:

xx xx;

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the civil register general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect xxx;

xx xx.

In general, you inquire “whether or not Article 7(2) of the Family Code of the Philippines repealed or amended Presidential Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as ‘Code of Muslim Personal Laws (of the Philippines)’.” In particular, you may ask “whether the requirement for registration of written authority to solemnize marriage found in the Family Code takes precedence over P.D. No. 1083”.



46

The queries, it appears, are raised in connection with Article 18 of P.D. No. 1083 which pertinently provided, to wit:

Art. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. — Marriage may be solemnized:

(a) By the proper wali of the woman to be wedded;

(b) Upon 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 of Shari’a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifi able reason, to authorized the solemnization.

You state that the above-quoted legal provision of the decree is silent as to the prior registration of the imams before they can solemnize marriage. In view of your perceived confl ict between the aforesaid provision and the earlier-quoted provision of the Family Code, you now elevate the matter to this Department for opinion.

To us, the resolution of the issues raised would require a look into the other pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1083 and E.O. No. 209, as amended, respectively, specifi cally those relating to the interpretation and application of their respective provisions.

The subject Code of Muslim Personal laws, insofar as material, states:

Art. 3. Confl ict of provisions. — (1) In case of confl ict between any provisions of this Code and laws of general application, the former shall prevail.

(2) Should the confl ict be between any provision of this Code and special laws or laws of local application, the latter shall be liberally constructed in order to carry out the former.

(3) The provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and nothing herein shall be constructed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.

xxx xxx

Art. 13. Application. — (1) The provision of this Titles shall apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslim, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim Law or this Code in any part of the Philippines.

47

(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law of this Code, the Civil Code of the Philippines shall apply.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the essential requisites and legal impediments of marriage, xxx solemnization and registration of marriage xxx, shall be governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.

On the other hand, Article 254 of the Family Code is clear, thus:

ART. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, a8, a9, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclaiming, rules and regulations, on parts thereof, inconsistent the herewith are hereby repealed.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction to give effect to the general intent of the legislature that can be ascertained from a consideration of the whole statute and not only a particular provision thereof. The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from any single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or sentence but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole.

Equally basic is the rule that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, the meaning thereof must be determined from the language used and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The rationale is because when the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation-only for application.

The provisions of P.D. No. 1083, earlier quoted, governing the construction of its provisions vis-a-vis other laws as well as the application thereof are clear and categorical. Thus, in case of confl ict between the provisions of said Code or decree which, incidentally, is a special law and those of laws of general application, the Family Code or E.O. No. 209 included, the former shall govern. This is true even if the general law is a latter enactment and broad enough to include the provisions of the Code. The reason is because the Code itself has expressly and explicitly revealed the intent of the legislature. Moreover and as especially applied to the Family Code, its repealing clause uses a general one, i.e., save for provisions of



48

Civil Code, as amended, and P.D. No. 603, as amended, it does not repeal in express terms the provisions of the Muslim Personal Code. For the same reasons stated above, a similar conclusion would be reached even if we assume that E.O. No. 209, as amended, is also a special law.

As the Decree itself explicitly states, however, the above conclusion should be qualifi ed. This is because under Article 3 thereof, “the provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and nothing herein shall be constructed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim”.

Likewise, by expressed mandate of Article 13 of the Decree, “the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage” and “solemnization and registration” the marriage of the persons mentioned therein, among other things, shall be governed by this code other applicable Muslim laws.”

Consequently, when the parties to the marriage are both Muslim or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized under the Muslim laws, the provision of Section 18 of P.D. No. 1083 enumerating those persons authorized to solemnize marriage, which undeniably includes an imam, governs. Conversely, when the aforesaid elements or conditions are not present, the provision on the authority of solemnizing offi cer, including the registration with the civil registrar general, under Article 7 of the Family Code, which further amended the Civil Code of the Philippines, applies. This is explicit even from a reading of Article 13(2) of the Muslim Personal laws itself.

Your queries are thus answered accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) RAUL M. GONZALEZSecretary

A PROBLEM ON ABSENCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE TO MUSLIM MARRIAGE

Problem:

Tingcap and Sorayda are both Muslims. They got married, with Judge Guerrero as the solemnizing offi cer. The marriage was

49

solemnized at the Judge’s chamber but in accordance with the Christian rites. There was no marriage license. Is the marriage between Tingcap and Sorayda valid?

Held:

No, the marriage between Tingcap and Sorayda is not valid. The law provides that marriages between Muslims may be solemnized without marriage license provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites and practices. (Article 33, Family Code) Since the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Christian rites, the marriage is void for lack of a marriage license.

As provided by OCRG Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004, otherwise known as “Rules and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning the Civil Status of Indigenous Peoples”, marriages between members of ethnic cultural communities or indigenous peoples may be solemnized by:

j. community elders;

k. tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio political structures certifi ed by National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); or

l. Authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal communities who perform and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the community.

PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (IP).

Administrative Order No. 3 Series of 2004, Rule 2, par. 7, Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage — refer to community elders, tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-political structures certifi ed by NCIP or authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal communities and registered in accordance with the guidelines of OCRG on Solemnizing Offi cers who perform and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the community. (Administrative Order 3, Series of 2004, p. 4).



50

DOJ OPINION ON THE NEED OF TRIBAL HEADS OR CHIEF-TAINS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE TO BE AUTHORIZED AND REGISTER THEIR AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH OCRG

Republika ng PilipinasKAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN

Department of JusticeManila

OPINION. 179, S. 1993

December 28, 1993

Mr. Tomas P. AfricaCivil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceSta. Mesa, Manila

S i r :

This refers to your request for opinion on the following queries:

“1. Do tribal heads or chieftains need to be authorized and registered under Article 7(2) of the Family Code before they can offi ciate marriages between members of their respective tribes?

“2. If yes, will the registration of the tribal heads or chieftains result to extending the coverage of the law beyond its scope, and therefore illegal?

“3. If no, what will be the status of the marriages which may be solemnized by them?”

You state that on the basis of Article 7(2), your offi ce has been receiving applications from tribal heads or chieftains who wish to register as solemnizing offi cers within their respective tribes, but which applications you deny on the ground that the provision “refers only to solemnizing offi cers who are members of a church or religious sect, and that a tribe is neither a church or religious sect but a mere social group which under the law is called an ‘ethnic cultural community.’”

51

You further state that whereas Article 78 of the Civil Code expressly exempted those persons solemnizing marriages between non-Christians from complying with Article 92 (referring to registration of solemnizing offi cers with the Civil Registrar General), its counterpart provision in the Family Code, which is Article 33, does not contain a similar exemption and, therefore, it would appear that under the Family Code, “marriages among the ethnic cultural communities could be validly offi ciated only by those solemnizing offi cers enumerated under Article 7 of the Family Code, and not by anybody else such as the tribal heads of chieftains”.

We agree with the view that under the Family Code, marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be solemnized only by those solemnizing offi cers enumerated in Article 7 of the same Code.

Article 33 of the Family Code provides:

“ART. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of a marriage license, provided that they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites, or practices.”

Pursuant to Article 33, marriages among Muslims or members of the ethnic cultural communities may be solemnized without need of securing a marriage license. As you have correctly pointed out, “Article 33 is explicit that these marriages are exempted only from the license requirement”. Article 33 does not dispense with the requirement of registration of the solemnizing offi cer under Section 7(2) which provides:

“ART. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:

x x x x x x x x x

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing offi cer’s church or religious sect;

x x x x x x x x x

(Emphasis supplied.)



52

This view becomes clearer when we compare the provision of Article 33 with the old provision of Article 78 of the Civil Code which states:

“ART. 78. Marriages between Mohammedans or pagans who live in the non-Christian provinces may be performed in accordance with their customs, rites and practices. No marriage license or formal requisites shall be necessary. Nor shall the persons solemnizing these marriages be obliged to comply with Article 92.” (Referring to registration of solemnizing offi cers, now Article 7, par. 2, Family Code). (Underscoring supplied.)

Note that the underscored portion of Article 78 which reads:

“Nor shall the persons solemnizing these marriages be obliged to comply with Article 92.” Is conspicuously absent from Article 33, clearly implying that the offi cers solemnizing marriages under Article 33 are no longer exempted from the requirement of registration under Article 92 (now Article 7, par. 2, Family Code). This conclusion is also bolstered by the new provision of Section 7(2) of the Family Code which mentions “priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of the church or religious sect” among those solemnizing offi cers who are required to register with the Civil Registrar General “Imam” is a Muslim priest, and interpreting Article 7(2) in relation to Article 33, the logical conclusion to follow would be that marriages among Muslims must be celebrated by an “imam” who has been duly registered with the Civil Registrar General, and this holds true with marriages among members of the ethnic cultural communities, if these marriages are to be celebrated by their religious head. In short, to repeat, registration of solemnizing offi cers under Article 33 is not dispensed with, which means that they should be registered as solemnizing offi cers under Article 7(2).

As to whether tribal heads or chieftains should be allowed to register as solemnizing offi cers would depend on whether, aside from being the social or political leader of their respective tribes, they also stand as their priest or religious head. This is a question of fact which your offi ce should be in the best position to determine.


Very truly yours,

(SGD.) RAMON J. LIWAGActing Secretary

53

A PROBLEM ON MARRIAGE PERFORMED BY CHIEFTAIN OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE (IP) WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE

Problem:

Minda and Nadi want to get married. Since both are members of a cultural minority, they appear before their chieftain to have their marriage solemnized. Can the chieftain validly solemnize their marriage?

Held:

Yes, the chieftain can validly solemnize their marriage in accordance with the provision of Article 33 of the Family which states: “Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of marriage license, provided that they are performed in accordance with their customs, rites or practices,” and provided further that the authority of the chieftain to solemnize marriage had been registered with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. (Art. 33 and Art. 7 (2), Family Code of the Philippines)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE BEFORE A VILLAGE LEADER

Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo, et al.G.R. No. L-21076March 31, 1965

Facts:

On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision fi nding Wong Woo Yiu to be legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitting her into the country as a non-quota immigrant. However, on June 28, 1962, the new Board of Commissioners rendered a new decision reversing that of the former board and ordering Wong Woo Yiu to be excluded from the country.

Wong Woo Yiu contended that she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the fi rst time to join her husband Perfecto Blas to whom she was married in Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929; that she had several children all of whom are now in the Philippines; and that their marriage was celebrated by one Chua Tio, a village leader.



54

Issue:

Is the marriage of Wong Woo Yiu with Perfecto Blas in China before a village leader valid under Philippine law?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage of Wong Woo Yiu with Perfecto Blas in China before a village leader is not valid under Philippine law. Her claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas was without basis in evidence as it was bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship. Her claim cannot also be entertained under the law on family relations. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that laws relating to family rights or to the status of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.

It is well-known that in 1929 in order that a marriage may be valid it must be solemnized either by a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court, a Justice of the Peace, or a priest or minister of any denomination duly registered in the Philippine Library and Museum (now Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General). Even assuming that the marriage of Wong Woo Yiu to Perfecto Blas before a village leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those authorized in our country.

Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the offi cers mentioned above, and a village leader is not one of them, it is clear that Wong Woo Yiu’s marriage to Perfecto Blas in China, even if true, cannot be recognized in our country in the absence of proof of the China law on such marriage.

OTHER PERTINENT FEATURES FOR SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS

DUTY OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER AS REQUIRED UNDER THE MARRIAGE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES

It shall be the duty of the solemnizing offi cer that after the marriage celebration, he shall furnish:

(a) The original certifi cate to either of the contracting parties;

(b) The duplicate and triplicate to the local civil registrar of the place where marriage took place; and

55

(c) The quadruplicate copy of the certifi cate, the original of the marriage license, and the affi davit of the contracting parties regarding solemnization of the marriage in the place other than those mentioned in Article 8 of the Family Code, shall be kept by the solemnizing offi cer.

AN INSTANCE WHERE MARRIAGE IS VALID DESPITE ABSENCE OF AUTHORITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

Act 3613, Sec. 27 which is the old Marriage Law states that marriage was considered completely valid if, at the time of solemnization, both the spouses or one of them believed in good faith that the solemnizing offi cer was actually empowered to do so and that the marriage was perfectly legal. Under the Civil Code, however, the good faith or bad faith of the parties was immaterial. If the person performing the marriage had no authority to do so, the marriage was void, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the parties. Under the Family Code, even if the solemnizing offi cer is not authorized, the marriage would be valid if either or both parties believe in good faith in his authority to solemnize the marriage. (The Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Edgardo L. Paras, Vol. 1, 2002 Edition, p. 373)

OCRG’S MEMORANDUM ON TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS

1 March 1989

To : All Regional/Provincial Census Offi cers and Solem-nizing Offi cers

Subject : TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SOLEMNIZ-ING OFFICERS

For the purpose of this Circular, only those solemnizing offi cers enumerated in Article 7 (2) of the Family Code are covered. They are the priests, rabbis, imams, or ministers of any church or religious sect, including the bishops, heads, and founder. The territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing offi cers or place where the solemnizing offi cer refers to a defi ned but limited area or place where the solemnizing offi cers can validly offi ciate a marriage. The area or place may be whole Philippines, or only a province or a diocese.



56

Article 8 of the Family Code provides among other things that the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church, chapel or temple, and not elsewhere. Exceptions from the general rule are the following: (1) marriage contracted at the point of death, or in a remote place, and (2) where both of the parties request the solemnizing offi cer at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

Reading the provision of the above-cited provision of Article 8 of Family Code, the territorial jurisdiction of the solemnizing offi cer must be necessarily limited in the place where the church, chapel or temple is situated. For example, XYZ religion has fi ve chapels, all of which are located within Metro Manila. The ministers (or pastors) of his religion can have territorial jurisdiction only within Metro Manila and not whole Philippines, for an obvious reason, that said ministers (or pastors) do not have chapels in Mindanao, Visayas and in other places outside Metro Manila where they could solemnize marriage in accordance with law.

The second exception given in Article 8 of the Family Code does not mean an exception from the rule of territorial jurisdiction. It is an exception from the rule that a marriage shall be solemnized in a church, chapel or temple, but the house or place designated by the contracting parties must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned solemnizing offi cer.

As a rule, therefore the territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing offi cer is the province where the church, chapel or temple to which he is assigned is located. For a Catholic priest, his territorial jurisdiction is the diocese or archdiocese to which he belongs. The territorial jurisdiction to cover whole Philippines shall be granted only to bishops, founders, presidents, and heads of religions or religious sects in consideration of the possible expansion and establishment of additional churches, chapels or temples of such religion or religious sects.

(SGD.) TOMAS P. AFRICACivil Registrar General

57

OCRG’s MEMORANDUM TO LCRs ON NULLITY OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND LACK OF AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

29 August 1997

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal RegistrarsSubject : COURT DECISION CONCERNING NULLITY

OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND LACK OF AUTHOR-ITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

Attached is a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac in Civil Case No. 351-(95) concerning a petition for the judicial of nullity of marriage fi led by Ms. Cristina Vergara against her husband, Reynaldo Pascua. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage fi led by petitioner Cristina Vergara against respondent Reynaldo Pascua thru counsel, Atty. Cesar Gomez is hereby DENIED. Case is hereby DISMISSED.

In passing, it may be timely for the Honorable Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government to issue a Circular reminding municipal mayors that the duty to solemnize marriage cannot be delegated and for the National Census and Statistics Offi ce to issue Circular for strict compliance on the ten (10) days period before issuance of marriage license by the local civil registrar to the increasing number of cases being fi led for annulment on the ground that the offi ciating offi cial has no authority to solemnize the marriage and the non-existence of a marriage at the time of the solemnization.

In the view of this court decision, the city/municipal civil registrars are hereby enjoined to observe strictly the proper issuance of marriage license as provided in the Family Code of the Philippines and in OCRG Circular No. 3, S. 1988.




58

MARRIAGE SHALL BE SOLEMNIZED PUBLICLY

The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the offi ce of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the parties request the solemnizing offi cer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. (Article 8, Family Code of the Philippines as cited in Edgardo L. Paras, The Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Rex Book Store, Vol. 1, 2002, p. 380).

The reason for public solemnization — The requirement that the marriage be done publicly is based on the premise that the State takes an active interest in the marriage.

INSTANCES WHERE PUBLIC SOLEMNIZATION IS NOT NEEDED

Public solemnization is needed except:

(a) Marriages in chambers of the Justice or Judge.

(b) In marriages in articulo mortis.

(c) In marriages in remote place.

(d) When both of the parties request in writing for solemni-zation in some other place. The place must be designated in a sworn statement. (See Paras, The Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. 1, [Fifteenth Edition], 2002, p. 380).

A SOLEMNIZING OFFICER NEEDS NOT INVESTIGATE WHETHER MARRIAGE LICENSE ISSUED BY LCR IS LEGAL OR NOT

The law does not impose on the solemnizing offi cers the duty to investigate whether the license issued by the local civil registrar was legally or illegally, wrongfully or fraudulently obtained. The marriage would just the same, be valid without prejudice to the criminal liability of the guilty parties (People vs. Belen, 45 O.G. Supp. No. 5 p. 88). Anyway it is suffi cient to know that the license

59

was issued by a competent offi cial, and it may be presumed from the issuance of said license that said offi cial has complied with his duty of ascertaining the qualifi cations of the parties. (People vs. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176).

THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR IS NOT REQUIRED TO INQUIRE INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE OATH

The local civil registrar who issues the marriage license is not required to inquire into the authority of the offi cer administering the oath and neither is the person solemnizing the marriage required to investigate as to whether or not a marriage license, which appears to have been issued by a competent offi cial, was legally obtained. (Eigenunan vs. Guerra, 5 C.A. Rep. 836).

Rule 2.3 City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR)

The head of the department/offi ce in the Local Government Unit mandated by law to carry out civil registration functions.

NOTE:

City/Municipal Civil Registrar is the head of the department/offi ce in the Local Government Unit mandated by law to carry out civil registration functions.

The City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) is the head of the local registry offi ce of the city/municipality, as the case may be, who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in accordance with provisions of existing laws.

Under the existing law (Section 479 Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991), the appointment of a civil registrar shall be mandatory for city and municipal governments. The law further says that the civil registrar shall be responsible for the registration program in the local government unit concerned, pursuant to the Civil Registry Law, the Civil Code, and other pertinent laws, rules and regulations issued to implement them. (RA No. 9048 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations. p. 3)

The person who is in charge of recording vital events and other documents affecting the civil status of persons in cities and municipalities. (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993.).



60

OCRG CIRCULAR RE DOJ OPINION ON MINISTERIAL DUTY OF LCR NOT TO DENY REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN INSUFFICIENCY THEREOF

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Economic and Development Authority

NATIONAL CENSUS AND STATISTICS OFFICEManila

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALCIRCULAR NO. 1SERIES OF 1986

To : All Regional /Provincial/ Municipal Census Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars

Subject : OPINION NO. 25, SERIES OF 1986

Attached is a copy of the 2nd Endorsement dated 17 February 1986, which contains an Opinion from the Honorable of Justice (Opinion No. 25, Series of 1986) in connection with the registration of a marriage contract.

The salient features of Opinion No. 25, Series of 1986, are the following:

1. The duty of the Local Civil Registrar to register marriage contracts is purely ministerial. The Local Civil Registrar is not empowered to question the intrinsic validity of the act or instrument sought to be registered. It is therefore incumbent upon the Local Civil Registrar to accept and register documents without inquiring into the accuracy or veracity of the various entries found therein. The Civil Registry Law does not authorize a Local Civil Registrar to deny registration of documents presented to him for registration on grounds other than the insuffi ciency thereof for purposes of registration (Opinion No. 68, Series of 1951, No. 106, Series of 1980).

2. Article 76 of the Civil Code expressly provides that the affi davit attesting to the fact that the contracting parties have been living together for the required period should be executed by the contracting parties themselves. The

61

use of the word “shall“ in the said Article indicates that the requirement is mandatory, not directory merely.

(SGD.) MARCELO M. ORENSEExecutive Director

Civil Registrar General

AN OCRG CIRCULAR RE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) DECISION AGAINST LCR FOR REFUSING TO REGISTER LEGITIMA-TION OF CHILD TO UNDERAGE MOTHER AND THAT LCR’S MINISTERIAL DUTY TO REGISTER CR DOCUMENTS ONLY OBTAINS ONCE THE LCR IS SATISFIED THAT THE APPLI-CATION ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE COMPLETE AND CONSISTENT

Republic of the PhilippinesOFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

National Statistics Offi ceSta. Mesa, Manila

Ref. No. 997000-0381

Circular No. 99-111 August 1999

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : LEGITIMATION OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

OF UNDER AGE MOTHER OR FATHER OR BOTH

The issue as to whether or not an illegitimate child of under age parents can be legitimated by subsequent marriage of the latter is fi nally settled by the Court of Appeals in the case of Spouses Alberto Bioco, Jr. and Junice Bongay-Bioco vs. MCR of Montevista and the Civil Registrar General, CA-G.R. Sp. No. 51583, 07 July 1999.

Here are the facts of the case:

On December 23, 1991, Junice Bongay gave birth to a child with Alberto Bioco as the natural father. Since the couple was not married, the child was registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar



62

of Montevista as Jessa Bongay, following her mother’s maiden name. On February 14, 1994, Junice and Alberto were married at the Sta. Teresita Parish Church in Nabunturan. Junice and Alberto attempted to register the legitimation of their daughter and to change her registered surname, from Bongay to Bioco. However, the Municipal Civil Registrar of Montevista refused to register it on the ground that the mother Junice was below 18 years old at the time of the child’s conception.

Consequently, Junice and Alberto fi led a Mandamus case against the Municipal Civil Registrar of Montevista and the Civil Registrar General to compel the latter to cause the registration of the legitimation of their minor child Jessa Bongay (Special Civil Case No. 38, RTC, Nabunturan, Comval).

Respondents (MCR of Buenavista and the Civil Registrar General) fi led a verifi ed answer wherein it argued that petitioners’ daughter cannot be legitimated citing Article 177 in relation to Articles 2 and 5 of the Family Code, since at the time of the conception of the said child, her mother was under a legal impediment to marry in view of the fact that the latter was underage. Furthermore, they argued that although the registration of civil registry documents is ministerial, such duty obtains, once the civil registrar is satisfi ed that the application along with the supporting documents are complete and consistent. (Emphasis ours).

On September 30, 1998, the trial court issued an order in favor of the petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:

PREMISED ON ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, order is hereby issued directing the Municipal Civil Registrar of Montevista, Comval Province to register the child Jessa Bongay-Bioco as legitimate child of Alberto Bioco Jr. and Junice Bongay-Bioco.

The MCR of Montevista and the Civil Registrar General brought the case to the Court of Appeals, assigning the following issues:

1. Whether or not mandamus would lie to compel the respondents to register the legitimation of petitioners’ daughter, and

2. Whether or not petitioners’ daughter is a legitimated child under the provisions of the Family Code.

63

The 4th Division of the Court of Appeals composed of Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino, Salome A. Montoyo and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. rendered the following decision:

The appeal must be sustained.

In rendering the order appealed from, the trial court sustained the ground relied upon by petitioners. His Honor reasoned thus:

“Art. 177 of the Family Code of the Philippines states: Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.

In law, there are two (2) restrictions: Incapacity and disqualifi cation. Incapacity like age, disqualifi cation like when one of the spouses is already married to another person, the phrase in Article 177 which states: ‘were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other’ may refer to the restriction which is incapacity as to age and not to the restriction which is disqualifi cation like being married to another person. Hence, upon reaching the age of majority and upon their subsequent marriage the child born outside wedlock when one of the parents was still of non-age may be legitimated.

To interpret otherwise would result to an absurdity because the child born out of wedlock would be illegitimate while his brothers and sisters born after marriage are considered legitimate.”

In our view, the trial court’s confi dent stride falters.

Incapacity is defi ned in Luciano vs. Provincial Governor, 28 SCRA 537, as the lack of physical or intellectual power or of natural or legal qualifi cation. In this sense, the trial court is correct when it says that non-age is incapacity, at least legally. Disqualifi cation however is a state of being disqualifi ed, i.e., that which disqualifi ed or incapacitates, as non-age is a disqualifi cation to enter into marriage. The distinction is thus a mere academic or theoretical discussion for lack of the required necessary age is a cause or fact, an impediment which prevents the information of a valid marriage. Under-age prevents the person subject to it from marrying at all. The essential requisite of legal capacity is lacking, and, as a consequence, rendered the



64

marriage void ab initio (Arts. 2, 4 and 35, Family Code). Thus understood, the legal capacity of the party, as an essential requisite to enter into the marriage contract, simply meant that he/she must have the necessary age and there must be no impediment. A person below the required age of 18 cannot marry at all. This is an absolute legal impediment. Applying Article 177 of the Family Code, petitioners-appellees’ daughter Jessa cannot be legitimated because petitioner Junice, at the time of the conception of daughter Jessa, was only fourteen (14) years old and therefore there is an impediment as the parents could not have contracted marriage.

It is stated forcefully that to interpret Article 177 otherwise would result to an absurdity. This is not acceptable. Absurdity in the law, if any, cannot be corrected by judicial decisions but by legislation. The judiciary cannot change a congressional law by an extensive interpretation of it.

Under the given state of facts, petitioners have no clear legal right to the performance of the act to be required of the respondents-appellants and that the latter have no imperative duty to perform.

The writ of mandamus therefore does not lie.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is REVERSED and the petition for mandamus DISMISSED. No costs.

Henceforth, in view of this latest decision of the Court of Appeals, any affi davit of legitimation executed by the parents of an illegitimate child who was conceived and born when one or both of the former were below 18 years old shall not be recorded in the Register of Legal Instruments and shall not be used as a legal basis in making marginal annotation in the record of birth of the latter. The same rule shall apply even if ordered by a Regional Trial Court.


Copy furnished:

All Regional Administrators & Oils All Provincial Statistics Offi cers & OICs

65

All District Statistics Offi cers All Statistical Coordination Offi cers

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE AGAINST LCR WHERE THE COURT RULED THAT MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE TO COMPEL THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LAW



Ref. No. 997000-0398

Mr. Severino G. CapiliOIC-Provincial Statistics Offi cerNational Statistics Offi ceTuguegarao, Cagayan

Dear Mr. Capili:

We refer to your letter of 17 September 1999 (Ref. No. 991527-831) concerning the case of Roderick and Relyn, both surnamed “Sacramento”.

It appears that Sidirio T. Urmanita and Maria Rogenia T. Sacramento were married on 19 April 1997. However, prior to the marriage, the couple had two children whom they named Roderick and Relyn, respectively. Roderick was born on 21 November 1994, while Relyn on 14 December 1996. The mother, Maria Rogenia, was only 17 years old when she gave birth to Roderick. However, she was more than 18 years old when she gave birth to Relyn. Inasmuch as their parents were not married at the time they were born, Roderick and Relyn were recorded in the civil register as illegitimate, carrying the surname of their mother which is ”Sacramento”.

In an effort to have their children to use the surname of their father ”Urmanita”, the parents fi led the” PETITION FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION OF MINOR NATURAL CHILD” with the Regional Trail Court, Branch 6, in Aparri, Cagayan (Spl. Proc. No. II-1998). The judge rendered the decision on 29 April 1999:



66

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby approved the recognition of minor RODERICK SACRAMENTO and RELYN SACRAMENTO by their parents SIDIRIO T. URMANITA and MA. ROGINIA T. SACRAMENTO. The minor children Roderick Sacramento and Relyn Sacramento may henceforth use the surname of their father, Sidirio T. Urmanita. The Local Civil Registrar of Camaluniugan, Cagayan is hereby ordered to make the corrected entries in the Registers of Births of RODERICK SACRAMENTO and RELYN SACRAMENTO and change the same to RODERICK S. URMANITA and RELYN S. URMANITA.

The civil registrar now asks the following queries:

1. The fact that this is already a Court Order, is there no possibility that this Court Order be changed by the same Judge from Court Resolution of Recognition to “Court order to Adoption” to conform with Article 198 of the New Family Code?

2. As MCR, am I compelled to follow this /court Order of Recognition instead of Adoption by changing the entry of Roderick surnamed Sacramento (who was born at the time when his mother was only 17 years old) to “URMANITA”?

3. As regards, the 2nd child named RELYN SACRAMENTO, also born outside marriage of the same couple, but the mother is already 18 years old at the time Relyn’s birth, am I also compelled to follow the same Court Order by changing Relyn’s surname to “Urmanita” disregarding the legitimation procedure Rule 66 of Adm. Order s. of 1993 and Article 178 of the NFC?

Before we answer the queries, may we discuss the issue concerning the surname of an illegitimate child born during the effectivity of the Family Code Article 176 of the Family Code which provides among others that illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother.

Sometimes in 1988, this Offi cer referred this query to the Chairman (the late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes) of the Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted the Family Code: When the law says that the illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, does it mean that the illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother even if they have been acknowledged by

67

their father in their records of births? On 23 September 1998, the Chairman responded:

An illegitimate child shall use the surname of his mother, regardless of whether or not his father admits paternity, but for purposes of support and succession, an affi davit of paternity is necessary. In other words, the surname of the illegitimate child should still be that of his mother, but the name of the father who executes an affi davit of admission of paternity should also be indicated on the birth certifi cate for purposes of support and succession. The birth certifi cate is an evidence of paternity but the affi davit of admission of paternity of the child does not affect the naming of the illegitimate child.

In one case (Marissa A. Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals and Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998), the Supreme Court said that mandamus will not lie to compel the local civil registrar to register the certifi cate of live birth of an illegitimate child using the father’s surname, even with the consent of the latter. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act prohibited by law. (Emphasis supplied)

For the information and guidance of all concerned parties, here is the decision of the Supreme Court in the mentioned mandamus case:

Marissa A. Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appealsand Civil Registrar General

G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998

PARDO, J:

The case is an appeal via certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals affi rming that of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig Branch 69, dismissing the petition of the putative father, later substituted by the unwed mother, to compel the local civil registrar of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, to register the certifi cate of live birth of petitioners’ illegitimate child using the surname of the presumed father.

On December 2, 1980, petitioner Marissa Alfaro Mossesgeld, single, 31 years of age, gave birth to a baby boy at the Medical City General Hospital, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. It was the third time that she delivered a child. The presumed father, one Eleazar



68

Sinban Calasan, 42 years old, a lawyer, married and resident of 8632 San Jose St. Guadalupe Nuveo, Makati, Metro Manila, signed the birth certifi cate of the child as the informant, indicating therein the child’s fi rst name as Jonathan middle name as Mossesgeld, and last name as Calasan. Both the presumed father. Eleazar S. Calasan and the mother Marissa A. Mossesgeld, accomplished the dorsal side of the certifi cate of live birth stating that the information contained therein were true and correct. In addition, Lawyer Calasan executed an affi davit admitting paternity of the child.

On December 6, 1989, due to the refusal of the person in charge at the hospital to placing the presumed father’s surname as the child’s surname in the certifi cate of live birth, petitioner himself submitted the certifi cate to the offi ce of the local civil registrar of Mandaluyong, for registration.

On December 28, 1989, the municipal treasurer of Mandaluyong, as offi cer in charge of the offi ce of the local civil registrar, rejected the registration on the basis of Circular No. 4 dated October 11, 1988 of the Civil Registrar General, providing that under Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines, illegitimate children born on or after August 3, 1988, shall use the surname of their mother.

On October 9, 1990, lawyer Eleazar S. Calasan personally went to the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong to inquire about the status of the registration of his illegitimate child’s certifi cate of birth, but was furnished with a copy of the letter dated January 17, 1990 of the Civil Registrar General denying registration of the certifi cate of live birth of petitioner’s illegitimate child using the father’s surname, for it is contrary to law.

On November 7, 1990, lawyer Eleazar S. Calasan fi led with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Branch 69, a petition for mandamus to compel the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, to register the certifi cate of live birth of his alleged illegitimate son using his surname.

On October 29, 1991, the lower court denied the petition, ruling that illegitimate children must use the surname of their mothers, regardless of whether or not they had been acknowledged by their fathers in the record of birth.

On November 21, 1991, petitioner Calasan fi led a motion for reconsideration of the denial. In the meantime, on December 9, 1991, he fi led a motion for leave to amend petition and to admit amended

69

petition, substituting the child’s mother Marissa A. Mossesgeld as the petitioner.

On February 11, 1992, the lower court granted the motion for leave to amend petition. However, on June 3, 1992, the lower court denied the motion for reconsideration.

In due time, petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

On July 23, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered decision affi rming the judgment appealed from.

Hence, this petition.

The issue raised is whether mandamus lies to compel the Local Civil Registrar to register a certifi cate of live birth of an illegitimate child using the alleged father’s surname where the latter admitted paternity.

We deny the petition.

Article 176 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that “illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity under this Code.” This is the rule regardless of whether or not the father admits paternity. Consequently, the Local Civil Registrar correctly refused to register the certifi cate of live birth of petitioner’s illegitimate child using the surname of the alleged father, even with the latter’s consent. Of course, the putative father, though a much married man, may legally adopt his own illegitimate child. In case of adoption, the child shall be considered a legitimate child of the adopter.

The Family Code has effectively repealed the provisions of Article 366 of the Civil Code of the Philippines giving a natural child acknowledged by both parents the right to use the surname of the father. The family Code has limited the classifi cation of children to legitimate and illegitimate, thereby eliminating the category of acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fi ction.

Consequently, we rule that mandamus will not lie to compel the local civil registrar to register the certifi cate of live birth of an illegitimate child using the father’s surname, even with the consent of the latter. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act prohibited by law.



70

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari. We AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals and that of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig, Branch 69, dismissing the petition for mandamus in Special Civil action No. 60146.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Kapunan, and Purisma, JJ. concur.

The other issue is whether or not Roderick Sacramento shall be considered legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents on 19 April 1997. It should be recalled that Roderick’s mother was only 17 years old when she gave birth to him. Pursuant to the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Spouses Alberto Bioco, Jr. and Junice Bongay-Bioco vs. MCR of Montevista and the Civil Registrar General, C.A.-G.R. Sp. No. 51583, 07 July 1999, which was the subject of Circular No. 99-1 issued by this Offi ce on 11 August 1999, the answers is no.

Going back to the queries of Municipal Civil Registrar Benjamin V. Tion, here are our answers:

1. The judge renders decision on the basis of what is prayed for in the petition. In the instant case, the petition is for judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural child and not for adoption. The judge cannot even convert the decision to one concerning adoption. If the interested parties want to fi le petition for adoption, then the judge shall render the appropriate decision.

2. In view of the foregoing decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that the decision rendered by Judge Virgilio M. Alameda is not only erroneous, but is contrary to law. As what the Supreme Court said, mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of an act prohibited by law.

3. Accordingly, you are not bound to obey the order of the court in the instant case.

4. In the case of Relyn Sacramento, she is considered legitimated by subsequent marriage of her parents on 19 April 1997. She is entitled to use the surname of her father not on the basis of the court order but by virtue of her being a legitimated child. Her legitimation shall be

71

recorded in the civil register in accordance with pertinent provisions of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) TOMAS P. AFRICA Civil Registrar General

Copy furnished:

All City/Municipal Civil Registrars All Provincial Statistics Offi cer & OICs All Regional Administrators & OICs

OCRG’S MEMORANDUM CONCERNING A CASE OF LCR WHO REFUSED TO REGISTER DOCUMENT DESPITE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT’S ORDER


National Statistics Offi ceEDSA corner Times St,

West Triangle, Quezon City

Ref. No. 01CRD00-224

30 July 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : LEGITIMATION UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE

FAMILY CODE

The issue is whether or not an illegitimate child, whose mother or father or both parents are below eighteen (18) years old at the time when the former was conceived and born, can be legitimated by the subsequent marriage if its parents. In case of Sps. Reynaldo and Evelyn Guillano versus LCR of New Bataan and Civil Registrar General, CA-G.R. No. Sp-51581, 17 July 2001, the Court of Appeals said “no”. Here are the facts of the case:



72

On 05 January 1997, Reynaldo Guillano and Evelyn Balangitao got married in Nabunturan, Davao. Prior to the celebration of their marriage, they had a child on 05 October 1993 and was registered as John Rey Balangitao, using the surname of the mother since the parents were not yet married to each other as the mother was only sixteen (16) years old then.

Thereafter, on account of their marriage, the parents attempted to register the legitimation of their son, John Rey, and to change its surname from Balangitao to Guillano.

The MCR of New Bataan, Comval Province refused to register the legitimation and to change the surname of the child to Guillano which is the surname of the father, on the ground that the mother was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the conception of the child. Instead, the MCR advised the parents to fi le an adoption case.

Hence, on 17 July 1997, the parents fi led a Special Civil Action for Mandamus seeking for the issuance of an Order mandating the MCR to register John Rey as their legitimated child. They alleged in their complaint that their subsequent marriage operates the act of legitimation as provided by the Family Code of the Philippines.

On 23 September 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 03, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

PREMISED ON ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, order is hereby issued directing the Local Civil Registrar of New Bataan, Comval Province, to register the child, JOHN REY Balangitao Guillano, as legitimate child of Reynaldo Guillano and Evelyn Balangitao Guillano and Evelyn Balangitao Guillano.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals said:

Article 177 of the Family Code reads:

Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of the former, were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.

It is very clear there from that illegitimate children of parents, who at the time of conception of the former were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other, are legitimated by the subsequent marriage of said parents. Thus, the child of parents, one

73

or both of whom are below 18 years of age at the time of conception and birth of the child, is not legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents. The requirement of 18 years of age in marriage is not merely a declaration of capacity but one of the disqualifi cation if not met (Art. 35 Family Code) and clearly then an “impediment” within the meaning of Article 177 of the Code (Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Revised Edition, pp. 231-232).

Those born of parents who could not be validly married due to some impediment at the time of the conception of the child cannot be legitimated. And even if subsequent to the birth of the child the parents become qualifi ed to marry, the child cannot be legitimated because of the provisions of the aforequoted article. (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 1990 Edition, p. 549).

Hence, considering than John Rey was conceived and born when his mother Evelyn was only 16 years of age, he cannot be legitimated by the subsequent valid marriage of his parents, petitioners-appellees, as her mother’s age then was clearly an impediment within the meaning of Article 177 of the Family Code.

WHEREFORE, fi ndings merit in the instant appeal, we resolve to GRANT the same. The assailed order is accordingly REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the instant Special Civil Action for Mandamus is DISMISSED.

Thus, in view of this latest decision of the Court of Appeals, the rule is very clear. Illegitimate children who were conceived and born at the time when the mother or father or both parents are below 18 years of age cannot be legitimated by subsequent marriage of their parents.


(SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTAOIC-Civil Registrar General

Copy furnished:

All Regional Directors All Provincial Statistics Offi cer All Statistical Coordination Offi cers



74

OIC LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR CANNOT VALIDLY EXERCISE THE ADDITIONAL POWER VESTED BY RA NO. 9048

Under the Memorandum Circular No. 2001-92 issued by DILG Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman, Jr. on 26 July 2001, which was addressed to all Provincial Governors, City Mayors, Municipal Mayors, DILG Regional Directors and others concerned, it is provided that an OIC-Local Civil Registrar cannot validly exercise the additional power vested by R.A. 9048.

Among others, DILG Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman, Jr. said: The need for permanent Civil Registrars has been reiterated with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9048, which took effect on 22 April 2001. That law expanded on the basic quasi-judicial duties and functions of the Civil Registrar as provided under paragraph C, Section 479 of Republic Act No. 7160. It amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, by granting the city and municipal civil registrars, among other specifi ed offi cials, the authority to correct clerical or typographical error and to change fi rst name or nickname in the civil register without need of a judicial order. But more importantly, the new law, albeit indirectly, qualifi es or limits the use of said authority by defi ning under paragraph 1, Section 2 of the amendatory law, the term “city or municipal civil registrar”. In that provision, such offi cial is defi ned as “the head of the local civil registry offi ce of the city or municipality, as the case may be, who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in accordance with the provisions of existing laws (underscoring supplied). For this reason an OIC-Local Civil Registrar cannot validly exercise this additional power vested by law, thus depriving the affected constituents of the benefi ts given by the new enactment. (RA No. 9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations Manual of Instructions, pp. 3-4).

AN INSTANCE WHERE OIC LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR (LCR) MAY ACCEPT AND ACT ON PETITION UNDER RA NO. 9048.

Having an OIC or Acting C/MCR cannot be avoided in some cases, such as when the incumbent C/MCR is on leave (sick, vacation or maternity) or traveling on offi cial business outside the city or municipality, or suspended from performing his duties as a consequence of a disciplinary action. In these exceptional cases, when the period of absence of the incumbent C/MCR is less than ten (10) working days, the OIC or Acting C/MCR duly designated by him

75

shall only accept petitions for correction of clerical error or for change of fi rst name but the decision shall be rendered by the incumbent C/MCR on his return. However, when the period of absence is ten (10) working days or more, the OIC or Acting C/MCR shall accept petitions and subsequently render decision. (Underscoring ours).

The concept introduced in the immediately preceding paragraph should be differentiated from the pronouncement of DILG Undersecretary Soliman that an OIC-Local Civil Registrar cannot validly exercise the additional power vested by R.A. 9048. In the latter case, the presumption is that there is no incumbent C/MCR of the city or municipality, while in the former, the incumbent C/MCR is merely absent temporarily. (Manual of Instructions, R.A. No. 9048 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations, p. 4).

WHEN TO FURNISH THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR?

Within fi fteen (15) days after the celebration of the marriage, the solemnizing offi cer shall furnish the local civil registrar the duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage contract. The civil registrar has only a ministerial duty to accept and record the marriage contract. He has no right to investigate the legality or regularity of the contract or the proceedings thereof.

The marriage contract once accepted shall form part of the civil registry book. (Sec. 4, Act No. 3753).

FAILURE TO FURNISH THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR

When the marriage contract does not appear in the civil registry for marriages in the municipality where the marriage took place, because the solemnizing offi cer failed to furnish the local civil registrar a copy thereof, or the local civil registrar failed to enter the contract in the book, but the marriage was proven by the testimony of the solemnizing offi cer, the parties are living together as husband and wife, and in one document their children signed and stated that they are the children of the spouses, the court held: The marriage existed, in view of the proofs presented. And the failure of the solemnizing offi cer to send a copy of the marriage contract to the local civil registrar is not an essential defect, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage contract not being an essential requisite for



76

a valid marriage. (Pugeda vs. Trias, et al., L-16925, March 31, 1962; Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179).

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE FOR FAILURE TO RECORD THE MARRIAGE IN THE MARRIAGE REGISTER

Jones vs. HortiguelaG.R. No. 43701March 6, 1937

Facts:

Marciana Escaño was married to Arthur W. Jones in a ceremony in a catholic church in December, 1914. A child Angelita Jones was born to the marriage. After a few years of their marriage, Arthur was able to obtain a passport to go abroad and thereafter nothing was heard of him.

Marciana fi led a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Arthur after more than seven years of the latter’s absence so that she could marry Felix. After the declaration of presumptive death of Arthur was obtained, Marciana and Felix married each other before the justice of the peace (now municipal judge). After a few years of their marriage, Marciana died leaving a considerable estate, and Felix was appointed as administrator of the estate of the deceased. The court then declared Angelina and Felix as the only heirs of the deceased.

Angelina fi led a motion in the intestate court that she be declared the only heir of Marciana contending that the marriage between her mother and Felix was null and void on the ground that said marriage does not appear recorded in the marriage register.

Issue:

Is the marriage between Marciana Escaño and Felix Hortiguela null and void for failure to record the said marriage in the marriage register?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Marciana Escaño and Felix Hortiguela is not null and void because it does not appear recorded in the marriage register. Section VIII of General Order No. 68, as amended, provides that person solemnizing the

77

marriage must transmit the original of the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary (now local civil registrar), and failure to transmit such certifi cate shall be fi ned not less than 25 and not more than 50 dollars; but it does not provide that failure to transmit such certifi cate to the municipal secretary annuls the marriage.

The Supreme Court quoted its decision in a previous case and said: “The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff’s natural father and mother, while the latter is in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary does not invalidate the marriage, since it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all the requisites for its validity were not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certifi cate not being one of the said requisites.

FAILURE TO REGISTER MARRIAGE CONTRACT

The mere fact that no record of marriage exists in the registry of marriage does not invalidate said marriage, as long as in the celebration thereof, all requisites for its validity are present (See: People vs. Borromeo, 133 SCRA 106).

THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR IS NOT REQUIRED TO INQUIRE INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE OATH

The local civil registrar who issues the marriage license is not required to inquire into the authority of the offi cer administering the oath and neither is the person solemnizing the marriage required to investigate as to whether or not a marriage license, which appears to have been issued by a competent offi cial, was legally obtained. (Eigenunan vs. Guerra, 5 C.A. Rep. 836).



78

OCRG’S MEMORANDUM REGARDING A CASE WHERE LCR WAS DISMISSED FROM SERVICE DUE TO ISSUANCE OF FAKE DEATH CERTIFICATE



Ref. No. 997000-069

04 February 1999

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/ Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : DISMISSAL OF CIVIL REGISTRAR FROM THE

SERVICE FOR ISSUANCE OF FAKE CERTIFI-CATE OF DEATH

We are providing you a copy of the decision of the Offi ce of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dated 10 June 1998 in connection with case number OMB-ADM-1-97-0075 (Felipe Melchor versus Gerty R. Gironella, Eliseo L. Firmalo and Jose L. Gironella, for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of public offi cers). Mr. Eliseo L. Firmalo who is one of the respondents is the municipal civil registrar of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. In the decision, the Ombudsman said:

“… this Offi ce is of the considered opinion and so holds that the respondent’s act of issuing the questioned death certifi cate, altering the registry book and introducing the falsifi ed document as evidence is a form of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a public offi cer. Dishonestly is a serious offense. It refl ects on the person’s character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is an absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceit or defraud, bad faith. Conduct unbecoming is a transgression of some established and defi nite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior by a public offi cer. It implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.

This case derails the advocacy of this Offi ce to improve the integrity of local civil registry offi ces, particularly the integrity of the certifi cations you are issuing. Let us join hands in this advocacy.

79

May this case serve as a warning to some civil registrars, who take for granted the performance of their duties, and who willfully deviate from established rules and regulations in delivering civil registration services to the community.

For the Civil Registrar General:

CARLITO B. LALICON, MNSACivil Registry Coordinator

Encl:a/sCopy furnished:

All Regional Administrators & OICs All Provincial Statistics Offi cers & OICs

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON FAILURE OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER (JUDGE) TO RETAIN A COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE AND TO REGISTER THE MARRIAGE WITH LCR’S OFFICE

Beso vs. Judge DagumanA.M. No. MTJ-99-1211

January 28, 2000

Facts:

Zenaida Beso contracted marriage with Bernadito Yman before Judge Daguman. After the wedding, Bernadito Yman abandoned Zenaida without any reason at all. Because Zenaida smelled something fi shy, she inquired from the civil registrar regarding her marriage. To her surprise, she was informed that her marriage was not registered. She went to Judge Daguman to ask for a copy of the marriage certifi cate but she was told that he did not retain any copy. She then fi led an administrative complaint against Judge Daguman charging the latter of negligence in not retaining a copy of the marriage certifi cate and in not registering the same with the offi ce of civil registrar.

Issue:

Is Judge Daguman guilty of negligence in not retaining a copy of the marriage certifi cate and in not registering the same with the offi ce of the civil registrar?



80

Ruling:

Yes, Judge Daguman is negligent for failure to retain a copy of the marriage certifi cate and to register the same with the offi ce of the civil registrar.

According to Supreme Court, such duty is entrusted to him as solemnizing offi cer pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code which reads: “It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certifi cate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certifi cate not later than fi fteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. xxx.”

The Supreme Court further said that “it is clearly evident from the foregoing that not only has the respondent judge committed nonfeasance in offi ce, he also undermined the very foundation of marriage which is the basic social institution in our society whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law. Granting the respondent Judge indeed failed to locate the duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage certifi cate, he should have exerted more effort to locate or reconstitute the same. As a holder of such a sensitive position, he is expected to be conscientious in the handling of offi cial documents.”

Rule 2.4 NSO Regional Director (RD)

Head of the NSO Regional Offi ce (RO) who assists the CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the region of jurisdiction.

NOTE:

The NSO Regional Director assists the Civil Registrar General in administering the provisions of Act No. 3753 (Civil Registry Law) in the region. Coordinates and monitors the implementation of the civil registration system in the region. (NSO Procedures Manual, pp. 1-25)

Signs and issues the Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) and implements security measures to preserve the integrity of the CRASM. (Rule 5, Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2005)

81

NSO OCRG Administrative Order No. 1, Sec. 8 states “Duty of the Regional Census Offi cer (now Regional Director). The Regional Census Offi cer, acting for and in behalf of the Civil Registrar General within his area of jurisdiction, shall have control and supervision over the acts of his provincial census offi cers in the performance of their functions with respect to these regulations.

OCRG’S CIRCULAR RE DELEGATION OF SUPERVISORY FUNCTION TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS AND PROVINCIAL OFFICERS OF NSO BY OCRG

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Economic and Development Authority

NATIONAL CENSUS AND STATISTICS OFFICEManila

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALCIRCULAR NO. 1

Series of 1985

To : All Regional and Provincial Census Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars Concerned

Subject : DELEGATION OF SUPERVISORY FUNCTION TO REGIONAL AND PROVINCIAL CENSUS OF-FICERS TO MATTERS PERTAINING TO CIVIL REGISTRATION

Under the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337), Chapter 3, Article One, Section 14 (4) thereof, it is provided and to quote:

“Section 14 (4) unless the contrary is provided, the regional offi ces or appropriate fi eld units of the various ministers and national agencies in the region shall be the major points of contact and liaison between local governments and the national government shall as a general policy and as much as practicable, effect the substantial delegation of authority and powers to the regional offi ces.”

ACCORDINGLY, and effective immediately, all Regional and Provincial Census Offi cers are hereby authorized to act as liaison between the Executive Director of the National Census and Statistics Offi ce, who by operation of law, is the Civil Registrar



82

General and the Local Civil Registrars of cities and municipalities. As such they are given the authority and duty to provide general supervision over the Local Civil Registrars in their respective areas of jurisdiction. In matters pertaining to civil registration, it shall be their duty and function to: (1) monitor the status of civil registration system; (2) provide instructions to Local Civil Registrars with respect to the implementation of the laws and rules of registration; (3) look into civil registry records for purposes of ascertaining their proper maintenance and safekeeping; (4) coordinate with heads of other national and local agencies programs designed to effect a more effi cient civil registration system and (5) perform such other activities as may be necessary to ensure that civil registration system is carried out in accordance with the laws and regulations of this country.

The Local Civil Registrars are enjoined to extend their assistance and support to the Regional and Provincial Census Offi cers necessary in the effective discharge of their duties and functions as defi ned in this Circular.

Manila, January 29, 1985

MARCELO M. ORENSEExecutive Director AndCivil Registrar General

Copy furnished:

The City/Municipal Mayor

Rule 2.5 NSO Provincial Statistics Offi cer (PSO)

Head of the NSO Provincial Offi ce (PO) who assists the CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the province of jurisdiction.

NOTE:

The Provincial Statistics Offi ce is headed by a Provincial Statistics Offi cer (PSO) assisted by the statistical and non-statistical personnel. Implements and administers the provisions of Act No. 3753 and other pertinent laws on civil registration in the province. (NSO Procedures’ Manual, p. 1-26)

83

He/she accepts duly accomplished CRASM application forms (OCRG-SO Form No.1) and checks and evaluates the completeness and correctness of entries and endorses the application forms and all other required documents to the offi ce of the Regional Director and thereafter releases CRASM to the concerned SOs. (Rule 6, Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2005)

Section 7 of Administrative No. 1 of 1988 states that the provincial census offi cer shall examine the application form and the other required documents for completeness and correctness of entries. In case of doubt, the provincial census offi cer may conduct an investigation only with respect to the following:

(1) Whether the applicant for registration is performing other religious rites and services and not merely solemnizing marriages;

(2) Whether or not the applicant has a church, temple or chapel where the religious rites and services are periodically conducted in the province; and

(3) Whether or not the religion or religious sect of the applicant has a congregation of at least two hundred bona fi de active members.

The provincial census offi cer shall forward the application form and all other required documents, and in some cases, the result of his investigation, to the offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, with his endorsement or recommendation as to whether or not the applicant shall be registered as a solemnizing offi cer. In case of negative endorsement or recommendation, he shall state the reason why the applicant for registration shall not be registered as a solemnizing offi cer.

Rule 2.6 Offi ce of the Muslim Affairs (OMA)

An offi ce created under the Offi ce of the President with a mandate to preserve and develop the culture, traditions, institutions and well-being of Muslim Filipinos, in conformity with the country’s laws and in consonance with national unity and development. (Executive Order No. 122-A)



84

NOTE:

ISLAMIC RULE ON APPLICATION OF LAWS

The Muslim Code (Article 13) provides certain rules on its application to marriage and divorce, before we proceed to explain this provision, three (3) points should be underscored in order to clearly understand its provisions.

First, in Islamic jurisprudence, law is personal in its application to the Muslims. This means that the authority of law in Islamic theory is primarily based on men’s conscience, not on political force or the constitution of a particular political society. Thus, if a Muslim goes from one state to another, he is bound by the same laws and even if he does not live within the jurisdiction of an Islamic state, the Islamic law still applies to his conscience.

Second, the application of Islamic Law to non-Muslims is entirely territorial. The principle of toleration is based upon the tradition of Prophet Muhammad when he said: “leave alone the non-Muslim and whatever they believe in”. For instance, the drinking of intoxicating liquor is a matter of opinion. The Islamic law will merely abstain from interfering with a non-Muslim drinking liquor and it will not enforce against him the sentence of hadd (Islamic punishment for criminal offence, page 153, Dictionary in Islam by Thomas Hughes).

Third, in matter of contract, the law of the place of contract applies. Thus a transaction between a Muslim and non-Muslim affects the application of Islamic law in the sense that if the contract is executed in non-Muslim state, the same is not objectable even though it would be ineffective in law if executed in an Islamic country. As regards the application of the Muslim Code in matters of marriage and divorce, it is well to categorize our approach to wit:

(1) the provisions of the Muslim Code on marriage and divorce automatically apply where both husband and wife are Muslims. There is no other alternative.

(2) it applies where only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with the Muslim Code, upon agreement of the parties.

(3) it does not apply where a male party is a Muslim and the female party is non-Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with civil law. In this case, the civil law applies.

85

(4) in a combined Islamic-civil marriage rites, the fi rst rite is the validating rite while the second rite is merely ceremonial.

(5) if the male party marries an idolator or polytheist, the Islamic marriage is void.

(6) if the female party is a Muslim and the male party is a non-Muslim (Scriptural or not), the Islamic marriage is void.

In the fourth, fi fth and sixth instances, the Civil marriage is valid if the civil rite is properly followed, though the marriage is void under Islamic law. (Justice Jainal D. Rasul, Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code, pp. 34-36).

ISLAMIC MARRIAGE TO NON-MUSLIMS

If the female party is non-scriptural (atheists, polytheists, non-Jews, non-Christians and Non-Muslims), even if the male party is a Muslim, the marriage is still void. The reason is understandable. The prophet of Islamic, according to traditions, wanted to avoid the disastrous infl uence exercised by idolatry over the people of Arabian peninsula. But the reason for the prohibition of the marriage of a Muslim female to a non-Muslim male (scriptural or not) considering the religious tolerance of Islam is quite diffi cult to fathom. The real philosophy behind this prohibition is two-fold. First, it is political. Knowing the dominance of male in a household or family management, Islamic political system may fall into the hands of non-Muslims. Second, Islam is proverbially perceived to be an all-embracing ideology including as it does all divine relations of God, thru Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Consequently, if the male is a Muslim, he would be very knowledgeable and understanding or tolerant of any other revealed religion, professed by the wife.”

EXPLANATION OF IMAGINED CONFLICT OF ARTICLE 13 AND ARTICLE 3 OF MUSLIM CODE

It may be interesting to underscore or reemphasize here that the provision of Article 13 of the Muslim Code deals primarily on the application of Muslim Code while Article 3 thereof treats of its construction. Consequently, Article 3, No. 3, which provides that the Muslim Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and shall not be construed to operate to the prejudice of the non-Muslims, is not necessarily pertinent. Since marriage between Muslim male and



86

Christian female is allowed, prejudice becomes inevitable when its provision is applied involving benefi ts as well as disadvantages, otherwise, it would be unfair if the benefi ts of the law will redound is exempt from its disadvantages. It would appear that Article 3, No, 3 is an interpolation done in Malacañang based on false fear that PD 1083 of the Muslim Code may work prejudice against Christians only. (Justice Rainal D. Rasul. The Comparative laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code, pp. 35-36).

EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONS OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN

(1) First Question. Supposing A and B, both Christians, were married in accordance with the Civil Code. Thereafter, A was converted to Islam and A married C, a Christian, in accordance with the Muslim Code, may the Muslim Code apply to A and C? May A be liable for bigamy under the Revised Penal Code? May A apply for absolute divorce from the Court with regard to A and B’s fi rst marriage?

Answer: We will proceed to approach the problem, one after another. Since the marriage of A and B is according to the Civil Code, the latter code applies even after A is converted to Islam. The problem arises when A already a Muslim convert marries C, a Christian, according to Muslim rite, as agreed by A and C. There is no doubt that the marriage of A and C according to Muslim rite is valid under the Muslim Code. But certainly A may still be held liable for bigamy under the Revised Penal Code, since the marriage of A and B, solemnized according to Civil Code, prohibits the spouses from contracting subsequent marriage or obtaining absolute divorce. If the marriage of A and C is not valid according to the Civil Code, through valid under the Muslim Code, I do not think the prosecution for bigamy may lie, since there should be two valid marriages. It may be adultery, concubinage or other crime of chastity.

(2) Second Question. Supposing it is B, the wife, who is converted to Islam and B contracts marriage with C who is a Muslim, according to Muslim Rite. The answer is simple. The marriage of A and B becomes ipso jure null and void, according to Muslim Law, after becomes a Muslim and if A refuses to be converted. This is because the marriage of a Muslim woman to non-Muslim is void under Muslim Law. But the marriage of A and B remains valid, according to the Civil Code. If B marries C, a Muslim, the marriage

87

of B and C is valid, according to Muslim Code. But bigamy may still lie against B and C, under the Revised Penal Code, depending on the evidence available.

(3) Third Question. Supposing A, an Iranian Muslim, had been married to B, a foreigner in Iran. Then A, comes to the Philippines alone as a student, and meanwhile married C, a Christian under the Civil Code. Is the marriage of A and C valid under the Civil Code? Supposing C is a Muslim and the marriage of A and C is solemnized according to Muslim Law, is the marriage of A to C valid under the Muslim Code? The answer is simple. If C is a Christian, before A can marry under Civil Code, it is necessary that A should be required to show certifi cate of legal capacity from the Iranian Embassy or Consulate. That means the marriage of A to C will be valid under the Civil Code. If C is a Muslim and the marriage of A to C is according to Muslim Rite, such marriage is valid, assuming all the requisites of Muslim Law are present. Suppose A divorces C. Is this valid? If C is a Christian, absolute divorce is certainly not available under the Civil Code. But if C is a Muslim, absolute divorce may be available under Muslim Law.

(4) Fourth Question. Supposing A who is a Filipino Muslim, after marrying B in Iran or in Muslim Bosnia Hercegovina, comes back to the Philippines with B, his foreign wife, and marries another one, C, in the Philippines. The answer is that if C is a Muslim, there is not much problem, provided the Muslim Law is complied with, especially if B consents to the second marriage solemnized in accordance with the Muslim Rite. If C is a Christian, there is a serious problem. C should agree to the Muslim Rite for the Muslim Code to apply, otherwise, it is a civil rite, A is not competent to marry.

The marriage of A, a Filipino Muslim, to B an Iranian or Bosnian Muslim wife, is valid since it follows the general rule under Article 71 of the New Civil Code; if valid where celebrated, it is also valid here in the Philippines. It follows the rule of lex loci celebrationis, or the law of the place of celebration, except those bigamous, polygamous or incestuous union. With respect to Filipino Muslims, the only remaining exception is “incestuous relation” considering Article 27 of the Muslim Code. The criterion, it must be understood, is the Philippine Law. Article 71 of the New Civil Code is a specifi c law while the law on status and capacity of Filipinos even though living abroad is a general law to be followed, under Article 15, 16 and 17 of the New Civil Code.



88

The aforequoted instances on confl ict law problems are not exclusive. There are many more problems on interesting unions to resolve, if not eliminate, in the broader interest of family harmony in the Philippines. (As cited by Justice Rainal D. Rasul. The Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Family Code, pp. 39-41).

OMA’S CERTIFICATE OF ORIENTATION ON CONVERSION TO ISLAM

Registration of a person’s conversion to Islam is prima facie proof that he professes the Islamic faith and thus becomes a Muslim. Thus, Rule 12 par. 2 of Administrative Order No.1 Series of 2005 requires that a convert shall submit a certifi cation that he/she has undergone an orientation on basic principles and practices of Islam from any accredited Muslim Organization by the Offi ce on Muslim Affairs or from any organized and competent Ustadz or Ulama. The Circuit Registrar shall require submission of such certifi cation.

Likewise, Rule 14, par. 2 of Administrative Order No.1 Series of 2005 also states that any Muslim who has performed Haj (Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and has acquired new name by virtue thereof, may request for the corresponding annotation of his or her Certifi cate of Live Birth (COLB). A Muslim Filipino who has acquired traditional title pursuant to Ada may likewise request for annotation in the Certifi cate of Live Birth (COLB).

The request for annotation in the COLB for the use of the Haj name shall be submitted to the C/MCR of his/her place of birth with the following supporting documents: Certifi cation from OMA that he/she has performed Haj; certifi cation from pilgrimage authorities that the new name acquired was conferred during the Haj; and certifi ed true copy of his/her passport. The request for annotation in the COLB for the recognition of traditional titles acquired pursuant to Ada shall be attested by at least two witnesses of the conferment. Along with the request, a Certifi cation from OMA that the title was conferred in accordance with Ada shall be submitted to the C/MCR of the place of birth of the person bestowed with the traditional title.

Rule 2.7 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

An offi ce created under the Offi ce of the President, which is primarily responsible for the formulation and implementation of

89

policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of Ethnic/Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples.

NOTE:

Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004 on Rules and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning Civil Status of Indigenous Peoples, Rule 1 (1.3) states that the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) Field Personnel pursuant to RA 8371 are deputized as Birth Registration Agents in their area of infl uence and are duty bound to facilitate the registration of acts and events concerning the civil status of ICCs/IPs at the Local Civil Registry Offi ce having territorial jurisdiction on the ICCs/IPs communities.

Rule VI, Section 8, states that National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall coordinate with the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) to establish an appropriate procedure for the registration of marriages performed under customary laws to include, among others, the following:

a) The OCRG Certifi cate of Marriage forms for the use of authorized tribal leaders/elders solemnizing marriages under Customary Laws the OCRG shall be translated in the language understood by both parties;

b) The NCIP, in consultation and coordination with ICC/IPs, shall cause the registration and regular update of a list of those authorized to solemnize marriages according to Customary Laws; and

c) The NCIP fi eld offi ces in coordination with Local Civil Registrar offi ces shall ensure that all marriages performed under Customary Laws before the enactment of IPRA shall be registered accordingly and from thereon, marriages performed under Customary Laws shall be registered within fi fteen (15) days following the solemnization.

Likewise, Section 9 states that the fundamental right of a person to a name and people’s right to their history shall be recognized and respected. Accordingly, the ICCs/IPs naming the systems and customs shall also be recognized and respected and shall have the right to their indigenous names registered with the



90

Civil Registry as their formal appellation to be used in all offi cial documents establishing their identity.

In close coordination with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) the NCIP shall take appropriate measurers to facilitate the registration of the ICCs/IPs indigenous names. For purposes of effective and effi cient civil registration of births and deaths and census taking, the NCIP fi eld offi ces shall be deputized to register said births and deaths. The paternal or maternal grandfather’s name may be used as surname. All registrations and census shall be submitted to the nearest Offi ce of the Local Civil Registrar.

Rule 2.8 Marriage

A special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life (Article 1, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)

NOTE:

In a sense, the term marriage refers to the procedure by which a man and a woman become husband and wife. It relates merely to the celebration of the relation of husband and wife, whether it be religious ceremony, civil ceremony or without ceremony. Thus, in a sense marriage may be defi ned as the act by which a man and woman unite for life, with the intent to discharge towards society and one another those duties which result from the relations of husband and wife. (Schouler, Law of Domestic Relations as cited in Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, p. 2)

In another sense, marriage may be defi ned as the civil status of one man and one woman, legally united for life with rights and duties which, for the establishment of families and the multiplication of the species, are, or from time to time may thereafter be assigned by law to matrimony. (Bishop. On Marriage, Divorce and Separation as cited in Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, p. 3).

91

CANONICAL MARRIAGES

Under the Spanish Law, only canonical marriages were recognized. The requisite form and solemnities for the celebration of canonical marriages were governed by the rules of the Catholic Church and the Holy Council of Trent. This kind of marriage produced all the civil effects of marriage in respect to the persons and property of the spouses and their descendants. (See: Art. 75 & 76, Civil Code of Spain of 1889 as cited in Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Civil Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, p. 3).

CLASSIFICATION OF MARRIAGE

(b) Firm marriage is one celebrated according to canonical regulation, but not yet followed by carnal union of the parties;

(c) Legal marriage is one celebrated by civil authorities, not yet followed by copulation;

(d) Consummated marriage is either of the two in which sexual intercourse has already taken place;

(e) Real marriage is one contracted by parties qualifi ed to marry; with all the conditions necessary for its validity;

(f) Putative marriage is one celebrated between parties with an existing impediment, whether one or both of them are in good or bad faith;

(g) Presumed marriage is one which contracted by the mere expression of the consent of the parties before witnesses, followed by carnal union. (This is what is called common-law marriage in Anglo-American Law) (See: Sanchez Roman 391); and

(h) Common-law marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman with capacity to enter into such relationship to take each other as husband and wife followed by cohabitation. (The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, 1989 Edition, Marcelino T. Lizaso, Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., p. 3).

FORMS OF MARRIAGE

(1) Monogamy — it is the marriage or union of one man and one woman.



92

(2) Polygamy — it is the marriage or union of one man and more than two women.

(3) Polygymy — it is the marriage or union of one man and several women.

(4) Polyandry — it is the marriage or union of one woman and several men.

(5) Sororate — it is the marriage or union of one man with two or more sisters.

(6) Levirate — it is the marriage or union of a widow and the brother of deceased husband.

(6) Endogamous — the marriage or union of members of the same social group. (The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, By Marcelino T. Lizaso, Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. p. 3).

MEANING OF ISLAMIC MARRIAGE

Marriage in Islam is considered not only a civil contract but also as an inviolable social institution, ordained for the protection of society, so that human beings may guard themselves against foulness and unchastity. In Islam, the union of a man and a woman without the benefi t of a valid marriage is unchaste and immoral. It is hardly seen in Islamic society. The practice of live-in relationship so common in non-muslim society is condemned in no uncertain term for it not only reduces the integrity of womanhood to the level of a beast but also losses the worth and dignity of human persons or of their children thereby procreated (Perido vs. Perido, 63 SCRA 97). Plurality of wives whenever appropriate validates the union and restores to its full glory the rights and dignity of the second or subsequent marriage and children who are otherwise deprived of full inheritance, support and societal blessings in non-Islamic society. Muslim jurists regard the institution of marriage as partaking both the nature of Ibadat or devotional acts and Muammalat or rightful dealings among men (Dr. Sayed Khalid Rashid, Muslim Law, pp. 52-53). In fi ne, Islamic concept of marriage is both religious and secular. (Justice Jainal D. Rasul, Comparative laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and the Muslim Code, Rex Book Store, pp. 45-46).

93

SALIENT PRINCIPLES IN MARRIAGE:

(a) Permanent union — there is physical and spiritual mating;

(b) Of one man and one woman — this is monogamy, which is the ideal marriage; it is also of different sex;

(c) Entered into in accordance with law — it is established by the state independent of its religious aspect; and

(d) For the establishment of conjugal and family life — there is the union of one man and one woman for the procreation of children, the natural moral law prohibits artifi cial birth control, because it violates a cardinal purpose of marriage-procreation. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, p. 5).

MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND ORDINARY CONTRACT DIFFE-RENTIATED

(a) Ordinary contract may be entered into by any number of persons, whether of the same or different sex; while marriage contract can be entered into only by one man and one woman;

(b) In ordinary contracts, the agreement of the parties governs their relation, while in marriage contract the law fi xes the duties and rights of the parties;

(c) The ordinary contract may terminate by agreement of the parties, by expressed provision of law or by the fulfi llment of the purpose for which the contract was entered into. Whereas marriage contract cannot be terminated by agreement of the parties and may only be dissolved by the death of one of the spouses or annulled under specifi c legal causes provided by law;

(d) Breach of an ordinary contract gives rise to an action for damages, while breach of the obligation of the spouses does not authorize such action, but the laws provide penal and civil sanctions like in cases of adultery or concubinage and in proceedings for legal separation; and

(e) In ordinary contract the age required is the age of majority; while in marriage contract the age is fi xed at



94

age 18 at least. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, pp. 5-6).

CHARACTERISTICS OF MARRIAGE AS AN INSTITUTION

As an institution, marriage has the following characteristics:

(1) It is civil in character, because it is established by the State independently of its religious aspect;

(2) It is an institution of public order or policy, governed by rules established by law which cannot be made inoperative by stipulations of the parties;

(3) It is an institution of natural character, because one of its objects is the satisfaction of the intimate sentiments and needs of human beings for the perpetuation of man. (11 Salvat 12-13, as cited in Salvador A. Aves, Primer On Civil Registration in the Philippines, 2003 Edition, pp. 53-54)

CAN THERE BE A VALID MARRIAGE EVEN WITHOUT A MARRIAGE CEREMONY?

Without a marriage ceremony, no valid marriage can exist. The law does not prescribe or require a particular ceremony, whether in a civil or religious marriage, but the parties are required to appear before the solemnizing offi cer and declare, in the presence of at least two witnesses of legal age, that they take each other as husband and wife. (Tolentino, The Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, p. 235)

THE RATIONALE OF THE LAW REQUIRING A MARRIAGE CEREMONY

The requirement of a marriage ceremony prevents the recognition in the Philippines of what are known as “common law marriages.” A common law marriage is a present agreement between a man and a woman with capacity to enter into such relationship, to take each other as husband and wife, followed by cohabitation.

Even when parties have obtained a marriage license but they do not go before any person authorized to solemnize marriage to have the marriage performed, there is no marriage. (Tolentino, supra, p. 236)

95

MARRIAGE COUNSELING

Both of the intended spouses are required to undergo marriage counseling if one or both of them are between 18 and 25 years of age. The counseling shall be done by a priest or minister or by an accredited marriage counselor, who shall thereafter certify that such counseling has been undertaken.

Without the certifi cate that counseling has been given to the parties, the issuance of the marriage license will be delayed for three months. There may be no marriage counseling because the future spouses do not take it, or there may be no duly accredited counselor for parties who want a civil marriage. This fact will not affect the validity of the marriage, even if the license is issued before the expiration of the prescribed three months, without prejudice to criminal or administrative responsibility of the local registrar who issued the license prematurely. (Tolentino, supra, p. 253)

REASON FOR REQUIRING MARRIAGE COUNSELING

The requirement of marriage counseling is another means to prevent hasty or ill-advised marriages. It is intended to prepare the youth for entering into the marriage state, with instructions on the responsibilities of the future couple to each other, to their children and society. (Tolentino, supra, p. 253)



96

OCRG’S CIRCULAR REQUIRING CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE COUNSELING AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Statistics Offi ce

Manila

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALCircular No. 5

9 November 1988

To : All Regional /Provincial Census Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars

Subject : CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE COUNSELLING

As provided in Article 16 of the Family Code, the applicants for marriage license who are 18 years old but below 25 years are required to attach a certifi cate of marriage counseling to their applications. The certifi cate may be issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage or by a marriage counselor duly accredited by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The LCR should inquire from the local DSWD offi ce as to who is the person or offi ce authorized by it as marriage counselor.

The certifi cate of marriage counseling is a new requirement for the issuance of marriage license under the Family Code and is different from the certifi cate of family planning which is a require-ment under P.D. 965. The purposes of the marriage counseling are to enable the parties to fi nd out if they are compatible before they get married. Psychological incapacity on the part of either party as defi ned in article 36 of the Family Code may also be discovered through marriage counseling.

Failure to attach the certifi cate of marriage counseling to the application for marriage license shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months or ninety days from the completion of the publication of the application, hence, this effect is the same as in the case of lack of parental advice is unfavorable. If only one of the parties to the intended marriage is 18 years old below 25 years, the other party must be present at the counseling.

97

The local civil registrar who shall issue or release the marriage license in violation of Article 16 of the Family Code shall be subject to administrative sanctions.

MARCELO M. ORENSEAdministrator & Civil Registrar General

REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE

Marriage shall be registered in the Offi ce of the Local Civil Registrar of the place where it was solemnized within 15 days from the date of its celebration. However, a 30-day reglamentary period is set by law for marriages of exceptional character, including marriages in articulo mortis. A marriage solemnized while in transit within the Philippines territory is registrable at the place of destination or usual residence of either party. (Manual on Civil Registration, p. 9).

OCRG’S MEMORANDUM RE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE OBTAINED ABROAD BY AN ALIEN FROM HIS OR HER FILIPINO SPOUSE


Manila

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALCircular No. 6

9 November 1988

To : All Regional /Provincial Census Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars

Subject : EFFECT OF DIVORCE OBTAINED ABROAD BY AN ALIEN FROM HIS OR HER FILIPINO SPOUSE

The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides: “where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and 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.”



98

This provision of the law is applicable only when the following requisites concur:

1. The marriage is valid.

2. The parties to the marriage are Filipino citizen and a foreigner.

3. The foreign spouse obtains the divorce and such divorce is valid.

4. The divorce capacitates the alien to remarry under his or her national law.

The above-cited law does not apply to the following cases, and therefore, no marriage license shall be issued to the concerned Filipino citizen:

1. When the divorce was obtained by a Filipino abroad from his or her Filipino spouse, which divorce is void because divorce is not allowed in this country, and a Filipino is governed by the Philippine law wherever he goes; and

2. When a divorce was obtained by a former Filipino who had been naturalized in another country after his naturalization.

MARCELO M. ORENSECivil Registrar General

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE SINCE THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER FAILED TO SEND COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT TO THE CIVIL REGISTRAR’S OFFICE


Manila

G.R. No. 112597, April 2, 1996VIRGINIA A. LEONOR, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROLINDO D. BELDIA, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Branch 57, and MAURICIO D. LEONOR, JR., respondents.

99

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Is a judgment voiding a marriage and rendered by the regional trial court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court valid and proper? May its validity be challenged by the wife in a petition for certiorari against the husband who abandoned her and who is now living abroad with a foreign woman?

These are the two main issues that were posed before this Court in this petition for review seeking a partial reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated September 30, 1993 in CA-G.R. SP No. 30606 and its Resolution promulgated November 11, 1993, which denied petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration of the Decision.

The Facts

Petitioner Virginia A. Leonor was married to private respondent Mauricio D. Leonor, Jr., in San Carlos City on March 13, 1960. Out of the union, three children, Mauricio III, Ned and Don, were born. The spouses were separated for a substantial part of their married life for, while Mauricio resided in Switzerland studying and working, Virginia stayed in the Philippines working as a nurse in Laguna. Mauricio became unfaithful and lived with a certain Lynda Pond abroad. This induced petitioner to institute a civil action in Geneva, Switzerland for separation and alimony. Private respondent counter-sued for divorce.

On February 14, 1991, the lower Cantonal Civil Court of Switzerland pronounced the divorce of the spouses Leonor but reserved the liquidation of the matrimonial partnership. The said Swiss Court denied alimony to petitioner. In a letter to the lower Cantonal Civil Court dated March 1, 1991, Mauricio, for the fi rst time, raised the issue of the alleged non-existence of the marriage between him and Virginia. Meanwhile, Virginia learned that the solemnizing offi cer in the Philippines, Justice of the Peace Mabini Katalbas, failed to send a copy of their marriage contract to the Civil Registrar of San Carlos City for registration. Hence, on July 11, 1991, Virginia applied for the late registration of her marriage. The Civil Registrar, fi nding said application in order, granted the same.

On appeal to the higher Cantonal Civil Court, Mauricio asked for the cancellation of his marriage in the Philippines. On January 17, 1992, the higher Cantonal Civil Court granted petitioner alimony, prompting Mauricio to elevate the matter on appeal to the Federal



100

Court of Switzerland, in its decision dated July 9, 1992, the Federal Court affi rmed the decision of the higher Cantonal Civil Court.

On May 22, 1992, Mauricio, represented by his brother Teodoro Leonor, fi led a petition for the cancellation of the late registration of marriage in the civil registry of San Carlos City with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, San Carlos City (Special Proceeding No. RTC- 144). Given as grounds for the cancellation were the tardiness of the registration and the nullity of his marriage with Virginia “due to the non-observance of the legal requirements for a valid marriage.” Mauricio’s petition was fi led pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

After several hearings and on December 14, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment declaring said marriage null and void for being sham and fi ctitious. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:

“AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this Court fi nds and orders that the registration of the marriage contract between Mauricio Leonor, Jr. and Virginia Amor dated March 13, 1960 must be canceled in (sic) the Books of the Local Civil Registry of San Carlos City for being a null and void marriage not in accordance with a (sic) New Civil Code under Articles 52, 53 and 55 now presently amended by the Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209 as amended by Executive Order No. 227, without pronouncement as to cost.”

Virginia received notice of the decision on January 4, 1993, and on January 15, 1993, she fi led her notice of appeal.

On February 24, 1993, the trial court, on motion of Mauricio’s counsel, issued an order dismissing Virginia’s appeal on the ground that she had failed to fi le a record on appeal within thirty days and had thus failed to perfect her appeal. It was the erroneous holding of the trial court that in special proceedings, a record on appeal was an indispensable requisite under Rule 19, Section 6 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines in relation to Rule 109 of the Rules of Court. Such failure, according to respondent Judge, caused the decision to become executory.

On April 1, 1993, Virginia fi led a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 30606) and sought the nullifi cation of both the decision dated December 14, 1992 and the order dated February 24, 1993 of the

101

trial court for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition insofar as it sought the reversal of the decision of the trial court, saying that the remedy for said purpose was an appeal, not a special civil action.

The appellate court, however, granted the petition insofar as it sought the nullifi cation of the Order dated February 24, 1993 dismissing the appeal. Said the appellate court:

“Even so, this petition is an appropriate remedy against the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, which dismissal we sense to be erroneous and issued in excess of jurisdiction.

xxx xxx xxx

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the questioned order of respondent judge dated February 24, 1993, with instructions to the latter to give due course to petitioner’s appeal in the subject special proceeding. Costs against private respondents.”

Dissatisfi ed with the above Decision, petitioner fi led a motion for partial reconsideration asking the Court of Appeals to annul the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, stating that the central issue in the special civil action was only the validity of the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s right to appeal and that said issue was resolved in petitioner’s favor. Further, it said that the correctness or validity of the trial court’s decision should properly be resolved in the appeal.

Hence, the present recourse.

Issues Raised by the Parties

The petition assailed the respondent Court’s Decision and Order mentioned in the second paragraph of this Decision for alleged —

1. “Procedural Errors x x x in not fi nding x x x (a) that the lower court gravely abused its discretion” in recognizing the action as one for declaration of “nullity of marriage” instead of a “special proceeding for cancellation of (an) entry” in the civil registry and (b) in not fi nding that the “lower court had no jurisdiction (over) the issue of nullity”; and



102

2. “Substantive errors x x x in not fi nding x x x (a) that the lower court gravely erred in declaring the marriage null and void x x x and (b) x x x in disregarding the presumptions in favor of the rights of children and to the administration of the conjugal property x x x and the validity of marriage x x x.”

In her Memorandum, petitioner elucidated and spiritedly argued the above grounds.

In fi ne, the foregoing issues could be restated as follows:

1. Did the respondent Court err in holding that petitioner should have appealed from the trial court’s decision instead of fi ling a petition for certiorari?

2. Did the respondent Court err in refusing to decide upon the merits of the case, that is, to declare whether or not the judgment of the trial court is null and void? Should the Supreme Court now resolve the merits of the case, i.e., decide the issue of nullity of the assailed decision of the trial court?

The Court’s Ruling

Since these issues are intimately intertwined, we shall discuss them together.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the Court of Appeals acted within its authority in simply ordering the trial court to give due course to petitioner’s appeal without going into the merits of the case.

In Municipality of Biñan, Laguna vs. Court of Appeals, we held:

Respondent Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding involving an incident in a case to rule on the merits of the main case itself which was not on appeal before it. . .

In other words, the Court of Appeals has already done its duty by declaring that the lower court gravely abused its discretion or acted without jurisdiction in refusing to give due course to petitioner’s appeal. Hence, it ordered said court to allow the appeal. Once appeal is perfected, the merits of the case, i.e. the validity/nullity of the trial court’s decision, would then be resolved by said Court.

103

Understandably, the Court of Appeals has limited itself to ruling upon the procedural question lodged before it. It cannot be seriously faulted — as petitioner vehemently did — for opting to navigate within the narrow banks of the placid waters of certiorari. For in doing so, it was strictly following established legal doctrines and precedents.

Upon the other hand, the Supreme Court is not just a toothless promoter of procedural niceties which are understood and appreciated only by lawyers and jurists. It cannot shrink from its quintessential role as the fountain of speedy, adequate and substantial justice. If the Court, as the head and guardian of the judicial branch, must continuously merit the force of public trust and confi dence — which ultimately is the real source of its sovereign power, possessing neither the purse nor the sword — and if it must decisively discharge its sacred duty as the last sanctuary of the oppressed and the weak, it must, in appropriate cases like the one before us, pro-actively provide weary litigants with immediate legal and equitable relief, free from the delays and legalistic contortions that oftentimes result from applying purely formal and procedural approaches to judicial dispensations.

Pursuant to the foregoing principle and considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case which are patent on the basis of the admitted facts, as well as the undisputed copies of the pleadings presented by the parties, and especially the verifi ed copy of the trial court’s decision which loudly speaks for itself, the Court therefore resolved to make an exception to the normal procedures and to delve deeper into the substantive issue of the validity/nullity of the trial court’s proceedings and judgment. Happily, both parties had expressed a desire to have this case resolved soonest. On the other hand, remanding the case back to the trial court for the perfection of the appeal and requiring the parties to re-litigate in the Court of Appeals with the use of probably the same documents and arguments ventilated in the kilometric pleadings fi led here would just unnecessarily clog the courts’ dockets; besides, in all likelihood the parties would eventually come before this Court anyway.

Also, it must be observed that Virginia actually fi led a proper Notice of Appeal which the trial court disallowed. Hence, she had no choice but to bring her petition for certiorari in the respondent Court. To constrain her to go back to said Court, this time by ordinary appeal, would be tantamount to punishing her and delaying her



104

cause for faults not attributable to her, but rather to the manifest error of the respondent trial judge.

So, too, as will be shown shortly, the trial court’s decision is really a nullity for utter want of jurisdiction. Hence, it could be challenged at any time.

It is not disputed that the original petition in the trial court was for “cancellation of entry in the civil registry” of the “late registration of the marriage” between Leonor and Mauricio, “in consonance with Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.” Ground alleged for the nullity and cancellation of the marriage was “non-observance of the legal requirements for a valid marriage.”

Later, on August 22, 1992, an amended petition was fi led adding essentially the following allegations; (a) that there was no marriage contract, (b) that the marriage was a “sham x x x to cover-up the (alleged) shame of Virginia Amor who was then pregnant,” (c) that Virginia allegedly assured Mauricio that they “need not live together x x x and Mauricio need not give any support,” (d) that the couple always had “trouble (and) quarrel,” and (e) that Mauricio had been “transferring residence to avoid Virginia until he went abroad for good.” The answer of the Civil Registrar and the opposition of Virginia, among others, disputed the propriety of the collateral attack against the marriage, under said Rule.

The decision of the trial court is, painfully, a sophomoric and pathetic portrayal of Virginia as allegedly an “unbecoming x x x unmarried woman (who) wormed her to a (sic) heart of the matriarch of the Leonor Family x x x to summon the son Mauricio to come” to her rescue and as a scheming nurse who lured a “struggling young teacher x x x to this unwelcomed (sic) love affair.” These matters, needless to say, border on the incredible, as they were brought up some thirty (30) years after the marriage was celebrated in 1960 and only after Virginia discovered her husband’s infi delity. The said decision’s crude attempt at literary sophistication is matched only by its jarring syntax and grammatical incongruencies. Insofar as this Court can fi gure out from the convoluted language of the decision, the trial court (a) declared the marriage null and void and (b) ordered the local civil registrar of San Carlos City to cancel its entry in the local civil registry, the sum total of which, coincidentally (and most conveniently), would enable Mauricio to show to the Swiss courts that he was never married and thus, to convince said courts to reverse their order granting alimony to his abandoned

105

wife. Such blatant abuse and misuse of court proceedings cannot be countenanced by this Court.

The ultimate legal question therefore is this: In disposing of a special proceeding under Rule 108, did the trial court have jurisdiction to declare the marriage null and void and to order the cancellation of its entry in the local civil registry?

To contribute to the cause of clarity, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is reproduced hereunder.

Rule 108

CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY

SEC. 1. Who may fi le petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may fi le a verifi ed petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected; (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of fi liation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.

SEC. 3. Parties. — When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. — Upon the fi ling of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fi x the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.



106

SEC. 5. Opposition. — The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fi fteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, fi le his opposition thereto.

SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. — The court in which the proceeding is brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.

SEC. 7. Order. — After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certifi ed copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.

On its face, the Rule would appear to authorize the cancellation of any entry regarding “marriages” in the civil registry for any reason by the mere fi ling of a verifi ed petition for the purpose. However, it is not as simple as it looks. Doctrinally, the only errors that can be cancelled or corrected under this Rule are typographical or clerical errors, not material or substantial ones like the validity or nullity of a marriage. “A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing (Black vs. Republic, L-10869, Nov. 28, 1958); or some harmless and innocuous change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a mis-statement of the occupation of the parent (Ansalada vs. Republic, No. L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958).”

Where the effect of a correction in a civil registry will change the civil status of petitioner and her children from legitimate to illegitimate, the same cannot be granted except only in an adversarial proceeding. In Vda. de Castro vs. Republic, this Court held:

x x x It has been the consistent ruling of this Court since the Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321, ‘that substantial alterations, such as those affecting the status and citizenship of a person in the Civil Registry Records, cannot be ordered by the court unless fi rst threshed out in an “appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notifi ed or represented” (see Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court), and that the summary proceedings under Article 412

107

of the Civil Code only justify an order to correct innocuous or clerical errors, such as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding. (Baybayan vs. Republic of the Philippines, 16 SCRA 403)”

Clearly and unequivocally, the summary procedure under Rule 108, and for that matter under Art. 412 of the Civil Code, cannot be used by Mauricio to change his and Virginia’s civil status from married to single and of their three children from legitimate to illegitimate. Neither does the trial court, under said Rule, have any jurisdiction to declare their marriage null and void and as a result thereof, to order the local civil registrar to cancel the marriage entry in the civil registry. Further, the respondent trial judge gravely and seriously abused his discretion in unceremoniously expanding his very limited jurisdiction under such rule to hear evidence on such a controversial matter as nullity of a marriage under the Civil Code and/or Family Code, a process that is proper only in ordinary adversarial proceedings under the Rules.

A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become fi nal and any writ of execution based on it is void; “x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.”

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING NULL and VOID the decision of the respondent judge dated February 14, 1992 in Special Proceedings No. RTC-144 and MODIFYING accordingly the Decision dated September 30, 1993 of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-30606. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in the records of respondent Judge in the Offi ce of the Court Administrator. Costs against private respondent Mauricio D. Leonor, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur.



108

DELAYED REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE

Applicable provisions of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993

Rule 12. Delayed Registration — A report of vital event made beyond the reglementary period is considered delayed.

Rule 13. Posting of the Pending Application —

(1) A notice to the public on the pending application for delayed registration shall be posted in the bulletin board of the city / municipality for a period of not less than ten (10) days.

(2) If after ten (10) days no one opposes the registration, the civil registrar shall evaluate the veracity of the statements made in the required documents submitted.

(3) If after proper evaluation of all documents presented and investigation of the allegation contained therein, the civil registrar is convinced that the event really occurred within the jurisdiction of the civil registry offi ce, and fi nding out the said event was not registered, he shall register the delayed report thereof.

(4) The civil registrar, in all cases of all delayed registration of …XXX… marriage shall conduct an investigation whenever opposition is fi led against its registration taking the testimonies of the parties concerned and witnesses in the form of question and answers. After investigation, the civil registrar shall forward his fi ndings and recommendations to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General for appropriate action.

(5) The Civil Registrar General may, after review and proper evaluation, deny or authorize the registration.

Rule 14. Recording of Delayed Registration — In every cases of delayed registration of … XXX… marriage… XXX.., the entry in the civil registry book and the registry number transcribed in the certifi cate… XXX… shall be in red ink. The remarks delayed registration shall be written on the upper right hand margin of the certifi cate and the Remarks portion of the registry book.

Rule 15. Duty to fi le a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Offi ce. — In every case of delayed registration, the civil registrar shall fi le a complaint with the city/provincial prosecutor’s offi ce for appropriate

109

action under Section 17 Act No. 3753. The action fi led in court by the prosecutor against the party for failure to register shall not suspend or stop the registration, neither should it be a ground for refusal by the civil registrar to register the delayed report of birth, death or marriage or any registrable document.

Rule 46. Delayed Registration of Marriage —

(1) In delayed registration of marriage, the solemnizing offi cers or the person reporting or presenting the marriage certifi cate for registration shall be required to execute and fi le an affi davit in support thereof, stating the exact place and the date of marriage, the facts and circumstances surrounding the marriage and the reason or cause of the delay.

(2) The submission of the application for marriage license bearing the date when the marriage license was issued except for marriage license shall be required.

(3) When the original or duplicate copy of the Certifi cate of Marriage could not be presented either because it was burned, lost or destroyed, a certifi cation issued in lieu thereof, by the church or solemnizing offi cer indicating date of said marriage based on their record or logbook shall be suffi cient proof of marriage and the civil registrar may accept the same registration.

(4) In case of doubt, the civil registrar may verify the authenticity of the marriage certifi cation by checking form the church record/logbook and the solemnizing offi cer who performed the marriage and the church offi cial who issued the certifi cation.

MARRIAGES TO BE REGISTERED UNDER THE RULES OF DELAYED REGISTRATION

All marriages which need marriage license for their validity and were performed in accordance with law shall be recorded in the civil register not later than fi fteen (15) days after the date of marriage. Those marriages which are exempt form the marriage license requirement, such as marriage in a remote place, marriage in articulo mortis, marriage between members of ethnic cultural communities, and a marriage between a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and a wife for a period of at least (5)



110

years, shall be recorded not later than thirty (30) days after the date of marriage.

Any marriage which was not recorded in the civil register within the prescribed period of registration can still be registered provided that it is reported by the interested party to the concerned city/municipal civil registrar, and that all supporting papers required under the rules on delayed registration of marriages are complied with.

Delayed registration of marriage which was performed on or after 27 February 1931 shall be governed by pertinent provisions of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993. For marriages which were performed prior to 27 February 1931, their delayed registration shall be governed by Circular No. 94-4 (as amended by Circular No. 94-7).

AVAILABILITY OR NON-AVAILABILITY OF CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE (MARRIAGE CONTRACT)

For the purpose of recording a marriage in the civil register, be it timely or delayed, it is necessary that there should be a documentary evidence of the performance or existence of the marriage , and such evidence should be in the standard from the certifi cate of marriage or marriage contract.

In delayed registration of marriage, the following conditions may occur:

1. The applicant has a copy of the marriage contract with fresh signature of the parties, solemnizing offi ce and witnesses, a registry number, and an indication that it was previously accepted for registration by the concerned civil registrar. However, the local civil registry offi ce has either copy of the said marriage contract nor entry in the Registry of Marriages. Such absence of record in the local civil registry offi ce will create a presumption that the particular marriage was not required.

What the civil registrar shall do:

v Determine the authenticity of the marriage contract. Compare the signature of the solemnizing offi cer with the signature appearing on the other marriage contract of the same year in his fi le. If not similar, the

111

marriage contract in the possession of the applicant could be fake.

v Compare the signature of the civil registrar or of the civil registry personnel who appeared in the marriage contract as one who received it with the signature appearing on the documents in his fi le. If not similar, the marriage contract in the possession of the applicant could be fake and could have not been earlier received at the local civil registry offi ce.

v Examine the registry number appearing on the marriage contract and compare it with the series of registry numbers use for the particular year. For example, the registry number on the marriage contract is 27 (A-78) which means that the marriage contract was the 27th document registered in January 1978. The civil registrar shall examine his fi le of marriage contracts and Register of Marriages in order to fi nd out whether such number was indeed used in January 1978. If it turned out that such registry number was used but assigned to another marriage contract, the presumption would be that the marriage contract in the possession of the applicant was not received at the local civil registry offi ce, and it could be fake. On the other hand, if there is a marriage contract with a registry number 26 (A-78) and another marriage contract with a registry number 28 (A-78) but there is no marriage contract with number 27 (A-78), it would be possible that the marriage contract in the possession of the applicant is genuine, that it was previously registered, and that the local civil registry offi ce could have misplaced its fi le copy of said marriage contract. In the letter case, instead of registering the marriage, the civil registrar shall prepare a true copy of marriage contract in the possession of the applicant for his fi le.

v In any case, it is suggested that the concerned civil registrar should be verifi ed fi rst with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General whether or not a copy of the marriage contract exists in the latter’s archives.



112

2. The applicant has a copy of marriage contract which is merely machine-copied (xerox or photostat) and is not certifi ed by authority as true copy of the original.

What the Civil Registrar shall do:

v Require the applicant to produce the original copy. If not available, require the solemnizing offi cer or the secretary of the church or offi ce of the solemnizing offi cer to certify as to the authenticity of the marriage contract.

v Follow the procedure outlined in No. 1

3. Neither the applicant nor the solemnizing offi cer has a copy of the marriage contract, but information can be extracted form the Register of Marriages of latter’s church or offi ce. In this case, the civil registrar shall require the applicants to obtain certifi cation of marriage from the church or offi ce of the solemnizing offi cer as his basis in reconstructing the marriage contract or certifi cate of marriage of the parties.

4. Neither the applicant nor the solemnizing offi cer has a copy of the marriage contract and there is no other record from where information about the marriage could be obtained. In this case, the applicant shall be required to execute an affi davit of marriage declaring therein all information that are needed in accomplishing the certifi cate of marriage. The affi davit of marriage shall be attested to by at least two persons who witnessed the performance of the marriage or who in one way or another have personal knowledge that the parties were really married. The affi davit shall be supported with a documentary evidences such as certifi cate of live birth of the children of the couple showing therein the names of children’s parents, and the date and place of marriage of said parents; previous years income tax returns showing the name of the husband and wife; certifi cate of baptism of the couple’s children; title of properties; and other documents where facts of their marriage are shown. Based on the affi davit and its supporting papers, the civil registrar shall reconstruct he certifi cate of marriage.

113

PROCEDURES IN RECONSTRUCTING THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE

For the purpose of civil registration, the reconstruction of the certifi cate of marriage is necessary only in case nos. 3 and 4 (supra). The following procedures shall be observed by the concerned civil registrar:

v The civil registrar shall fi ll up four (4) copies of the certifi cate of marriage by copying the information available from the certifi cate of marriage issued by the church or offi ce of the solemnizing offi cer in No. 3 (supra) or from the affi davit of marriage and its supporting paper in No. 4 (supra), as the case may be.

v No information concerning the marriage shall be entered by the civil registrar in the certifi cate of marriage unless are taken from the sworn statements of the applicant.

v In case of information required in publishing the certifi cate of marriage which are not available, like the marriage license number including the date when it was issued or the place where it was issued, the civil registrar should indicate by way marginal annotation that these information are not available or could not be remembered by the parties at the time of registration.

v All names of the parties, solemnizing offi cer witnesses to marriage should properly appropriately entered in the certifi cate of marriage but none among them should sign his or her name, and neither will the civil registrar prefi x (Sgd.) on the individual names. It would be suffi cient for the civil registrar to enter in the box for Remarks/Annotation (located at the upper right hand margin) that the certifi cate is a reconstructed one. In case No. 3 (supra), the civil registrar shall enter the following remarks: Reconstructed on the basis of the attached certifi cation of marriage issued by (state the name of the issuing offi cer) on (state the date when the certifi cation was issued). In case No. 4, the remarks should be: reconstructed on the basis of the attached affi davit of marriage executed by (state the name of the concerned party or parties) on (state the date of execution). In any case, the civil registrar shall attest the remarks by signing over his



114

printed name and then indicating therein the date when the certifi cate was reconstructed. The certifi cation of marriage or the affi davit of marriage, as the case may be, and the reconstructed certifi cate of marriage shall be stapled together permanently and shall constitute as the record of marriage of the concerned husband and wife.

v The civil registrar shall proceed with the registration of marriage following strictly the rules governing delayed registration such as posting of the application for ten (10) days, making the entry in red ink, reporting the application to the State Prosecutor’s Offi ce, and others.

v The four (4) copies of the reconstructed certifi cate of marriage, after registration thereof, shall be distributed to proper parties in accordance with Rule 43 of Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993.

DOUBLE OR MULTIPLICITY OF REGISTRATION SHOULD BE AVOIDED

Some records of marriage prior to 1931 are still available at the Records Management and Archive’s Offi ce, located at T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila. At the archives of the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, the available documents are from the later part of 1945 to present.

Depending on the year when the marriage was performed, and in order to prevent double or multiplicity of registration of the same marriage, the civil registrar shall require the applicant for delayed registration of marriage to obtain certifi cation from the Records Management and Archive’s Offi ce, or from the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, as the case may be, before accepting the application. The concerned civil registrar shall also check carefully his records through his indices of marriage to ascertain that there was really no previous registration of the marriage being applied for delayed registration.

In a case where a marriage was registered again, in spite of the effort to prevent double or multiplicity of registration, the presence of the fi rst registration will invalidate the succeeding registration of the same marriage. Consequently, the civil registrar can legally issue certifi cation of marriage based only on the fi rst registration.

115

Rule 2.9 Essential Requisites of Marriage

Essential requisites refer to the substance of the marriage that affect its intrinsic validity.

The essential requisites of marriage are:

a. legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and

b. their consent freely given in the presence of the Solemnizing Offi cer. (Article 2, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)

NOTE:

Essential Requisite No. 1

Legal Capacity of Contracting Parties — (a) means that the parties must have the necessary age, and Article 5 of the Family Code provides for a uniform age for the male and for the female to be eighteen years or upwards, (b) means that there must be no impediment caused by a prior existing marriage or by certain relationships by affi nity (law) or consanguinity (blood).

The law fi xes the minimum age for the male and female, to be at least 18 years old at the time of the marriage. If the age of one contracting parties is below 18 years at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the marriage lack legal capacity, an essential requisite of marriage.

Under the previous law, the Civil Code, the age of the male must be at least 16 and the female at least 14 (Art. 54, Civil Code).It is wise for the Family Code to make the minimum age at 18 years for both male and female. This provision of the Family Code about the minimum age now controls.

Indeed, marriage at an early age, like 14 or 16 is not conducive to a vigorous and healthful union of the parties, let alone, the probable effect on the physical and economic condition of the parties.

One Filipino psychiatrist calls this marriage as the symbiotic marriage, where the parties are young and most often inaccessible to realistic considerations. This is one marriage which ends up in break-up.

By raising the age to 18 years old at least the parties have already developed maturity and freedom of judgment. Furthermore,



116

it has been the consensus of judges, social workers and religious leaders that the major cause of marriage break-ups is the immaturity of the parties. Raising the age to 18 is in consonance with the fi ndings that the median age for marriage in the Philippines is 19.

Again, the law merely fi xes the minimum and not the maximum. In fact, in some countries the marriage between senior citizens is common. And they are of advanced age that copulation and other obligation to each other have become already impossible. Yet, this union of two senior citizens has become a part of their customs and culture. A lot of this marriage is entered into for purely companionship during old age, or for sentimental reasons.

The law, likewise, does not require any particular age difference between the parties. What is important is that the parties must be at least 18 years old or over. (The Family Code of the Philippines Explained. Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, Marcelino T. Lizaso. Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 16-17)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE NULLITY OF THE SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE DUE TO EXISTING PRIOR MARRIAGE

De Cardenas vs. CardenasG.R. No. L-8218

December 15, 1955

Facts:

Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas brought an action to annul the marriage entered into by Leoncio Cardenas and Florencia Riñen on the ground that when said marriage was celebrated on June 19, 1948, Eulogia to whom Leoncio had been married on July 10, 1927 was still alive.

Leoncio and Florencia argued that Minister George W. Wright who solemnized the marriage between Eulogia and Leoncio had no authority to solemnize marriage; and that there was no marriage license issued to enable them to marry each other.

Issue:

Is the marriage between Eulogia and Leoncio valid thus incapa-citating the latter to marry Florencia?

117

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Eulogia and Leoncio was valid rendering the latter’s marriage to Florencia null and void.

The High Court further said that a marriage license as provided for in Article 53, paragraph 4 of the Civil Code (now Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Family Code) and in Section 7 of Act No. 3613, was not required by General Order No. 68, the law in force on July 10, 1927 when the marriage was entered into by Eulogia and Leoncio. The marriage certifi cate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by Minister Wright gives rise to the presumption that all the legal formalities required by law had been complied with and fulfi lled. If the minister was not authorized to perform such marriage ceremony, it was incumbent upon Leoncio and Florencia to show such lack of authority on the part of the minister. Leoncio and Florencia failed to show that proof.

PROBLEMS ON ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF VALID MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Problem No. 1:

Alfred and Belen, both Filipino citizens got married in the Philippines. Thereafter, they migrated to the US to seek for greener pasture. After a few years of living in the US, their marriage turned from bad to worse due to irreconcilable differences. Alfred and Belen were able to obtain a valid divorce in the US. Belen returned to the Philippines to marry her childhood sweetheart. Can she validly remarry in the Philippines?

No, Belen cannot validly remarry in the Philippines. 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. (Article 15, Civil Code of the Philippines) Divorce certainly affects the status and condition of persons. Since absolute divorce is not recognized in this country except among Muslims, the absolute divorce obtained by Alfred and Belen in the US is not valid in the Philippines.

Furthermore, the rule in our country is that absolute divorce is contrary to public policy. The 3rd paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code states: “Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public



118

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.” It is settled in our country that absolute divorce is contrary to public policy. This declaration of public policy cannot be rendered nugatory by the divorce obtained by Alfred and Belen in the US. Therefore, Belen cannot remarry in the Philippines.

Problem No. 2:

Carmen, a Filipino and Dennis, an American got married in the Philippines. A few months after their wedding, Dennis brought Carmen to the US to live there permanently. Due to frequent quarrels on many insignifi cant matters, Dennis fi led a petition for divorce and was granted the same. Carmen in the meantime returned to the Philippines. She met Elmer, a bank executive and after a whirlwind romance, they decided to get married. Can Carmen validly marry Elmer?

Yes, Carmen can validly marry Elmer. Under the 2nd paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is 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. (As amended by E.O. No. 227, dated July 17, 1987) In the problem, it was Dennis, an American citizen who obtained the divorce capacitating him to remarry. Under Philippine Law, Carmen is likewise capacitated to remarry. Hence, she can validly marry Elmer.

Problem No. 3:

Bill, an American citizen married Yvette, a Filipino while the former was on vacation in Manila. When they went to the USA, Yvette fi led a divorce against Bill due to irreconcilable confl icts. The decree of divorce capacitated Bill to remarry under US laws. Can Yvette remarry in the Philippines?

No, Yvette cannot remarry in the Philippines. This is because it was Yvette the Filipino who initiated the divorce. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code is explicit that if there is a mixed marriage and the foreigner initiates the divorce capacitating him or her to remarry under his or her national law, the Filipino spouse can remarry under Philippine law. Since it was Yvette who initiated

119

the divorce, she is not capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. This is so because the requirement of Article 26 paragraph 2 of the Family Code is mandatory.

PARTIES MUST BE MALE AND FEMALE AS AN ESSENTIAL REQUISITE OF VALID MARRIAGE

The provision of the Code requires that the contracting parties must be a male and a female. This requisite is obviously indispensable, as dictated by natural and biological law and because of the very purpose of marriage. Procreation cannot be realized by two persons of the same sex. Hence, there could not be valid marriage between a lesbian and a woman or between a gay and a man. However, if through machination a marriage is celebrated between persons of the same sex, the marriage is void and cannot produce any legal effect, either as to the persons or properties of the parties. And it is believed that the party who acted with fraud or deceit is liable for damages to the party in good faith.

PROBLEM OF SEX AS ESSENTIAL REQUISITE OF VALID MARRIAGE

Roxanne and Christine, both female, the latter being a lesbian were married by a solemnizing offi cer because the latter believed Christine to be a male. This happened because Christine concealed her true identity by appearing to be a male. Is the marriage between Roxanne and Christine valid under our law?

No, the marriage between Roxanne and Christine is not valid under our law. The Family Code provides that the contracting parties must be 18 years of age and must be a male and a female. (Article 2, par. 1, Family Code) They do not comply with the gender requirement set by the law. This requirement is based on one of the purposes of marriage — that is, the procreation of offspring. Since Roxanne and Christine are both female, they do not have the capacity to procreate offspring.

Essential Requisite No. 2

THE CONSENT IF FREELY GIVEN

Consent refers to the consent of the contracting parties, not parental consent. Consent is required because marriage is a



120

contract, a voluntary act. If there is consent, but is vitiated by error, fraud, intimidation, force, etc., the marriage is not void; it is merely voidable; i.e., valid until annulled. If there is absolutely no consent, or when the parties did not intend to be bound, as in the case of a joke or in the case of stage play or movie, the marriage is void. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 373)

PROBLEM ON CONSENT AS AN ESSENTIAL REQUISITE OF VALID MARRIAGE

Benjamin and Leila, both 19 years of age got married with the consent of their parents, but without their consent. Is their marriage valid?

No, the marriage of Benjamin and Leila is void because it lacks one the essential requisites of marriage — that is, the consent of the contracting parties freely given. (Article 2 (2), Family Code) The fact that their parents gave consent to their marriage would not make the marriage valid. It is the consent of the contracting parties that is required by law.

Legal capacity as the fi rst essential requisite of valid marriage means that the contracting parties must be at least eighteen (18) years old or over, otherwise they are prohibited by law from getting married. Consent freely given as the second essential requisite means that the consent is not secured through fraud, duress, intimidation or other causes that vitiate consent under Article 45 and 46 of the Family Code. Such consent must also be real and the parties must give such consent in the presence of the solemnizing offi cer. Hence, no marriage by proxy is allowed under Article 6 of the Family Code.

MARRIAGE BY PROXY

Marriage where one of the parties to a marriage is merely represented by a delegate or a friend.

RULES ON MARRIAGES BY PROXY

(a) If performed here in the Philippines, the marriage is void because physical presence of both parties is required under Art. 6 of the Family Code;

(b) If performed abroad, whether between Filipinos or foreigners or mixed, it would seem that the controlling Article is

121

Art. 26 of the Family Code. Hence, ordinarily, if the marriage by proxy is valid as such where celebrated, it should be considered as valid in the Philippines, without prejudice to any restrictions that may be imposed by our Immigration Laws for purposes of immigration. (Paras, As cited in Civil Code of the Philippines, 15th Edition, p. 378)

Rule 2.10 Formal Requisites of Marriage

Formal requisites refer to the form of the marriage that affect its extrinsic validity.

The formal requisites of marriage are:

a. the authority of the Solemnizing Offi cer;

b. a valid marriage license except in cases of marriage exempt from marriage license requirement;

c. a marriage ceremony which takes place with the ap-pearance of the contracting parties before the Solem-nizing Offi cer 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 (Article 3, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philip-pines)

NOTE:

Formal Requisite No. 1

Authority of the Person Solemnizing the Marriage.

Under the old Marriage Law (Act No. 3613, Sec. 27), the marriage was considered completely valid if, at the time of solemnization, both the spouses or one of them believed in good faith that the solemnizer was actually empowered to do so and that the marriage was perfectly legal. Under the Civil Code, however, the good or bad faith of the parties was immaterial. If the person performing the marriage had no authority to do so, the marriage was void, regardless of the good or bad faith of the parties. Under the Family Code, even if the solemnizing offi cer is not authorized, the marriage would be valid if either or both parties believe in good faith in his authority to solemnize the marriage. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 15th Edition, p. 373)



122


A Valid Marriage license, except in a Marriage of Exceptional Character.

What is required is the marriage license, not the marriage certifi cate. The later is not an essential or formal requisite; thus, an oral solemnization is valid. In fact, a marriage may be proved by oral evidence. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, 15th Ed. p. 373)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF MARRIAGE DECLARED VOID DUE TO ABSENCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE

Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Angelina CastroG.R. No. 103047

September 2, 1994

Facts:

Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by a Judge Pablo Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Angelina’s parents. Edwin personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of marriage, including the procurement of marriage license. The marriage contract itself states that marriage license No. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties, Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas.

Angelina and Castro did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to Angelina’s parents. When Angelina discovered that she was pregnant, they decided to live together. Their cohabitation however lasted only for four months. Thereafter, they parted ways. In the following year, Angelina gave birth and the baby was adopted by her brother.

The baby is now in the US. Desiring to follow her daughter, Angelina wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer for the possible annulment of her marriage with Edwin. Through her lawyer’s efforts, it was discovered that there was no marriage license issued prior to their marriage as evidenced by the certifi cate of “due search and inability to fi nd” issued by the local civil registrar.

Issue:

Is the marriage between Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas valid notwithstanding the absence of marriage license?

123

Ruling:

The Supreme Court said that at the time the subject marriage was solemnized the law governing marital relations was the Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license fi rst issued by the local civil registrar. Being one of the requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a marriage license would render the marriage void ab initio.

Evidence showed that there was no marriage license issued prior to the marriage as indicated by a certifi cate of “due search and inability to fi nd” issued by the local civil registrar. The Rules of Court authorize the custodian of documents to certify that after a diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his offi ce or that a particular entry of a specifi ed tenor was not to be found in the register. (Section 29, Rule 132, Rules of Court)

As custodian of public documents, civil registrars are public offi cials charged with the duty of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses. The certifi cation of “due search and inability to fi nd” issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the offi cer charged under the law to keep a record of all the data relative to issuance of marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion, a certifi cate of “due search and inability to fi nd” suffi ciently proved that his offi ce did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.

Hence, the marriage between Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas is null and void ab initio on the reason that no marriage license was issued prior to their marriage.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE WHERE MARRIAGE WAS PRESUMED SINCE RECORD OF MARRIAGE CANNOT BE FOUND AT LCRO

Bartolome vs. BartolomeL-23661, Dec. 20, 1967

Facts:

A man and a woman lived together as husband and wife for many years, but in the offi ce of Manila Civil Registry, there was no record that a marriage between them had ever been celebrated.



124

Issue:

Are we to presume that they married?

Held:

Yes, because of their cohabitation for many years. Moreover, the lack of marriage record in Manila does not rebut the presumption of marriage, for the marriage could have been celebrated elsewhere.


A Marriage Ceremony. This must be in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

A ceremony is required, although no particular form is needed. And it must be before a duly authorized person. It need not be written; signs would be suffi cient (People vs. Cotas, C.A., 40 O.G. 3154) but in no case would a common-law marriage between Filipinos be considered as valid, for performance must be before the proper offi cer. (See Cruz vs. Catandes, C.A. 39 O.G. 324; Enriquez, et al. vs. Enriquez, et al., Phil. 565) (Paras, Civil Code of the Phil. 15th Ed. p. 376).

THE LIABILITY OF THE WITNESSES TO THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY

If a witness vouched for the capacity of either of the contracting parties, knowing that one of them was already married, he is liable as an accomplice. But if a witness merely attested to the marriage ceremony and did not vouch or assert anything as to the personal qualifi cations of the parties, he is not liable. (U.S. vs. Gaoiran, et al., 17 Phil. 404)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE LIABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO MARRIAGE CEREMONY

United States vs. Gaoiran, et al.G.R. No. 5982

November 28, 1910

Facts:

Juan Balicat and Gerarda Sahagun stood as principal sponsors for the marriage between Maria Manuel and Doroteo Gaoiran, who

125

was then previously married to Salvador Batana with whom he was separated in fact. It appears that Juan and Gerarda knew that Doroteo was previously married, and both knew that Salvador was living just in the same village where they also lived. Salvador fi led a case of bigamy against Doroteo and Juan and Gerarda were likewise included in the charge as accomplice. The trial court convicted Doroteo as principal, while Juan and Gerarda were also convicted as accomplice. Hence, all of them appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Are Juan and Gerarda guilty as accomplice in the crime of bigamy for standing as principal sponsors for the marriage between Maria Manuel and Doroteo Gaoiran?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Juan and Gerarda cannot be convicted as accomplice in the crime of bigamy by merely standing as principal sponsors of the marriage between Maria Manuel and Doroteo. While it is admitted that Juan and Gerarda were present when Doroteo contracted the second marriage, and that they knew that he was previously married to Salvador, and while it has been established that they knew that Salvador was alive when the second marriage was contracted, the certifi cate of the justice of the peace (now municipal judge) fails to show just what part was taken by Juan and Gerarda in the marriage. The justice of the peace said that they were witnesses presenciales (actually present), but he did not state that Juan and Gerarda testifi ed that there existed no legal impediment to the marriage, and the proof failed to establish this fact. So, the most that can be said as to the participation of Juan and Gerarda in the marriage is that they were eyewitnesses or persons who were just present when the marriage took place. These facts are not suffi cient to establish the guilt of Juan and Gerarda as accomplices in the commission of the crime of bigamy. Hence, the Supreme Court acquitted them as accomplices of the crime charged against them.

IS THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER LIABLE IF HE SOLEMNIZES THE MARRIAGE EVEN IF AN IMPEDIMENT EXISTS?

The fi nding of the local civil registrar that an impediment exists is noted on the application for marriage license and not on the license itself. Since the application may not be attached to the license when it is issued (not required by law), it is possible



126

that the person solemnizing the marriage may not be aware of the impediment and solemnize the marriage to which there is an impediment. There will be no criminal liability of the solemnizing offi cer, but the marriage would be void. (Tolentino, The Civil Code of the Philippines Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 1990 Edition, p. 255).

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF THERE IS ABSENCE, DEFECT OR IRREGULARITY OF ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL OR FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE?

The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites of marriage shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.

An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. (Article 4, Family Code)

Rule 2.11 Marriage License

Is an offi cial document issued by the C/MCR that gives authority to be married to each other in accordance with law. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)

NOTE:

Marriage license is the authority of the person to solemnize the marriage. A marriage which precedes the issuance of the marriage license is void for it lacks the authority to solemnize marriage as an essential requisite. The subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid such marriage (People vs. Lara, (CA) OG 4079). However, the law does not impose upon the person solemnizing the marriage the duty of investigating whether the license was issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the domicile of either party. It is suffi cient to know that the license was issued by a competent offi cial who can be presumed to have regularly complied with his duty. It is not also his problem of ascertaining whether the party who desires to get married resides habitually in the municipality (People vs. Janison, 54 Phil. 176). The marriage under a license is not invalidated by the

127

fact that the license was wrongly obtained. (Melchor vs. Melchor, 102 Neb 790; 169 NW 720 as cited in the Book — The Comparative laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code of Justice Jainal D. Rasul, pp. 63-64)

Marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, except in marriage where no license is required in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Family Code. (Art. 9, Family Code as cited in Paras, pp. 380-381)

Marriage License is an authority given by the state to its citizens, to enable them to get married. It is a license issued by the local civil registrar to the applicants, future husband and wife, who shall take each other in marriage. It serves as a safeguard that the requisites for the validity of marriage are complied with. Without the marriage license, a marriage shall not be valid even if it was performed by an authorized offi cer. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, Family Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 14)

The License shall be valid in any part of the Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue, and shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration of said period if the contracting parties have not made use of it. The expiry date shall be stamped in bold characters of the face of every license issued. (Article 20, Family Code)

The issuance of the marriage license is within the regulatory power of the state, to safeguard the compliance with the requirements of marriage.

The contracting parties in a marriage, before such marriage, shall go to the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either of them habitually resides, to apply for a marriage license. The marriage license application is accomplished in that offi ce by the parties, stating therein their personal circumstances, including those of their parents or guardians. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, pp. 23-24).

EFFECT OF LAPSE OF PERIOD

The marriage license is automatically cancelled after the 120 day period following its date. A marriage solemnized after that period is a marriage without a marriage license. The automatic cancellation of the license is not a mere irregularity or defect; the



128

license is non existent. The marriage is void ab initio. (People vs. Edeza, (C.A.) 59 O.G. 562).

OCRG’S CIRCULAR RE PLACE AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE LICENSE

CIRCULAR NO. 3Series of 1988

To : All Regional/Provincial Census Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars

Subject : APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 20 OF THE FAMILY CODE

Article 20 of the Family Code provides:

“Art. 20. The license shall be valid in any part of the Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue, and shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration of the said period if the contracting parties have not made use of it. The expiry date shall be stamped in bold characters on the face of every license issued. (65a)”

The above-cited provision of the law speaks of one hundred twenty days as the period of validity of the marriage license, and the expiry date of such period to be stamped on its face in bold letters. There is a question, however, as to when shall the Local Civil Registrar start counting the one hundred twenty days to enable him to know the expiry date. The aforementioned law ostensibly requires that the one hundred twenty days shall be counted starting from the date of issue, but what is the date of issue? Is it the same as the date when the license is actually released to the parties of the intended marriage? To answer all these questions, the Local Civil Registrars should distinguish the following dates or periods in connection with the marriage license: a) date of fi ling the application for marriage license; b) period of posting the application which is ten consecutive days; c) date of issue of the marriage license; and d) date when the marriage license is actually released to the applicants.

Thus, for example, Mr. M and Miss W fi led their application for marriage license on 1 August 1988 with the LCR of Manila. The posting period of the application, which is ten days, shall be from 2 August 1988 to 11 August 1988. In this case, the date of the issue when

129

the one hundred twenty-day validity period should start on the day immediately following the completion of the posting period, which 12 August 1988, whether or not the parties claim the license. The expiry date of the marriage license is therefore 9 December 1988, the 120th day from 12 August 1988. This expiry date will remain regardless of when the concerned parties come to claim the marriage license. For example, if Mr. M and Miss W applied for license on 11 August 1988. In this case, the date of issue when the one hundred twenty-day validity period should start is the day immediately following the completion of the posting period which is 12 August 1988, whether or not the parties claim the license. The expiry date of the marriage license is therefore 9 December 1988, the 120th day from 12 August 1988. This expiry date will remain regardless of when the concerned parties come to claim the marriage license. For example, if Mr. M and Miss W actually claim the marriage license on 31 August 1988, which should be the date of release (as distinguished from the date of issue which is 12 August 1988), it means that they have only one hundred days left whereby they can use the marriage license. If the parties claim the marriage license on 15 December 1988, the LCR may still release the license but the parties cannot make use of it anymore because it has already expired. It the parties still want to get married after the expiration of the license, they must apply for a new license.

As to the stamping of the expiry date of the license on its face in bold characters, every Local Civil Registrar shall provide for himself with a rubber stamp bearing the following impression: “THIS LICENSE EXPIRES ON ______________.” The Regional/Provincial Census Offi cers are hereby instructed to monitor the implementation of this Circular within their respective area of jurisdiction.

MARCELO M. ORENSEAdministrator &




130

OCRG’S MEMORANDUM TO LCRs ON NULLITY OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND A COURT’S REMINDER THAT DUTY OF MAYORS TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DELEGATED

29 August 1997

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal RegistrarsSubject : COURT DECISION CONCERNING NULLITY

OF MARRIAGE DUE TO ABSENCE OF A VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE AND LACK OF AUTHOR-ITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

Attached is a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Capas, Tarlac in the Civil Case No. 351-(95) concerning a petition for the judicial of nullity of marriage fi led by Ms. Cristina Vergara against her husband, Reynaldo Pascua. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition for judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage fi led by petitioner Cristina Vergara against respondent Reynaldo Pascua thru counsel, Atty. Cesar Gomez is hereby DENIED. Case is hereby DISMISSED.

In passing, it may be timely for the Honorable Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government to issue a Circular reminding municipal mayors that the duty to solemnize marriage cannot be delegated and for the National Census and Statistics Offi ce to issue Circular for strict compliance on the ten (10) days period before issuance of marriage license by the local civil registrar to the increasing number of cases being fi led for annulment on the ground that the offi ciating offi cial has no authority to solemnize the marriage and the non-existence of a marriage at the time of the solemnization.

In view of this court decision, the city/municipal civil registrars are hereby enjoined to observe strictly the proper issuance of marriage license as provided in the Family Code of the Philippines and in OCRG Circular No. 3, S. 1988

TOMAS P. AFRICACivil Registrar General

131

A PROBLEM ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE LICENSE AFTER THE LAPSE OF ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS

Problem:

Carlos and Vanessa applied for marriage license which was issued on December 1, 2004. The license was used on April 30, 2005. Is their marriage valid?

Held:

No, the marriage of Carlos and Vanessa is not valid. The marriage license was automatically cancelled after the lapse of 120 days. Since the marriage license was already cancelled for non-use within the period prescribed by law, it is as if no marriage license existed at the time to their marriage. (Article 20, Family).

LIABILITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER WHO SOLEMNIZES MARRIAGE WITH EXPIRED LICENSE

Note that under Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code, any solemnizing offi cer who solemnizes a marriage as well as the parties thereto after the license had expired may be held criminally liable. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, [Fifteenth Edition], p. 388).

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE RE PETITION FOR NULLITY OF MARRIAGE FOR HAVING NO MARRIAGE LICENSE ISSUED TO PARTIES PRIOR TO CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE

SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINA M. CASTRO, respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS; MARRIAGE; REQUISITES; ABSENCE; EFFECT. — At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license fi rst issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio.



132

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD; EFFECT; CASE AT BAR. — Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, authorized the custodian of documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his offi ce or that a particular entry of a specifi ed tenor was not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public offi cers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data. The certifi cation of “due search and inability to fi nd” issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the offi cer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certifi cate of “due search and inability to fi nd” suffi ciently proved that his offi ce did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.

3. ID.; ID.; TESTIMONY OF THE PETITIONER; WHEN CORROBORATING TESTIMONY NOT NECESSARY; CASE AT BAR. — The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a “secret marriage” — a legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the parents of the former. Surely, the fact that only private respondent Castro testifi ed during the trial cannot be held against her. Her husband, Edwin F. Cardenas, was duly served with notice of the proceedings and a copy of the petition. Despite receipt thereof, he chose to ignore the same. For failure to answer, he was properly declared in default. Private respondent cannot be faulted for her husband’s lack of interest to participate in the proceedings. There was absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was collusion between private respondent and her husband Cardenas.

133

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J p:

The case at bench originated from a petition fi led by private respondent Angelina M. Castro in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas. As ground therefore, Castro claims that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of their marriage.

Despite notice, defendant Edwin F. Cardenas failed to fi le his answer. Consequently, he was declared in default. Trial proceeded in his absence.

The controlling facts are undisputed:

On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro’s parents. Defendant Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila.

The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to Castro’s parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971, when Castro discovered she was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. However, their cohabitation lasted only for four (4) months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways. On October 19, 1971, Castro gave birth. The baby was adopted by Castro’s brother, with the consent of Cardenas.

The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her daughter, Castro wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer, Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her marriage. Through her lawyer’s efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage.

As proof, Angelina Castro offered in evidence a certifi cation from the Civil Register of Pasig, Metro Manila. It reads:



134

“February 20, 1987

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the names EDWIN F. CARDENAS and ANGELINA M. CASTRO who were allegedly married in the Pasay City Court on June 21, 1970 under an alleged (s)upportive marriage license no. 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 cannot be located as said license no. 3196182 does not appear from our records.

Issued upon request of Mr. Ed Atanacio.

CENONA D. QUINTOSSenior Civil RegistryOffi cer”

Castro testifi ed that she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig on or before June 24, 1970 in order to apply for a license. Neither did she sign any application therefore. She affi xed her signature only on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in Pasay City. The trial court denied the petition.

It held that the above certifi cation was inadequate to establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the “inability of the certifying offi cial to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued.”

Unsatisfi ed with the decision, Castro appealed to respondent appellate court. She insisted that the certifi cation from the local civil registrar suffi ciently established the absence of a marriage license.

As stated earlier, respondent appellate court reversed the Decision of the trial court. It declared the marriage between the contracting parties null and void and directed the Civil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract.

Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines urges that respondent appellate court erred when it ruled that the certifi cation issued by the civil registrar that marriage license no. 3196182 was not in their record adequately proved that no such license was ever issued. Petitioner also faults the respondent court for relying on the

135

self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of private respondent Castro that she had no part in the procurement of the subject marriage license. Petitioner thus insists that the certifi cation and the uncorroborated testimony of private respondent are insuffi cient to overthrow the legal presumption regarding the validity of a marriage.

Petitioner also points that in declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void, respondent appellate court disregarded the presumption that the solemnizing offi cer, Judge Pablo M. Malvar, regularly performed his duties when he attested in the marriage contract that marriage license no. 3196182 was duly presented to him before the solemnization of the subject marriage.

The issues, being interrelated, shall be discussed jointly.

The core issue presented by the case at bench is whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are suffi cient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas.

We affi rm the impugned Decision.

At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license fi rst issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio.

Petitioner posits that the certifi cation of the local civil registrar of due search and inability to fi nd a record or entry to the effect that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued to the parties is not adequate to prove its non-issuance.

We hold otherwise. The presentation of such certifi cation in court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, viz:

“Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an offi cer having custody of an offi cial record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specifi ed tenor is found to exist in the records of his offi ce, accompanied by a certifi cate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his contain no such record or entry.”



136

The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his offi ce or that a particular entry of a specifi ed tenor was not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public offi cers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data.

The certifi cation of “due search and inability to fi nd” issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the offi cer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certifi cate of “due search and inability to fi nd” suffi ciently proved that his offi ce did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.

The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a “secret marriage” — a legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the parents of the former.

Surely, the fact that only private respondent Castro testifi ed during the trial cannot be held against her. Her husband, Edwin F. Cardenas, was duly served with notice of the proceedings and a copy of the petition. Despite receipt thereof, he chose to ignore the same. For failure to answer, he was properly declared in default. Private respondent cannot be faulted for her husband’s lack of interest to participate in the proceedings. There was absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was collusion between private respondent and her husband Cardenas.

It is noteworthy to mention that the fi nding of the appellate court that the marriage between the contracting parties is null and

137

void for lack of a marriage license does not discount the fact that indeed, a spurious marriage license, purporting to be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig, may have been presented by Cardenas to the solemnizing offi cer.

In fi ne, we hold that, under the circumstances of the case, the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent Castro suffi ciently established the absence of the subject marriage license.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED there being no showing of any reversible error committed by respondent appellate court.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE

A marriage which took place a day before the issuance of the marriage license is void; the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage nor ratify it. (People vs. De Lara, C.A. L-12585-R, Feb. 15, 1955, Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, p. 14).

ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF IMPEDIMENT

The Family Code provides that “In case of any impediment known to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention, he shall note down the particulars thereof and his fi ndings thereon in the application for a marriage license, but shall nonetheless issue said license after the completion of the period of publication, unless ordered otherwise by a competent court at this own instance or that of any interested party.” (Article 18, Family Code)

Therefore, knowledge of the local civil registrar of the existence of any impediment to the marriage shall not prevent the issuance of marriage license after the 10-day publication unless ordered by a competent court upon petition of the local civil registrar or any interested party. It means that the duty of the civil registrar to issue the marriage license is ministerial after the 10-day publication.



138

During the publication of the application for a marriage license, the local civil registrar may learn of any impediment of one of the contracting parties or this impediment may be brought to this attention by any interested person. In this case, the registrar shall note down the particulars thereof and his fi ndings in the application. He shall, nonetheless, issue the license after completion of the period of publication, unless ordered otherwise by a competent court, at his own instance or that of any interested party.

Under the old provision of the Civil Code, the Civil Registrar, under the circumstances, shall conduct an investigation, examining the person under oath. If after investigation, the registrar is convinced that there is an impediment, it is his duty to withhold the issuance of the marriage license, unless the court will order him to issue the same. This authority of the civil registrar is almost quasi-judicial in nature.

In the new provision of the Family Code, in determining the existence of an impediment, it is believed, that the civil registrar may establish its existence in any manner that will convince him. If he is convinced, he shall annotate his fi ndings on the application for marriage license, but nonetheless issue the marriage license. But he may also resort to a court action, or any interested party may do the same, for this matter, by fi ling a petition asking the competent court to authorize him to withhold the issuance of the marriage license, or not to grant the marriage license, in view of the impediment. No fi ling fee or bond shall be required of this petition. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, pp. 39-40).

139

OCRG’S MEMORANDUM TO LCRs THAT NO APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE SHALL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT SUPPORTING PAPERS



Ref. No. 997000-0504

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : NO APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE

SHALL BE ACCEPTED WIHTOUT THE SUP-PORTING PAPERS REQUIRED BY LAW FOR THE APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT

For your guidance in issuing marriage license, we are provid-ing you a copy of the Resolution from the Offi cer of the Deputy Om-budsman fro Luzon in connection with Case No. OMB-1-98-0936 (Doroteo B. Ferrer, Jr. vs. MCR Filipina Herico), 30 July 1999.

In this case, the rule that no application for marriage license shall be accepted unless the applicants comply with the requirements of the law was upheld by the Ombudsman.

For the Civil Registrar General

CARLITO B. LALICONCivil Registry Coordinator

Copy furnished:

All Regional Directors All Provincial Statistics Offi cers All District Statistics Offi cers All Statistical Coordination Offi cers



140

AN OMBUDSMAN CASE AGAINST LCR FOR REFUSING TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSE TO APPLICANTS DUE TO THEIR FAILURE TO SUBMIT REQUIRED FAMILY PLANNING CERTIFICATE ON TIME

Republic of the PhilippinesOFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON

176 MWSS Bldg., Arroceros Street, 1000 Manila

DOROTEO B. FERRER, JR. Daet, Camarines Sur Complainant

versus OMB-1-98-09336 For Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019; Section 5(c) Of Republic Act 6713

FILIPINA HERICO Local Civil Registrar Labo, Camarines Norte Respondent

X=================================================X

RESOLUTION

Before this Offi ce is a complaint fi led by Doroteo B. Ferrer, Jr. against Filipina Herico, Local Civil Registrar for violating Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 5 (c) of Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Offi cials and Employees).

Complainant alleged that on November 10, 1997, complainant, together with Eleonor Torilla, went to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar of Labo, Camarines Norte (where respondents hold offi ce) to apply for a marriage license in view of their impending marriage scheduled on the 5th day of January 1998. After paying the required fees and submitting their respective live birth certifi cates, respondent required them to sign a blank application form for marriage license. On December 29, 1997, complainant’s sister-in-law, Araceli Barrios, submitted to said Offi ce the family planning certifi cate. Meanwhile,

141

complainant started preparing all the things needed for the wedding including the printing and distribution of the wedding invitations. On January 02, 1998, complainant went to respondent’s offi ce in order to get the marriage license. But then, he was informed that his application for marriage license was not processed because of his failure to submit on time the family planning certifi cate. Complainant pleaded to respondent to reconsider her position. But the latter was adamant. Respondent likewise returned all the documents submitted by complainant which include Municipal Form Nos. 90 and 94 and Civil Registry Form No. C, which are all in blank forms. In order to save further humiliation and embarrassment, complainant decided on that day to apply for a marriage license with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar of Daet, Camarines Norte. It was acted upon by said Offi ce with dispatch. Thus, on January 12, 1998, the wedding proceeded as scheduled, because of respondent’s inaction on complainant’s application for marriage, the presentation is instituted.

In her counter-affi davit, respondent explained that before a marriage license can be issued, a ten-day posting period, after submitting all the requirements, should be observed. In the case of complainant, since the family certifi cate was submitted only on December 29, 1997, the posting period will commence on the following day or on December 30, 1997.Obviously, the marriage license cannot be issued before or even on the intended date of marriage, January 05, 1998. On the day when Araceli Barrios submitted complainant’s family planning certifi cate, the latter requested, before leaving, if they can antedate the star of the posting period of complainant’s applicant for marriage license. Thereafter, Mr. Fortunato Buerano (father of Araceli and uncle of complainant’s fi ancée), who was once an ex-offi cio local civil registrar, came Mr. Buerano pleaded that since her niece’s date of marriage is set on the 5th day of January, 1998, the star of the posting period be made earlier than December 29, 1997 so that the marriage license can be released prior to January 05, 1998. But respondent stood fi rm on her decision even after she was summoned by mayor Tenorio regarding the said matter. In order to justify her stand, respondent submitted a copy of the Guidelines in Issuing Marriage License of Carlito B. Lalicon, Civil Registry Coordinator of the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Offi ce, as well as affi davits of Arlene Lacson and Noemi V. Pareza, respondents’ co-employee in the Offi ce of the Municipal Civil Registrar.

In his reply, complainant alleged that previously, the ten-day posting period starts on the day following the submission



142

of application forms for marriage license. As what had been the practice in the municipality, the family planning certifi cate can be submitted before or even on the date of issuance of the marriage license. Assuming that there had been changes in the procedure, complaint insisted that he should have been informed thereof. Had respondent instructed complainant that the marriage license cannot be issued if the certifi cate of family planning is not submitted, complainant would not have scheduled the wedding on January 05, 1998. In support of complainant’s reply, affi davits of Fortunato B. Buerano and Araceli Barrios were submitted.

Before resolving herein case, it is noteworthy to mention P.D. 965 which expressly provides that no marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a certifi cate that they had received instruction and information on family planning and responsible parenthood. And any Local Civil Registrar who issues the marriage license without the requisite certifi cate shall be subject to appropriate or criminal charges.

As mentioned in Lalicon’s “Registration of Marriage” (Annex B of respondent’s counter-affi davit), the application for marriage license will only be accepted by the Municipal Civil Registrar if the supporting papers required by law are submitted by the parties. The date when the application was subscribed and sworn to before the municipal civil registrar is the date when the application will be posted for ten days. In case at bar, it is undisputed that complainant submitted, through Araceli Barrios, his certifi cate of family planning on December 29, 1997. Following the aforementioned procedure, complainant’s application should have been subscribed and sworn to before herein respondent on December 29, 1997, after which it will be posted for ten days. Clearly, respondents is merely complying with the procedure prescribed in issuing marriage license.

What then remains is for this Offi ce to determine if there is failure on the part of the respondent in not informing complainant the procedure in obtaining marriage license or the consequences of the belated submission of the supporting documents, which in this case, is the certifi cate of family planning, for which respondent should be held criminally liable. We believe there is none. Attention is invited to Receipt No. 2209899 issued to herein complainant (p. 8, records. It should be noted that one of the fees therein is for family planning. In paying for the same, it would had been improbable, if not impossible, for complainant not be informed that it is necessary to have a certifi cate for family planning before a marriage license

143

can be issued. Secondly, as can be seen in the certifi cate of family planning itself dated November 27, 1997, it is expressly provided that is a requisite to the issuance of marriage license pursuant to P.D. 865. Thirdly, it is noted as of November 27, 1997 when it was submitted or more than thirty (30) days from its issuance. Had there been an immediate submission of the certifi cate on the part of the complainant the marriage license would have been issued on time and the January 05, 1998 would not have to be postponed.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that instant complaint be DISMISSED.

SO RESOLVED.

Manila, Philippines, 30 July 1999.

JOY N.CASIHAN-DUMLAOGraft Investigation Offi cer I

Recommending Approval: ERNESTO M. NOCOS Director

Recommendation Approved:

JESUS F. GUERRERO Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon

ISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE CAPACITATING A WIDOW TO REMARRY

Under the Civil Code, the fact that 300 days have not expired after the death of her husband was considered an impediment to a widow’s remarriage, unless a child was born in the meantime (Art. 54 in relation to Art. 84, Civil Code). This was a mistake, and the Family Code no longer considers this fact as an impediment to a widow’s remarriage. As a matter of fact, the Family Code has impliedly recognized the validity of the subsequent marriage within 300 days after the death of the husband, by providing rules on the legitimacy of children born to her after the remarriage. (See Article 168, Family Code)

Article 84 of the Civil Code prohibits the issuance of a marriage license to such a widow; this prohibition has been removed by the Family Code, confi rming the validity of the remarriage.



144

(See Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence, With the Family Code Vol. 1, p. 240)

SOLEMNIZING OFFICER NEED NOT INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE LICENSE ISSUED BY LCR IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL

But the law does not impose on the solemnizing offi cer to investigate whether the license issued by the civil registrar is legally or illegally, wrongfully or fraudulently obtained. The marriage would, just the same, be valid without prejudice to the criminal liability of the guilty parties. (People vs. Belen 45 O.G. Supp. No. 5 p. 88) Anyway it is suffi cient to know that the license was issued by a competent offi cial, and it may be presumed from the issuance of said license that said offi cial has complied with his duty of ascertaining the qualifi cations of the parties. (People vs. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON PROCLAMATION OR PUBLICITY OF MARRIAGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. H. JANSSEN, defendant-appellant.

W. E. Greenbaum and Luis G. Hofi leña, for appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. MARRIAGE; PROCLAMATIONS OR PUBLICITY. — When-ever a marriage is solemnized by a church, sect, or religion whose rules and practices require proclamation or publicity, it is not neces-sary that said proclamation be made during ten days, unless said rules or practices so require.

2. I.D.; LICENSE; WOMAN’S RESIDENCE; LEGAL PRE-SUMPTION. — The Marriage Law, Act No. 3412, does not impose upon priests or ministers of religion the duty to investigate whether the license has been issued by the offi cer duly authorized by said law, that is, by the municipal secretary of the municipality where the woman resides. All they need to know is that the license has been issued by a competent offi cial, and it may be presumed from the issuance of the license that said offi cial has fulfi lled his duty to ascertain whether the woman desiring to contract marriage does habitually reside in his municipality. (Act No. 190, Sec. 334, No. 14.)

145

D E C I S I O N

VILLA-REAL, J p:

H. Janssen appeals to this court from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Antique convicting him of a violation of section 2 of Act No. 3412, and sentencing him to pay a fi ne of P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one day for every 12 1/2 pesetas, and to pay the court costs.

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its decision, to wit:

“The trial court erred:

“1. In holding that it is the duty of the accused to inquire into and determine the residence of the bride before solemnizing marriage.

“2. In fi nding that the habitual residence of the bride, Juana S. del Rosario is the municipality of Banga, Province of Capiz, and not the municipality of San Jose, Province of Antique.

“3. In holding that the accused cannot solemnize marriage without publishing or proclaiming such marriage 10 days prior to the celebration thereof.

“4. In holding that the accused has violated section 2 of Act No. 3412.

“5. In convincing the accused.”

The following facts were proved at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt:

On December 26, 1928, Pedro N. Cerdeña and Juana S. del Rosario appeared before Reverend Father H. Janssen, a Catholic parish priest of the municipality of San Jose, Antique, to have their names inscribed in the marriage registry, Exhibit 3, which was done. On December 30, 1928, the banns were published in his parish in San Jose, Antique.

As the classes opened on January 7, 1929, the contracting parties asked the defendant-appellant to marry them before that date. Upon petition of the defendant-appellant, the Bishop of Jaro issued the following dispensation on December 29, 1928:

“In view of the exposition and petition contained in the foregoing document, and with the understanding that no obstacle



146

has been discovered in the investigation made or to be made of the status and liberty of the contracting parties, Pedro Cerdeña, single, of age, a resident of San Jose, Antique, and Juana S. del Rosario, a native of Banga, Province of Capiz, residing in San Jose, Antique, single, of age; dispensation is granted from one call of the banns, as prayed for, subject to aims _______ pesos, to be applied to charitable work and the expenses of divine worship, enjoining the Reverend Parish Priest of San Jose, Province of Antique, to whom a copy of this decree shall be transmitted, not to solemnize the marriage under consideration, without being certain of the status and liberty of both contracting parties, and that in the realization of said act, no complaint of any kind shall be made on any legal ground; and that otherwise, it is our will that the dispensation be granted.

“Causes: Urgent business of both parties, who being Govern-ment employees, cannot await the last call without serious preju-dice.”

On the 1st of January, 1929, another proclamation was made to that effect.

On January 4, 1929, the municipal secretary of San Jose, Antique, issued the following authority to solemnize marriage:

“To all those authorized to celebrate marriage:

“You are hereby authorized to solemnize the marriage of Pedro N. Cerdeña and Juana S. del Rosario, in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of your Church, sect, or religion, and with the laws of the Philippine Islands.

“Given this day, January 4, 1929, in the municipality of San Jose, Antique, P. I.

“Attached hereto is a copy of the petition fi led by the contracting parties.”

By virtue of the above-quoted dispensation, and in view of said authority of the municipal secretary of San Jose, Antique, the defendant-appellant on January 6, 1929, solemnized the marriage of Pedro N. Cerdeña to Juana S. del Rosario.

The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not the defendant-appellant violated section 2 of Act No. 3412, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

“The municipal secretary or clerk of the municipal court of Manila, as the case may be, shall post during ten days in a conspicuous

147

place in the building where he has his offi ce, a notice setting forth the full names and domiciles of the applicants for marriage licenses, their respective ages, and the names of their parents if living or of their guardians if otherwise. At the expiration of this term, a license shall issue: Provided, however, That in case any such applicant states in writing and under oath that the rules and practices of the church, sect, or religion under which such applicant desires to contract marriage require banns or publications prior to the solemnization of the marriage, it shall not be necessary for the municipal secretary to make the publication required in this paragraph, and in this case the license shall issue immediately after the fi ling of the application and shall state the church, sect, or religion in which the marriage is to be solemnized.”

While it is true that section 2 of Act No. 3412 quoted above, requires the municipal secretary to post a notice for ten days upon a conspicuous place of the building where he has his offi ce, setting forth the names, surnames, and residence of applicants for a license to contract marriage, their age, the names of their parents, if alive, or of their guardians, as the case may be, before issuing the license applied for, the same section contains a proviso to the effect that when the contracting parties desire to marry in a church which requires previous proclamation before the celebration of the marriage, there is no need of said publication. The only doubt is whether said proclamation must be made during ten days, as in the publication in case the marriage is not celebrated in a church. The law simply says that if the marriage takes place in a church whose rules and practices require proclamation, the license applied for shall at once be issued, and it does not say that the proclamation required by said church is to be made during ten days. As section 2 of Act No. 3412 is penal in character, it should be strictly construed. And as said section does not require that the proclamation be made during ten days, but that it is suffi cient that the church in which the marriage is to take place requires a proclamation, it is immaterial how many days said proclamation is made in.

For the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold that the defendant-appellant did not violate section 2 of Act No. 3412 in solemnizing the marriage of Pedro N. Cerdeña and Juana S. del Rosario after two proclamations, before ten days were up, the third proclamation having been dispensed with by a competent ecclesiastical authority.

The trial court was also of opinion that the defendant-appellant was bound to investigate whether the license was issued by an



148

offi cial duly authorized by law, that is, by the municipal secretary of the municipality where the woman habitually resides.

The law does not impose this duty upon priests or ministers of religion. It is suffi cient to know that the license has been issued by a competent offi cial, and it may be presumed from the issuance of said license that said offi cial has complied with his duty of ascertaining whether the woman who desires to get married resides habitually in his municipality. (Act No. 190, sec. 334, No. 14.)

Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold, that when a marriage is solemnized by a church, sect, or religion whose rules and practices require proclamation or publicity, it is not necessary that said proclamation be made during ten days, unless said rules or practices so require.

By virtue whereof, the appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendant is absolved from the information, with costs de ofi cio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.

MARRIAGES EXEMPTED FROM LICENSE REQUIREMENT

(a) Marriage in articulo mortis (at the point of death) (Art. 27) ;

(b) Where the residence of one of the parties is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable the party concerned to appear before the local civil registrar (Art. 28);

(c) Marriage among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities Art. 33); and

(d) Marriage between a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least fi ve years and without any legal impediment to marry each other (Art. 34)

149

DOJ OPINION ALLOWING ALIENS TO AVAIL OF ARTICLE 34 OF FAMILY CODE (MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE PROVIDED LIVING TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR 5 YEARS)



Opinion 150, S. 1993

October 28, 1993

Mr. Tomas P. AfricaCivil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceSta. Mesa, Manila

S i r:

This refers to your request for opinion relative to the interpretation of Section 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209 as amended), which provides:

“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least fi ve years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affi davit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing offi cer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifi cations of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

Specifi cally, you inquire as to “whether or not (the foregoing provision) of the Family Code can also be availed of by aliens.”

It appears that on July 28, 1993, Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Arturo U. Barias, Jr., offi ciated “a marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code” between a certain Sy Thiong Shiou, a Chinese national, and Juanita Tan, a Filipino citizen; that Mr. Sy, however, failed to secure a certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage from his Embassy as required under Article 21 of the said Code as well as to apply for a marriage license; and that in reply to a similar query posed by the city Civil Registrar of Manila, you ruled that



150

aliens, who are required under Article 21 of the Family Code to submit a certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage from their respective diplomatic or consular offi cers before a marriage license can be obtained, cannot avail of the provision of Article 34.

It is readily apparent from a reading of the above quoted provision of law that there is no mention of the nationalities of the persons to whom it is applicable. A well-known doctrine in statutory construction states: ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Under this legal principle, there should be no distinction in the application of a statute where none is indicated (Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, 77 Phil. 636). Equally pertinent is the rule that when the law is clear and unequivocal, it is not susceptible to interpretation; the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says (Pascual v. Pascual-Bautista, 207 SCRA 561, citing cases; Sec. of Justice Opns. No. 142, s. 1985, citing cases; No. 8, s. 1993).

The reason behind Article 34 of the Family Code (which substantially reproduces Article 76 of the Civil Code) is to encourage a man and woman living together to legitimate their cohabitation since under normal circumstances, such couple are discouraged from marrying each other owing to the publicity attending the application for, and issuance of, a marriage license. (See Paras, Civil Code, Vol. 1, Fifth Ed., p. 306). We fail to see any cogent reason for denying non-Philippine citizens the salutatory objective of Article 34 in facilitating the ratifi cation of marital cohabitation. The law’s interest in putting in order the social relationship among its citizens should likewise extend to foreigners who reside within its jurisdictional limits. And if one or both of the parties are legally incapacitated to contract marriage, we believe that Article 34 contains suffi cient safeguards against such an occurrence, namely, by requiring the parties to execute an affi davit stating that they are without any legal impediment to marry each other, and requiring the solemnizing offi cer to state under oath that he has ascertained the qualifi cations of the participants and has found no legal obstacle to their marital union.

Premises considered, we believe that Article 34 of the Family Code can be availed of by both Filipino citizens and aliens.

Very truly yours,

FRANKLIN M. DRILONSecretary

151

DANGER OF DEATH DISTINGUISHED FROM POINT OF DEATH-AN ISSUE OF ARTICULO MORTIS BEING EXEMPTED FROM MARRIAGE LICENSE

If a soldier is about to go war, he may be in danger of death, but not at the point of death; hence, a marriage in articulo mortis would not be applicable to him. (Paras, supra).

There can be a valid marriage in articulo mortis even if both parties are at the point of death, provided, of course, that all the essential requisites are present. It is clear that the parties concerned must be conscious of what they are doing.

In marriage in articulo mortis, while it is advisable that a witness to the marriage should sign the dying party’s signature if the latter be physically unable to do so, still if upon order of the solemnizing offi cial, another person should so sign, the marriage is still valid. The law as much as possible intends to give legal effect to a marriage. As a matter of fact, no particular form for a marriage celebration is prescribed. (Cruz vs. Catandes, C.A., 39 O.G. No. 18, p. 324)

WHO CAN PERFORM MARRIAGES IN ARTICULO MORTIS?

It is erroneous to say that only priests, ship captains, airplane chiefs or commanding offi cers are the ones who can perform a marriage in articulo mortis. A justice, a judge can also do so within their respective jurisdictions. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1, p. 414).

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS EVEN IF ONE PARTY DIES ONLY AFTER ONE YEAR.

De Loria, et al. vs. FelixG.R. No. L-9005June 20, 1958

Facts:

Felipe Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz were married without a marriage license due to the pronouncement of the latter’s physician that her illness was incurable and that she is going to die at any time. When she died one year afterwards, the validity of her



152

marriage was attacked on the ground that the marriage was not a marriage in articulo mortis because she was able to recover from her illness, and that the parish priest who solemnized the marriage did not execute an affi davit stating that the marriage was celebrated in articulo mortis.

Issue:

Is the marriage between Felipe and Matea valid?

Ruling:

Yes, the Supreme Court said that the marriage between Felipe and Matea is valid. The fact that Matea was able to recover from her illness is not her fault. In order to classify the marriage as a marriage in articulo mortis, the law does not require that the party who is at the point of death must die immediately after the celebration of marriage. All that is necessary is that the parties, including the priest or solemnizing offi cer, must be convinced that there was an imminent danger of death. This circumstance is obviously present under the facts stated in the problem.

As far as the affi davit is concerned, although it is supposed to be substituted for the marriage license, nevertheless, it must be observed that the execution thereof is a duty that is addressed to the priest or solemnizing offi cer and not to the contracting parties. Failure to execute such affi davit should not, therefore, affect the validity of the marriage. Besides, the law is explicit with regards to the essential requisites of marriage, and certainly, the execution of such affi davit is not one of them.

Any offi cer, priest, or minister who, having solemnized a marriage “in articulo mortis” or any other marriage of an exceptional character (now marriage exempt from license requirement), fails to comply with the provisions of Chapter 11 of this Act, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than two years, or a fi ne of not less than three hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. (Section 42) (N) (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, Rule 70(5), p. 42)

153

AFFIDAVIT TO BE EXECUTED BY SOLEMNIZING OFFICER THAT MARRIAGE WAS PERFORMED IN ARTICULO MORTIS OR THAT RESIDENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES IS SO LOCATED THAT THERE IS NO MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO ENABLE THE PARTY CONCERNED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR

The Family Code states that “In cases provided for in the two preceding articles, the solemnizing offi cer shall state in an affi davit executed before the local civil registrar or any other person legally authorized to administer oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or that the residence of either party, specifying the barrio or barangay, is so situated that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar and that the offi cer took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage.” (Article 29, Family Code).

The affi davit is for the purpose of proving the basis for the exemption from marriage license. Even if there is failure on the part of the solemnizing offi cer to execute the affi davit, such irregularity will not invalidate the marriage for the affi davit is not being required of the parties. (De Loria vs. Felix, L-9005, June 20, 1958, as cited by Paras in Civil Code, Vol. 1, p. 415).

Moreover, the Family Code provides that “The original of the affi davit required in the last preceding article, together with a legible copy of the marriage contract, shall be sent by the person solemnizing the marriage to the local civil registrar of the municipality where it was performed within thirty days after the performance of the marriage.” (Article 30, Family Code).

This requirement is for the simple reason that the local civil registrar keeps the records of marriages taking place in his locality. Thus, he is given the original of the affi davit executed by the person solemnizing the marriage attesting to the fact that he has ascertained the ages, relationship of the parties and the absence of legal impediment. The original of the affi davit takes the place of the marriage license required by law. Failure of the solemnizing offi cer to comply with such requirement does not invalidate the marriage. But said solemnizing offi cer shall be liable for penal liability under Section 42 of Act No. 3613, otherwise known as the Marriage Law.



154

RELIGIOUS RATIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE MARRIAGE LICENSE

Religious is pertaining to or concerned with religion.

Ratifi cation is the act of ratifying, while ratify means to confi rm by expressing consent, approval or formal sanction. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language).

Religious ratifi cation of a valid marriage does not require a marriage license. To be valid, however, religious ratifi cation of marital cohabitation must comply with the following requisites; namely: 1) the man and the woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years before the marriage; 2) the parties have no legal impediment to marry each other; 3) the parties must execute an affi davit stating that they have lived together for at least 5 years; and 4) the solemnizing offi cer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifi cations of the parties and he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.

A fi fth requisite — that is — absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of the marriage, not during the 5-year cohabitation – has already been eliminated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ninal, et al. vs. Norma Bayadog.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WHO HAVE NOT LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AND WITH LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO MARRY EACH OTHER

Ninal, et al. vs. BayadogG.R. No. 133778March 14, 2000

Facts:

Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Out of the wedlock were born the petitioners. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter on December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadog got married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affi davit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least fi ve years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After

155

their father’s death, petitioners fi led a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license. The case was fi led on the ground that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect the petitioners’ successional rights. Norma fi led a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who could fi le an action for annulment of marriage under Article 47 of the Family Code.

Issue:

Whether or not there is legal impediment to the marriage of Pepito with Norma.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that there is a legal impediment to the assailed marriage of Pepito with Norma. The High Court said “that the fi ve-year period should be computed on the basis of cohabitation as husband and wife where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. The fi ve-year common-law cohabitation period should be a legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This fi ve-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party is involved at any time within the fi ve years and continuity — that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous fi ve-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire fi ve years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. The presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse not to comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a pre-conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage.”

The Supreme Court further reasoned out that “at the time Pepito and Norma’s marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least fi ve years prior to their wedding day. From the time Pepito’s fi rst marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with the Norma, only about twenty (20) months had elapsed. Even assuming that Pepito and



156

his fi rst wife had separated in fact and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for fi ve years, the fact remains that their fi ve-year period of cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of marriage contract. Pepito had a subsisting marriage with Teodulfa at the time when he started cohabiting with Norma. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from Teodulfa, his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even where there was actual severance of fi lial relationship between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as husband and wife.”

Therefore, the second marriage not having been covered by the exception to the requirement of marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element.

PROBLEMS ON THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS

(a) Quirico, a 30-year old man married Rowena, a 25-year old woman without a marriage license. But before their marriage, they had already been living together as husband and wife for three years. Is their marriage valid or void?

The marriage is void because they had lived together as husband and wife only for three years. The law requires that they should live together as husband and wife for at least fi ve years.

(b) Norma, a 35-year old man had been living for fi ve years with Zeta, a 17-year old girl as husband and wife. They appeared before Patricio to have their marriage solemnized with an affi davit attesting to the fact that they had already lived together as husband and wife for at least fi ve years. Do you think that they can validly get married without a marriage license?

No, Norma and Zeta cannot validly get married. Although they had already lived together as husband

157

and wife for at least fi ve years, Zeta is incapacitated to contract a valid marriage because she is still a minor. Therefore, there is a legal impediment to their marriage.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON MARITAL COHABITATION OF AT LEAST FIVE (5) YEARS

Tomasa Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, et al.G.R. No. 135216August 19, 1999

Facts:

Tomasa Vda. de Jacob was married to Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob without a marriage license invoking Article 76 of the Civil Code (now Article 34 of the Family Code). When her husband died, she was appointed Special Administrator for the various estates of her late husband.

During the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of her late husband, Pedro Pilapil who claimed to be a legally adopted son of the deceased sought to intervene claiming his share of the estate as his sole surviving heir. Pedro Pilapil questioned the validity of the marriage between Tomasa and his alleged adopted father Alfredo on the ground that their marriage was celebrated without a marriage license and the reconstructed marriage contract seemed to suggest that it had been fraudulently obtained.

Issue:

Was the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo valid?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo was valid. The Court stated that Pedro’s argument that the marriage was void for lack of marriage license is misplaced because it had been established that Tomasa and Alfredo had lived together as husband and wife for at least fi ve (5) years. An affi davit to this effect was executed by Tomasa and Alfredo. Thus, the marriage was exceptional in character and did not require a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil Code (now Article 34 of the Family Code).

On the second ground relied upon by Pedro, the Supreme Court said that the marriage certifi cate is not the only proof of the union



158

between Tomasa and Alfredo. It has been held in a long line of cases decided by the Court that marriage may be proven by competent and relevant evidence. Testimony by one of the parties to the marriage; or by one of the witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage. The person who offi ciated at the solemnization of the marriage is also competent to testify as an eyewitness to the fact of marriage.

Although the marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented to prove the marriage. Pedro misplaces emphasis on the absence of an entry in the Books of Marriage of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and in the National Census and Statistics Offi ce (now National Statistics Offi ce). He fi nds it quite bizarre for Tomasa to have waited for three years before registering their marriage.

On both counts, Pedro proceeds from a wrong premise. In the fi rst place, failure to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate for record purposes does not invalidate the marriage. In the second place, it was not Tomasa’s duty to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate to the Civil Registrar.

“Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — always presume marriage.” The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in our country is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intention of the law leans toward legalizing marriage. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by the Rules of Court is that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Given the undisputed fact that T and A have lived together as husband and wife, the presumption is that they are validly married.

159

VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE AMONG MUSLIMS

Problem:

Tingcap and Sorayda are both Muslims. They got married, with Judge Guerrero as the solemnizing offi cer. The marriage was solemnized at the Judge’s chamber but in accordance with the Christian rites. There was no marriage license. Is the marriage between Tingcap and Sorayda valid?

No, the marriage between Tingcap and Sorayda is not valid. The law provides that marriages between Muslims may be solemnized without marriage license provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites and practices. (Article 33, Family Code) Since the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Christian rites, the marriage is void for lack of a marriage license.

However, the Courts cannot take judicial notice of Muslim rites and customs for marriage. They must be alleged and proved in court. (People vs. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246)

MARRIAGE WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE AMONG INDI- GENOUS PEOPLE (IP)

This provision is but consistent with the constitutional provision which provides that “the State shall recognize, respect, and protect the rights of indigenous communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of national plans and policies.” (Article XIV, Section 17, 1987 Constitution)

Rule 2.12 Certifi cate of Marriage

The prescribed form used for the declaration of facts and circumstances regarding the marriage of two persons for purposes of registration. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)

NOTE:

Marriage Certifi cate (Municipal Form 97, Revised January 1993) is not an essential requisite of marriage. (Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil.). The best documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract or the marriage certifi cate. (See Villanueva vs.



160

Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 472 (1991) Thus an oral solemnization of the marriage is valid. Failure to sign the marriage contract does not invalidate the marriage. (De Loria, et al. vs. Felix, 5 O.G. 8114). (As cited by Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 15th Edition, p. 390)

Marriage certifi cate must not be confused with marriage license, the latter being as essential requisite of marriage.

The marriage certifi cate is the marriage contract itself. Aside from the personal circumstances of the contracting parties being stated therein, this document which is a contract itself, has to be signed by the contracting parties, their witnesses, at least two, who should be of legal age, and the solemnizing offi cer who shall also state his authority and offi cial rank or position in the sect he represents.

However, the marriage certifi cate is not an essential requirement of valid marriage (Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1). Thus, it was held that an oral marriage contract is suffi cient. And even where the parties failed to sign the marriage contract does not invalidate the marriage. (De Loria, et al. vs. Felix, 5 O.G. 8114) (Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Marcelino T. Lizaso, 1989 Edition, pp. 43-44) The marriage is also valid, whether or not the marriage certifi cate is sealed with the offi cial seal of the solemnizing offi cer. (People vs. Yu, et al. C.A. 52 O.G. 4703 as cited in the book of Marcelino T. Lizaso, Family Code of the Philippines Explained, 1989 Edition, p. 44)

Any offi cer, priest, or minister failing to deliver to either of the contracting parties one of the copies of the marriage contract (now Certifi cate of Marriage) or to forward the other copy to the authorities within the period fi xed by law for said purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than one month, or by a fi ne of not more than three hundred pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. (Section 41)(N) (Administrative Order No.1 Series of 1993, Rule 70(4), p. 42)

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE

Like a baptismal certifi cate, the marriage certifi cate proves only the administration of the sacraments to the subject thereof, not the veracity of the statements made therein with respect to relationship. (Macadangdang vs. C.A., 100 SCRA 73) (Marcelino T. Lizaso, Family Code of the Philippines Explained, 1989 Edition, p. 44)

161

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE TO SIGN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT

EN BANC[G.R. No. L-9005, June 20, 1958]

ARSENIO DE LORIA and RICARDA DE LORIA, petitioner, vs. FELIPE APELAN FELIX, respondent.

Guido Advincula and Nicanor Lapuz for petitioners.Nicodemus L. Dasig for respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. MARRIAGE IN ARTICULO MORTIS; LACK OF AFFIDAVIT AND NON-REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE. — In the celebration of the marriage in articulo mortis, where all the requisites for its validity were present, the marriage is not voided by the of the failure priest to make and fi le the affi davit required in sections 20 and 21 of the Marriage Law and to register said marriage in the local civil registry.

2. ID.; FAILURE TO SIGN MARRIAGE CONTRACT; EFFECT OF. — Signing of the marriage contract is a formal requirement of evidentiary value, the omission of which does not render the marriage a nullity.

D E C I S I O N

BENGZON, J. p:

Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, involving the central issue of the validity of the marriage in articulo mortis between Matea de la Cruz and Felipe Apelan Felix.

It appears that long before, and during the War of the Pacifi c, these two persons lived together as wife and husband at Cabrera Street, Pasay City. They acquired properties but had no children. In the early part of the liberation of Manila and surrounding territory, Matea became seriously ill. Knowing her critical condition, two young ladies of legal age dedicated to the service of God, named Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vicarra visited and persuaded her to go to confession. They fetched Father Gerardo Bautista, Catholic parish priest of Pasay. The latter, upon learning that the penitent had been living with Felipe Apelan Felix without benefi t of marriage, asked



162

both parties to ratify their union according to the rites of his Church. Both agreed. Whereupon the priest heard the confession of the bed-ridden old woman, gave her Holy Communion, administered the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and then solemnized her marriage with Felipe Apelan Felix in articulo mortis, Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra acting as sponsors or witnesses. It was then January 29 or 30, 1945.

After a few months, Matea recovered from her sickness; but death was not to be denied, and in January 1946, she was interred in Pasay, the same Fr. Bautista performing the burial ceremonies.

On May 12, 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria fi led this complaint to compel defendant to render an accounting and to deliver the properties left by the deceased. They are grandchildren of Adriana de la Cruz, sister of Matea, and claim to be the only surviving forced heirs of the latter. Felipe Apelan Felix resisted the action, setting up his rights as widower. They obtained favorable judgment in the court of fi rst instance, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint.

Their request for review here was given due course principally to consider the legal question-which they amply discussed in their petition and printed brief — whether the events which took place in January 1945 constituted, in the eyes of the law, a valid and binding marriage.

According to the Court of Appeals:

“There is no doubt at all in the mind of this Court, that Fr. Gerardo Bautista, solemnized the marriage in articulo mortis of Defendant Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz, on January 29 and 30, 1945, under the circumstances set forth in the reverend’s testimony in court. Fr. Bautista, a respectable old priest of Pasay City then, had no reason to side one or the other. . . . Notwithstanding this positive evidence on the celebration or performance of the marriage in question, Plaintiffs-Appellees contend that the same was not in articulo mortis, because Matea de la Cruz was not then on the point of death. Fr. Bautista clearly testifi ed, however, that her condition at the time was bad; she was bed-ridden; and according to his observation, she might die at any moment (Exhibit 1), so apprehensive was he about her condition that he decided in administering to her the sacrament of extreme unction, after hearing her confession. . . . . The greatest objection of the Appellees and the trial court

163

against the validity of the marriage under consideration, is the admitted fact that it was not registered.’

The applicable legal provisions are contained in the Marriage Law of 1929 (Act No. 3613) as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 114 (Nov. 1936) specially sections 1, 3, 20 and 21.

There is no question about the offi ciating priest’s authority to solemnize marriage. There is also no question that the parties had legal capacity to contract marriage, and that both declared before Fr. Bautista and Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra that “they took each other as husband and wife.”

The appellants’ contention of invalidity rests on these propositions:

(a) There was no “marriage contract” signed by the wedded couple the witnesses and the priest, as required by section 3 of the Marriage Law; and

(b) The priest fi led no affi davit nor recorded the marriage with local civil registry.

The factual basis of the fi rst proposition — no signing — may seriously be doubted. The Court of Appeals made no fi nding thereon. Indeed if anything, its decision impliedly held such marriage contract to have been executed, since it said “the marriage in articulo mortis was a fact”, and the only question at issue was whether “the failure of Fr. Bautista to send copies of the certifi cate of marriage in question to the Local Civil Registrar and to register the said marriage in the Record of Marriages of the Pasay Catholic Church . . . renders the said marriage invalid.” And such was the only issue tendered in the court of fi rst instance. (See p. 14, 34, Record on Appeal.)

However, we may as well face this second issue: Does the failure to sign the “marriage certifi cate or contract” constitute a cause for nullity?

Marriage contract is the “instrument in triplicate” mentioned in sec. 3 of the Marriage Law which provides:

“Sec. 3. 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,



164

signed by signature or mark by the contracting parties and said two witnesses and attested by the person solemnizing the marriage . . . (Emphasis ours).

In the fi rst place, the Marriage Law itself, in sections 28, 29 and 30 enumerates the causes for annulment of marriage. Failure to sign the marriage contract is not one of them.

In the second place, bearing in mind that the “essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent” (section 1), the latter being manifested by the declaration of “the parties” “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” — which in this case actually occurred. We think the signing of the marriage contract or certifi cate was required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the act. No statutory provision or court ruling has been cited making it an essential requisite — not the formal requirement of evidentiary value, which we believe it is. The fact of marriage is one thing; the proof by which it may be established is quite another.

“Certifi cate and Record. — Statutes relating to the solemnization of marriage usually provide for the issuance of a certifi cate of marriage . . . and for the registration or recording of marriage . . . Generally speaking, the registration or recording of a marriage is not essential to its validity, the statute being addressed to the offi cials issuing the license, certifying the marriage, and making the proper return and registration or recording.” (Sec. 27 American Jurisprudence “Marriage” pp. 197-198.)

“Formal Requisites. — . . . The general rule, however, is that statutes which direct that a license must be issued and procured, that only certain persons shall perform the ceremony, that a certain number of witnesses shall be present, that a certifi cate of the marriage shall be signed, returned, and recorded, and that persons violating the conditions shall be guilty of a criminal offense, are addressed to persons in authority to secure publicity and to require a record to be made of the marriage contract. Such statutes do not void common-law marriages unless they do so expressly, even where such marriage are entered into without obtaining a license and are not recorded. It is the purpose of these statutes to discourage deception, prevent illicit intercourse under the guise of

165

matrimony, and relieve from doubt the status of parties who live together as man and wife, by providing competent evidence of the marriage. . . .” (Section 15 American Jurisprudence “Marriage” pp. 188-189.) Emphasis Ours. (See also Corpus Juris Secundum “Marriage” Sec. 33.)

And our law says, “No marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several formal requirements of this Act . . .” (Section 27.)

In the third place, the law, imposing on the priest the duty to furnish to the parties copies of such marriage certifi cate (section 16) and punishing him for its omission (section 41) implies his obligation to see that such “certifi cate” is executed accordingly. Hence, it would not be fair to visit upon the wedded couple in the form of annulment, Father Bautista’s omission, if any, which apparently had been caused by the prevailing disorder during the liberation of Manila and its environs.

Identical remarks apply to the priest’s failure to make and fi le the affi davit required by sections 20 and 21. It was the priest’s obligation; non-compliance with it, should bring no serious consequences to the married pair, specially where as in this case, it was caused by the emergency.

“The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff’s natural father and mother, while the latter was in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate to the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certifi cate not being one of the requisites.” (Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179.) See also Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1.

The law permits in articulo mortis marriages, without marriage license; but it requires the priest to make the affi davit and fi le it. Such affi davit contains the data usually required for the issuance of a marriage license. The fi rst practically substitutes the latter. Now then, if a marriage celebrated without the license is not voidable (under Act 3613), this marriage should not also be voidable for lack of such affi davit.

In line with the policy to encourage the legalization of the union of men and women who have lived publicly in a state of concubinage, section 22), we must hold this marriage to be valid.



166

The widower, needless to add, has better rights to the estate of the deceased than the plaintiffs who are the grandchildren of her sister Adriana. “In the absence of brothers or sisters and of nephews, children of the former, . . . the surviving spouse . . . shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.” (Art. 952, Civil Code.)

Wherefore, the Court of Appeals’ decision is affi rmed, with costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

OCRG’S CIRCULAR REQUIRING THAT CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE FOREIGNER’S DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICIALS



Circular No. 93-203 March 1993

To : All Regional Administrators/Provincial Statistics Offi cers/District Statistics Coordination Offi cers/Assistant Statistics Coordination Offi cers/City and Municipal Civil Registrars

Subject : CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO CON-TRACT MARRIAGE SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE FOREIGNER’S DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OF-FICIALS

This offi ce has been receiving complaints from foreign embassies about issuance of marriage license by some city/municipal civil registrars to their nationals in violation of Article 21 of the Family Code which provides:

“Art. 21. When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular offi cials.

167

Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall in lieu of the certifi cate of legal capacity herein required, submit an affi davit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage.”

For the information and guidance of all concerned parties, here are the relevant opinions and comments of authorities on the matter:

1. The capacity of a foreigner to get married in the Philippines is governed by his national law, a foreign law, so that our government offi ces and courts cannot take judicial notice of said law. Hence, if he applies for a marriage license to be able to get married in the Philippines, he is required to present a certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage from the embassy or consular offi ce of his country in the Philippines since they are the ones who know the national law of said foreigner and whether he has capacity to marry under said law. (Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, 1991, p. 22)

2. A divorced foreigner can be issued a marriage license to marry again in the Philippines provided he can present the certifi cate above mentioned, which means that his divorce is recognized by his own country. (Ibidem).

3. The certifi cate of legal capacity should be issued by dip-lomatic offi cials (Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Envoy Ex-traordinary, Resident Minister, and Charge d’ Affairs) and consular offi cials (Consul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul and Consular Agent). (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, 1984, p. 289).

4. Generally, foreigners can marry in the Philippines, if allowed by their national law. However, even if allowed by their respective national laws, and even if granted a certifi cate of legal capacity still foreigners will not be allowed to get married here if (a) the marriage will be immoral, bigamous, or polygamous, or (b) the marriage will be universally considered incestuous. A marriage is universally considered incestuous if it is between ascendants and descendants (whether legitimate or illegitimate) in any degree, or it is in the collateral line (between brothers and sisters of the full or half-blood, and whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate.). (Ibidem).

5. A marriage license secured in violation of Art. 66 of the Civil Code (now, Art. 21 of the Family Code) is a void license. The



168

corollary therefore must be that the marriage does not become valid at all. Since the evidence clearly showed that the issuance of the marriage license was vitiated with fraud and grossly violative of Art. 66 of the Civil Code, the court has no other alternative but to declare said marriage null and void “ab initio” (Carino vs. Macapagal, Civil Case No. 2619, CFI of Pampanga, citing People vs. Merle C. Whipkey, CA-G, R. No. 12590-Cr. Feb. 6, 1973).

6. In view of the expressed prohibition for American Consular Offi cers under the Foreign Service Regulations of the U.S.A. to certify as to the status or capacity to marry of persons domiciled in the U.S.A wishing to be married abroad, the condition imposed under Sec. 13, par. 3 of Act 3613 (now, Article 21 of the Family Code) becomes impossible to perform. The situation thus created is analogous to one where the country of the alien applicant has no consular offi cer in the Philippines. Therefore in both cases, the condition imposed by law becomes impossible to perform. Since the legal requirement has become impossible for literal compliance, the general principles of law may be resorted to in order to attain the purpose of the law (Art. 6 of Civil Code). With respect to the provision requiring the presentation of the baptismal or birth certifi cates of the contracting parties, the law allows in lieu thereof, a sworn declaration of two witnesses and totally dispense with the requirement under certain conditions. By analogy, it is believed therefore, that affi davits of the citizens of the U.S.A. who are parties to a proposed marriage, executed before the Consul of the U.S.A. may be accepted in lieu of the certifi cates of legal capacity to marry. (Unnumbered Opinion, Secretary of justice, Oct. 5, 1946).

7. In the instant case, Taiwan has no diplomatic or consular offi ce in the Philippines in view of the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries. However, we are informed that cooperation in the fi elds of economic, trade, cultural and scientifi c matters between Taiwan and the Philippines is made possible through Taiwan’s Pacifi c Economic and Cultural Center (PECC) in the Philippines, and our own Asian Exchange Center, Inc. (ASECTAI) in Taipei. We are also informed that PECC extends assistance to Taiwanese nationals on matters involving their private affairs.

In view of the foregoing, it is believed that the certifi cation as to the civil status of Mr. Stephen Cheung Zoo issued by the Pacifi c Economic and Cultural Center would be suffi cient compliance with the requirement provided for in Article 66 of the Civil Code). (Opinion No. 112, S. 1989, Secretary of Justice).

169

8. A British citizen who wishes to contract marriage in the Philippines shall present to the Consular Section of the British Embassy a Certifi cate of No Impediment (CNI) issued by Local Registrar of Marriages in the United Kingdom. (The Registrar requires the applicant for CNI to appear personally before him, and the notice of marriage will have to be posted on his notice board for 22 days before issuing a CNI.) Based on the CNI issued by the Registrar of Marriages in the United Kingdom, the Consular Section of the British Embassy in Manila will issue the certifi cate of No Impediment to a British citizen who wishes to contract marriage in the Philippines.

In case the British citizen is unable to obtain CNI from the Registrar of Marriage in the United Kingdom before arriving in the Philippines, he shall comply with the formalities laid down in the “Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906”. This Act requires the British citizen to reside in the Philippines for “21 clear days” before the Consular Section is permitted to accept the notice of his intended marriage and this period of residence must be immediately prior to acceptance of the notice.

“21 clear days” means that the Consular Section cannot count the day the British citizen arrives in the Philippines or the day he submits the notice of intention to marry; so the date he submits the notice to the Consular Section should be at least, the 23rd day he has been residing in the Philippines.

When the British citizen gives notice of his intended marriage, he will be required to swear an affi davit before the Consular Offi cer to the effect that he is not aware of any impediment to the marriage. The notice of marriage will then be displayed in a public place in the British Embassy for a further “21 clear days” (excluding the day he swears the affi davit). The CNI may be issued the day after the 21 clear day period has elapsed.

To complete this CNI process, the British citizen must therefore have been in the Philippines for a minimum of 45 days. (British Embassy, Manila, 14 September 1988).

9. Stateless person, refugee or a citizen of a country which does not have embassy or consulate in the Philippines shall execute an affi davit before a person authorized to administer oath stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage and shall submit the same to the concerned civil registrar in lieu of the certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage.



170

10. In case of doubt as to the authenticity of the certifi cate/affi davit of legal capacity submitted by a foreigner, the city/municipal civil registrar is reminded that this document is always written in English and in the letterhead of the concerned embassy impressed with its dry or wet seal.



OCRG’S MEMORANDUM FOR LCRs TO REQUIRE AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS


National Statistics Offi ceEDSA corner Times St,

West Triangle, Quezon City

Ref. No. 01CRD00-280

24 September 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CERTIFICATE OF LE-

GAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS

For your information and guidance, we are providing you the following:

1. Sample copy of the affi davit in lieu of certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage issued by the U.S. Embassy for American citizens who may wish to contract marriage under Philippine law; and

2. Information sheet on marriage of American citizens in the Philippines.

(SGD.) CARLITO B. LALICON Director III

171

Copy furnished:

Regional Directors Provincial Statistics Offi cers District/Statistical Offi cers

SAMPLE OF AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE ISSUED BY U.S. EMBASSY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS

Embassy of the United States of AmericaManila, Philippines

AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITYTO CONTRACT MARRIAGE FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS

Republic of the Philippines )City of Manila )Embassy of the United States of America )

Before me ______________, a Vice Consul of the United States of America in and for the consular district of Manila, Republic of the Philippines, duly commissioned and qualifi ed, personally appeared the undersigned U.S. citizen who being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is _________________, of legal age, and I am citizen of the Unites States of America;

2. I hold U.S. passport # ________, issued on ____________, at ______________:

3. I am a legal resident of (state) _______________________;

4. My address while in the Philippine is_________________________________________;

5. _______ I have never been married;OR

_______ I have been married _____ times previously. All previous marriages have been legally terminated;

6. There is no legal impediment to my marriage to_____________________________

(Fiancé/fi ancée name)

(Signature)



172

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on ____________________________

___________________________

Vice Consul of theUnited States of America

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NOTE: The Embassy assumes nor responsibility for the contents or the accuracy of the information provided in this document. This document is not a marriage license, nor does not constitute evidence of a bona fi de relationship for purposes of immigration to the US

MARRIAGE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES

DISCLAIMER: The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of the Philippines is provided for general information only. Questions involving interpretation of specifi c Philippines laws should be addressed to Philippine Legal Counsel.

Any foreigner who wishes to marry in the Philippines is required by the Philippine Government to obtain from his/her Embassy a “Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage” before fi ling an application for a marriage license. The Government also accepts an Affi davit in Lieu of a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract marriage. A citizens of the United States may execute this affi davit at the American Embassy in Manila or the Consular Agency in Cebu. Personal appearance cannot be waived. The American Embassy is located at 1201 Roxas Boulevard, Manila telephone (63) (2) 523-1001-x 2246/2530.

Applicants may apply for the “Affi davit in Lieu of a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage” at the Embassy’s American Citizens Services Branch everyday, from Monday to Friday (except Philippine and American holidays) between 7:30AM to 8:30AM only. Americans may also obtain this affi davit at the U.S. Consular Agency in Cebu, 3rd Floor, PCI Bank Bldg., Gorordo Avenue, Lahug, Cebu City-tel. no. (63)(32) 231-1261. The American must present his/her U.S. passport. There is a fee of $55.00 for the affi davit.

173

Philippine authorities will not accept any substitute document initiated in the United States. The Affi davit is issued as a notarial act by the U.S. consular offi cer and as such, the consular offi cer is authorized by Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 92, (b, to refuse to perform the service if the document in connection with which the notarial act is requested will be used for a purpose patently unlawful, improper, or inimical to the best interest of the United States. Entering into a marriage contract with an alien strictly for the purpose of enabling to the United States for that individual is considered an unlawful act. Section 4221 of Title 22 United States code provides penalties for individuals who commit perjury in an affi davit taken by a consular offi cer.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR U.S. MILITARY PERSON-NEL

U.S. military personnel should contact their personnel offi ce regarding DOD joint service regulations.

THE MARRIAGE APPLICATION PROCESS

Once American citizen has obtained from the Embassy an “Affi davit in Lieu of a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Marry”, he/she can fi le an application for a marriage license at the offi ce of the Philippine Civil Registrar in the town or city where one of the parties is a resident. The U.S. citizen applicant will need to present:

— the affi davit;

— divorce decree(s) or death certifi cate(s) required to verify civil status and capacity to marry;

— U.S. passport;

— Documentation regarding paternal consent or advice, if applicable.

Marriage applicants age 18 to 21 must have written parental consent. Those age 22 to 24 must have received parental advice. Philippine law prohibits marriage for individuals below 18 years old. The marriage can be performed by a judge, a minister or other person authorized by the Government of the Philippines.

Marriages to a U.S. citizen confer neither citizenship nor an automatic eligibility for entry to the United States. If the U.S. citizen does not reside in the Philippines, the Petition for Immigrant Visa



174

(I-130) must be fi led through the Immigration and Naturalization Service offi ce in the United States.

Any questions about fi ling an immigrant visa petition to bring the spouse to the United States should be directed to the nearest offi ce of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department’s Visas Offi ce (202) 663-1225 or, while in the Philippines to the American Embassy in Manila.

ALTERNATIVE TO MARRIAGE ABROAD

Instead of the procedures presented above, it is possible to fi le a petition for an alien to enter the United States as the fi ancé (e) of an American citizen. This enables the parties to marry in the United States. American fi ancé (e) should contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service Offi ce nearest their residence for further information.

MARCELO M. ORENSEExecutive Director


15 April 1987MMO * CBL * RCA

THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF MARRIAGE

Under the rules of evidence, the best evidence of the marriage is the marriage certifi cate. But this is not the only proof, because the testimony of the witnesses may be admitted on this point. (U.S. vs. Memoracion, 34 Phil. 633) The sponsors to the marriage and the other persons, who attended the celebration, are vital witnesses that can testify on the existence of the marriage (See: People vs. Alday, 59 O.G. 411).

The best proof of the marriage is, of course, the marriage certifi cate. But this is not the only proof. The declaration of one of the parties to the marriage, as well as the persons who were present at its celebration, are competent proof of marriage. Public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged marriage, birth and baptismal certifi cates of children borne by the alleged spouses, and a statement of such marriage in subsequent documents are likewise

175

competent evidence to prove the fact of marriage. The marriage will be presumed to be valid and regular and will not be set aside on the inability of the priest who solemnized the marriage and one of the parties to remember what was said during the ceremony, especially if this was followed by long cohabitation. Every intendment of law or fact leans the validity of marriage. (See Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and Jurisprudence, With the Family Code, Vol. 1, pp. 258-259)

EFFECT OF FAILURE OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER (PRIEST) TO SEND CERTIFICATE TO LCR’S OFFICE

The mere fact that the priest who solemnized a marriage failed to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate to the local civil registrar does not invalidate the marriage, if it does not appear that the essential requisites required by law for its validity were lacking; and the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certifi cate is not one of the said essential requisites. (Tolentino, supra, p. 258)

FAILURE TO SIGN OR ISSUE CERTIFICATE

The signing of a formal contract or certifi cate of marriage is not essential to the validity of the marriage, so long as the consent of the parties to take each other as husband and wife has been given in the presence of the solemnizing offi cer and at least two witnesses of legal age. The certifi cate is merely of evidentiary value, and failure to sign the same does not render the marriage a nullity. The consent can be proved by other competent evidence, such as the testimony of the solemnizing offi cer, of the parties themselves, of the witnesses to the marriage, and of others present at the wedding.

Even the failure of the solemnizing offi cer to have the marriage certifi cate executed and issued, would merely a defect or irregularity in a formal requirement (the ceremony) and will not invalidate the marriage, which is legally completed by the exchange of consent of the parties. (Tolentino, supra, pp. 241-242)



176

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE WHERE A MAN AND A WOMAN LIVING IN MARITAL RELATIONS UNDER THE SAME ROOF BE LEGALLY PRESUMED A LEGITIMATE SPOUSES

U.S. vs. Memoracion, et al.G.R. No. 11371August 1, 1916

Facts:

Cecilia Memoracion and Dalmacio Uri were charged and convicted of the crime of adultery, the former being married to Eustaquio Abrigo and the latter appears to have knowledge that the former is married. Both appealed the decision alleging several errors committed by the court below. One of the assigned errors Cecilia and Dalmacio imputed to the trial court was its fi nding that there is a legal presumption of the existence of the marriage between Cecilia and Eustaquio.

Issue:

Is there a legal presumption that a man and a woman living in marital relations under the same roof are legitimate spouses?

Ruling:

Yes, according to the Supreme Court there is a legal presumption that a man and woman living together in marital relations under the same roof are legitimate spouses. Evidence showed that they deported themselves as husband and wife, and therefore there is a legal presumption that they have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. A man and a woman who are living in marital relations under the same roof are presumed to be legitimate spouses, united by virtue of a legal marriage contract and this presumption can only be rebutted by suffi cient evidence to the contrary.

Based on the above considerations, the Supreme Court affi rmed the conviction of both Cecilia and Dalmacio for the crime of adultery.

There is in fact a presumption in the Rules of Evidence that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage (Rule 131, Sec. 5). But this presumption may be rebutted by evidence

177

showing that the marriage did not take place. (See: Fernandez vs. Puatder, L-10071, Oct. 31, 1957)

However, in the case of Silva, et al. vs. Peralta (L-13144, Nov. 25, 1960) it was shown that there was no proof of the alleged marriage, between the man and the woman, except the testimony of the woman and her counsel and the fact of their cohabitation. It was shown also that at one time, the girl stated that she was “common-law-wife” of the man, and at another time in affi davit she also alleged that she was “single”. And the testimony was even not clear as to who solemnized the alleged marriage. The court held that no marriage took place. (Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Marcelino T. Lizaso, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, Central Law Book Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 44-46)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASES WHERE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER FAILED TO SEND COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE TO LCRO

Tugeda vs. Trias, et al.L-16925, March 31, 1962

Facts:

The existence of a marriage was the issue involved in this case. No record of the alleged marriage existed in the record of marriages in the municipality where it was alleged to have been celebrated. Moreover, the solemnizing offi cer allegedly failed to send a copy of the marriage certifi cate to the civil registry. Upon the other hand, the fact of marriage was sought to be established by the following:

(a) The testimony of the justice of the peace who solemnized the marriage.

(b) The living together of the parties as husband and wife for 18 years.

(c) A project of partition (of property) signed by their children and the children of one by a prior marriage stating that they the children of the second and the fi rst marriages respectively of the deceased spouses.



178

Held:

The marriage existed, in view of the proofs presented. Incidentally, the failure of the solemnizing offi cer to send copy of the marriage certifi cate is not a fatal defect, the certifi cate not being a essential requisite for marriage. (as cited by Paras, Civil Code in the Philippines Annotated, Fifteenth Edition 2002, Vol. 1, pp. 390-391)

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE WHERE PARISH PRIEST’S FAILURE TO EXECUTE AFFIDAVIT THAT MARRIAGE WAS CELEBRATED IN ARTICULO MORTIS

De Loria, et al. vs. FelixG.R. No. L-9005June 20, 1958

Facts:

Felipe Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz were married without a marriage license due to the pronouncement of the latter’s physician that her illness was incurable and that she was going to die at any time. When she died one afterwards, the validity of her marriage was challenged on the ground that the marriage was not a marriage in articulo mortis because she was able to recover from her illness, and that the parish priest who solemnized the marriage did not execute an affi davit stating that the marriage was celebrated in articulo mortis.

Issue:

Is the marriage between Felipe and Matea valid despite the failure of the parish priest solemnizing it to execute an affi davit?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court said that the marriage between Felipe and Matea is valid. As far as the affi davit is concerned, although it is supposed to be substituted for the marriage license, nevertheless, it must be observed that the execution thereof is a duty that is addressed to the person solemnizing the marriage. Failure to execute such affi davit should not therefore affect the validity of the marriage. Besides, the law is explicit with regards to the essential requisites of marriage,

179

and certainly, the execution of such affi davit is not one of them.

NUMBER OF COPIES OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES TO BE ACCOMPLISHED FOR DISTRIBUTION

It shall be the duty of the person concerned to accomplish and send four (4) copies of the Certifi cate of Marriage to the civil registrar for registration. After the registration, the civil registrar shall distribute copies of the document bearing the civil registry number within fi ve (5) days from receipt thereof as follows: fi rst copy to the contracting parties; second copy to the offi ce of the Civil Registrar General; third copy shall be retained for fi lling and the fourth copy to the solemnizing offi cer. (Rule 43, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993).

The Solemnizing Offi cer has the duty to report the marriage to the offi ce of the Civil Registrar where the marriage was solemnized. (Rule 42, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, p. 25)

Marriage Certifi cate requires information on both the groom and the bride. All entries pertaining to the groom should be entered in the column under ‘husband’ while entries for the bride, in the column under ‘wife’. Each respective column should contain the names of the contracting party, age, nationality, place of residence, civil status (single, widowed or divorced), parents’ names and their nationalities, and the names and addresses of the witnesses. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983, p. 19).

CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE AMONG MUSLIMS AND ITS ATTACHMENTS

In the registration of marriage of Muslim Filipinos, the marriage record consists of the Certifi cate of Marriage (COM) and attachment. The COM shall be accomplished following the procedures provided in the Manual of Instructions: Accomplishment and Coding of Civil Registry Forms. The attachment shall be used if in the certifi cation portion, the box provided for P.D. 1083 was checked. (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2005, p. 24).

The person offi ciating the marriage shall indicate in the Certifi cate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, revised January 1993) that said marriage was solemnized in accordance with P.D. No. 1083, and fi ll up the attachment to the Certifi cate of Marriage with the



180

following information: amount of mahr (dowry); fi rst or subsequent marriage; tafwid, if granted and such other stipulations. The Certifi cate of Marriage and the attachment shall be permanently kept together and shall constitute the record of marriage.

The Certifi cate of Marriage shall be prepared in fi ve (5) copies and shall be distributed by the Circuit Registrar, or by the C/MCR, as the case shall may be, as follows: fi rst copy to the contracting parties; second copy to the Civil Registrar General (CRG); third copy to the Circuit Registrar/C/MCR; the fourth copy to the District Registrar if marriage was registered at the Shari’a Court; and the fi fth copy to the solemnizing offi cer. (Rule 9, Administrative Order No.1, Series of 2005, p. 8).

MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (IPs)

The person authorized to solemnize marriage, or in his default the C/MCR, shall indicate on the remarks portion of the Certifi cate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, Revised January 1993) that said marriage was solemnized in accordance with ICCs/IPs customary laws of either contracting party.

Upon receiving the Certifi cate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, Revised January 1993), the C/MCR shall require the informant to accomplish or to give the following data in accomplishment of Municipal Form No. 97 Attachment IP Form No. 3: ethnic affi liation of contracting parties, marriage order, amount of dowry and other stipulations to the marriage.

The Municipal Form 97 and the attachment thereto shall be permanently kept together and shall constitute the record of marriage of ICCs/IPs. (Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004, p. 18)

Attachments must be fi lled up in case the marriage was solemnized in accordance with RA 8371. (The IPRA LAW) (Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004)

Rule 2.13 Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM)

A certifi cate issued to SO certifying the registration of his authority to solemnize marriage after complying with the requirements. This certifi cate indicates that the SO is authorized

181

to solemnize marriages under his territorial jurisdiction within the period specifi ed.

The CRASM shall be valid for a period of three years and shall expire on the thirty-fi rst day of December of every third year, and shall be renewable within the last quarter of the expiration year. The effectivity date of the authority to solemnize marriage shall be indicated in the CRASM.

Rule 2.14 Register of Solemnizing Offi cers

The registry book which contains the information pertaining to the registration of SOs.

NOTE:

The repository of the registration of the authority to solemnize marriage is the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. Article 7, par. 2 of the Family Code provides: “Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the Civil Registrar General, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing offi cer’s church or religious sect;…”

The above-cited provision clearly states that the authority of the solemnizing offi cer to solemnize marriage is granted by the church or religious sect to which he belongs, and not by the State through the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. The law only requires that such authority to solemnize marriage be registered with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General in order to protect public interest.

It is well-settled in our country that the protection and promotion of public interest is one of the paramount concerns of the State. Marriage certainly involves public interest because it is the foundation of the family, and as such it is an inviolable and basic social institution. “The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is also a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested.” (Perido vs. Perido, 63 SCRA 97, as cited in Tomasa vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999)

Thus, under its sovereign police power, the State requires that authority to solemnize marriage of the solemnizing offi cers granted



182

by their church or religious sects be registered with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General as a measure of promotion and protection of public interest.

Pursuant to the mandate of Article 7, par. 2 of the Family Code, the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General shall maintain a Register of Solemnizing Offi cers issued with Certifi cates of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM). (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act No. 3753 and other laws on Civil Registration, p. 6)

Rule 2.15 Territorial Jurisdiction

A well-defi ned but delimited area or place where a SO can validly offi ciate a marriage. The area or place may be the whole Philippines, or only part thereof, such as a region, province, congressional district, or a diocese.

NOTE:

Territory is pertaining to, associated with, or restricted to a particular territory or district.

Jurisdiction — The territory over which authority is exercised (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language).

The territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing offi cers refers to a defi ned but limited area or place where the solemnizing offi cer can validly offi ciate a marriage. The area or place may be the whole Philippines or only a province or a diocese.

Rule 2.16 Place of Solemnization of Marriage

Place where marriage is solemnized publicly such as in a church, chapel, temple, mosque, judge’s sala or chamber, mayor’s offi ce, offi ce of the Consul-General, consul or vice-consul, and not elsewhere unless with prior written request from the contracting parties and with prior written approval from the solemnizing offi cer, which fact must be declared in a public instrument. (Art. 8, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)

For Muslim marriages, it may be solemnized in any mosque, at the Offi ce of the Shari’a judge, at the Offi ce of the District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or any other

183

suitable place agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 19, Section 1, Chapter Two, Book Two of PD 1083).

For tribal marriages, it is any suitable place agreed upon by the parties provided it is in accordance with their customs, traditions and practices.

NOTE:

Any offi cer, minister or priest, solemnizing marriage in a place other than those authorized by this Act, shall be punished by a fi ne of not less than twenty-fi ve pesos nor more than three hundred pesos, or by imprisonment of not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court. (Section 40)(N) Act No. 3753 Rule 70(3) as cited in Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, p. 42)

PLACE OF SOLEMNIZATION UNDER THE MUSLIM CODE

The place of solemnization under Article 19 of the Muslim Code needs no further explanation. It refers to the mosque, offi ce of the Shari’a Judge, Offi ce of the Civil Registrar who is the Shari’a Clerk of Court, the residence of the bride or her wali, or at any suitable place agreed upon by the parties. In the latter place, there is no need to submit a sworn written request to the judge for the suitable place as required by Article 8 of the Family Code. In Islamic marriage, under Article 19 of the Muslim Code, the agreement of the parties as to the suitable place of the marriage is enough. No additional problem is given to the couple who are about to get married. (Comparative laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and The Muslim Code, Justice Jainal D. Rasul, Rex Book Store, p. 67)

For Muslim marriages, it may be solemnized in any mosque, at the Offi ce of the Shari’a judge, at the Offi ce of the District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or any other suitable place agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 19, Section 1, Chapter Two, Book Two of PD 1083)


The requirement that the marriage be done publicly is based on the premise that the state takes an active interest in the marriage.



184

INSTANCES WHERE PUBLIC SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE IS NOT REQUIRED

Public solemnization is needed except:

(a) Marriages in chambers of the Justice or Judge;

(b) In marriages in articulo mortis;

(c) In marriages in a remote place; and

(d) When both of the parties request in writing for the solemnization in some other place. The place must be designated in a sworn statement. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 15th Edition with Family Code p. 380)

EFFECT IF ONE PARTY IS NOT ASKED DURING THE MAR-RIAGE CEREMONY

If the solemnizing offi cer after hearing the wife says, she was willing to take the groom as her husband, forgot to ask the groom on the same matter, the marriage would be valid, so long as the groom also signed the marriage certifi cate. (Karganilla vs. Familiar, C.A., 7175, 1 O.G. 345 as cited by Paras in Civil Code, Vol. 1, p. 378)

Rule 2.17 Church/Chapel/Temple/Mosque

Any building, either of strong or light materials or combination of strong or light materials, which is permanent in character, and is opened during convenient hours of the day, and used actually and exclusively for holding religious gatherings, rites and services, including solemnization of marriage, and such building must be under the possession and control of the religion or religious sect of which the applicant is a member.

NOTE:

The old Marriage Law (Act No. 3613) defi nes church, chapel or temple as any building constructed of strong, mixed or light materials, open to the faithful at suitable hours of the day and set aside for the celebration of religious services and the solemnization of marriages and other sacred ceremonies. (Marcelino T. Lizaso, The Family Code of the Philippines Explained, Vol. 1, 1989 Edition, p. 23)

185

Article 8 of the Family Code requires that “The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the offi ce of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the parties request the solemnizing offi cer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect”.

Reason for Public Solemnization — The requirement that the marriage be done publicly is based on the premise that the State takes an active interest in the marriage. (Edgardo L. Paras, The Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. 1, 2002, 15th Edition, p. 380)

However, the above rules are merely directory. Failure to observe such requirement does not render the marriage void or vitiate the marriage already performed on the ground that it constitutes a violation of the requirement that it shall be solemnized in the offi ce of the judge or in open court (San Gabriel vs. San Gabriel, 85 Phil. 669). Although the validity is not affected, the marriage contract may not be registered by the civil registrar unless the requirement is complied with. (Comparative Laws: The Family Code of the Philippines and the Muslim Code, Justice Jainal D. Rasul, p. 58)

Rule 2.18 Religious Sect

A group of persons or organization professing a common faith and set of beliefs, and governed or guided by a common religious doctrine or creed.

Rule 2.19 Religion

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.

NOTE:

Religion is concerned over what exists beyond the visible world, differentiated from philosophy in that it operates through faith or intuition rather than reason, and generally including the idea of the existence of a single being, a group of beings, an eternal principle, or a transcendent spiritual entity that has created the world, that



186

governs it, that controls its destinies, or that intervenes occasionally in the natural course of its history, as well as the idea that ritual, prayer, spiritual exercises, certain principles of everyday conduct, etc. are expedient, due, or spiritually rewarding, or arise naturally out of an inner need as a human response to the belief in such a being, principle, etc.

Religion is a general word, applying to whatever pertains to faith or worship.

Sect is a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language).

Rule 2.20 Religious Services

Gatherings periodically done in a fi xed place for the exercise of religious worship and manifestation of the member’s faith.

NOTE:

Religious service is also called divine service or public religious worship according to prescribe form and order, or a ritual or form prescribed for public worship or for some particular occasion. (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language)

Rule 2.21 Religion/Religious Sect Deemed Operating in the Philippines

A religion or religious sect is deemed operating in the Philippines when a great number of Filipinos profess it, and this fact appears clearly in the latest census records of the Philippines. In the absence of census records, or in case of doubt, the founder or head of the religion or religious sect shall declare in a public instrument the following facts:

a. Brief history of the religion or religious sect;

b. That said religion or religious sect is duly incorporated for the administration of its temporalities;

c. That the religion or religious sect has at least one church, temple or chapel which is used actually and exclusively for religious rites and worship in the Philippines, and

187

if more than one, the places in the Philippines wherein these churches, temples or chapels are respectively situated, and the name of the priests, rabbis, imams or religious ministers assigned to each; and

d. That the religion or religious sect has a congregation of not less than two hundred bonafi de active members who must all be residents of the Philippines and who attend the religious gatherings and services which said religion or religious sect holds periodically in its own church, temple or chapel

NOTE:

The above requirements shall be subscribed and sworn to and shall be submitted to OCRG. Without those documents, the application of the solemnizing offi cer for registration will not be accepted.

A religion or religious sect is deemed operating when a great number of Filipino profess it as shown by census records. Questionnaires used during censuses of population and various surveys of NSO carry an item of information concerning religious affi liation. Civil Registration forms such as Certifi cate of Live Birth, Certifi cate of Death, and Certifi cate of Marriage also carry this information. Hence, these documents are suffi cient proof that a particular religion or religious sect is operating in the Philippines.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE ON DETER-MINING WHETHER THE CHURCH, SECT, OR RELIGION OF THE APPLICANT TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE OPERATES IN THE PHILIPPINES IS IN GOOD REPUTE

The Constitutionality of Section 34 was assailed in one case. Its validity was upheld. It was observed that what Sec. 34 of Act 3613 confers upon the Director of the National Library (now Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce) is the duty which, of course, carries with the power to satisfy himself whether the “church, sect or religion of the applicant operates in the Philippines and is in good repute.” “The duty thus conferred is not of inquiry into the organization or doctrine of a particular church or religion, but a duty to distinguish and discriminate between a legitimately established religion or church and one that pretends to be as such,



188

as a prerequisite to the issuance of certifi cate of authority. The law, therefore, in no sense prohibits nor impairs the free exercise of any religion. On the contrary, it purports to protect every legitimately established religion from the imposture of pseudo spurious religious organizations which ostensibly appear to be dedicated to the practice of religion and exercise of particular faith but which in reality are mere marriage agencies.” (People vs. Fabillar, 68 Phil. 584). (Underscoring supplied).

Rule 2.22 Religion/Religious Sect in Good Refute

A religion or religious sect is in good repute when it holds religious services or gatherings periodically in a fi xed place devoted actually and exclusively for religious rites and worship, complies with the requirements of the marriage law and of these regulations, and that there is nothing in its teachings, principles and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good custom and public policy.

Unless and until otherwise shown, the religion or religious sect appearing in the latest census records of the Philippines, as being professed by a great number of Filipinos, shall be presumed to be in good repute.

When the religion or religious sect does not appear in the latest census records of the Philippines, or in case of doubt, the question of its being in good repute may be proven by means of a certifi cation of the Mayor having jurisdiction over the place where its church, temple or chapel is situated, affi rming the facts and circumstances referred to in the fi rst paragraph of this section.

AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE ON WHETHER THE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IS IN GOOD REFUTE

Jamias vs. RodriguezG.R. No. L-2133

July 22, 1948

Facts:

The Philippine Independent Church was broken in two factions, one headed by Bishop Santiago A. Fonacier and now succeeded by Bishop Juan Jamias and the other headed by Bishop Gerardo P. Bacaya, now substituted by Bishop Isabelo

189

de los Reyes. The split was occasioned by the controversy as to who is the true head of the church and the allegation by the latter faction that the former faction has merged with the Episcopal Church of America. This intramural controversy is now subject to litigation in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila.

Pending resolution of the controversy, the bishops and priests who belong to the faction of Bishop Jamias applied for renewal of their authority to solemnize marriage. At this point, the Secretary of Education sent a memorandum to the Director of Public Libraries recognizing Bishop de los Reyes as the titular head of the church. Thus, the application for renewal of their authority to solemnize marriage was denied by the Director of Public Libraries.

Issue:

1) Can the bishops and priests of the faction headed by Bishop Jamias renew their application for authority to solemnize marriage pending resolution of the issue of leadership of the church?

2) Is the Authority to Solemnize Marriage a Ministerial Duty?

Ruling:

Yes, the bishops and priests of the faction headed by Bishop Jamias can renew their application for the authority to solemnize marriage pending decision of the court.

The Supreme Court said that “there is nothing in the record which shows that the Philippine Independent Church or its faction headed by Bishop Jamias does not fulfi ll the “good refute” condition obligating the Director of Public Libraries, under Section 34 of Act No. 3613, to issue the authorization to solemnize marriage, or that said church or faction has lost said qualifi cation as a result of which, according to Section 35 of the same law, the authorization may be cancelled. The second ground provided by the same Section 35 cannot be considered in this case because the question as to who are the lawful authorities of said church is yet to be settled in the pending litigation before the Court of First Instance of Manila.”

The High Court further said that “there is no allegation or pre-tense to the effect that the bishops and the priests of the faction



190

headed by Bishop Jamias have disqualifi ed themselves from continu-ing to solemnize marriages. The confl ict between the two factions, until fi nally decided by the competent court, cannot have the effect of automatically divesting the members of one group or the other of their legal rights as bishops and priests of the Philippine Indepen-dent Church. Until the litigation is fi nally decided, both groups are entitled to represent themselves as members of the same church to which they belonged before the confl ict has arisen.” “Until the pend-ing litigation is fi nally decided, the Director of Public Libraries has a ministerial duty to issue authorization to solemnize marriages to the bishops and priests of the group headed by Bishop J as bishops and priests of the Philippine Independent Church. The followers of the said faction, in the meantime, should not be deprived of the means of satisfying one of their fundamental necessities, that their mar-riages be solemnized by bishops and priests they recognize as true representatives of their religion in whom they have faith. To compel them against their conviction to have their marriages solemnized by bishops and priests of the opposing faction or of other religions is to violate their freedom of worship. The members of the said religious group who want to be married should not be kept waiting for an in-defi nite period pending fi nal decision of the litigation.”

RULE 3 — DUTIES OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

3.1. Keeps and maintains the national database of solemnizing offi cers;

3.2. Issues instructions to the RDs and PSOs with reference to the implementation of this Order;

3.3. Conducts a thorough investigation for all cases of violations related to this Order;

3.4. Enforces and monitors the implementation of the Rules and Regulations of this Order;

3.5. Consolidates the monthly reports/data fi les submitted by the RDs;

3.6. Enforces penalty provisions as prescribed by law;3.7. Prescribes fees for registration of SOs.

NOTE:

The Director of the National Library, (now Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce) shall be Civil Registrar General

191

and shall enforce the provisions of this Act (Act No. 3753 — The Civil Registry Law). The Director of the National Library, (now NSO Administrator), in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, (now National Economic and Development Authority), regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and to prepare and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance. In the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the Director of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) shall have the power to give orders and instructions to the local civil registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be the duty of the Director of the National Library (now NSO Administrator) to report any violation of the provisions of this Act and all irregularities, negligence or incompetency on the part of the offi cers designated as local civil registrars to the (Chief of the Executive Bureau or the Director of the Non-Christian Tribes), as the case may be, who shall take the proper disciplinary actions against the offenders. (Civil Registry Law-Act No. 3753)

The Civil Registrar General (CRG) is the same person as the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO). Prior to 27 February 1931, there was no CRG, as the system of civil registration was purely local government affairs. It was only when Act No. 3753 took effect on 27 February 1931 that the system was centralized with the Director of the National Library being designated as the Civil Registrar General. Section 2 of Act No. 3753 provides among others that “The Director of the National Library shall be Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act.”

However, when Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted on 19 August 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now, NSO). Section 2(f) of this law provides that one of the powers, functions and duties of the Bureau of the Census and Statistics is “To carry out and administer the provisions of Act No. 3753, entitled An Act to Establish a Civil Register.”

With regard to the implementation of R.A. No. 9048, two of the most important powers and functions of the CRG are to impugn the decisions of C/MCRs, CGs and D/CRs and to promulgate rules and regulations. (Manual of Instructions, R.A. No. 9048, pp. 6-7).

The Civil Registrar General shall have technical control and supervision on civil registrars and offi cials mentioned in Rule 3 (1).



192

In the exercise of this technical and supervisory function, the Civil Registrar General shall have the power to declare ultra vires any act of civil registrars inconsistent with the prescribed standards, criteria and procedures mentioned in this implementing rules and regulations and other pertinent laws on civil registration. (Rule 4, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993).

RULE 4 — DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

4.1. Registers his authority to solemnize marriage at the NSO, if applicable;

4.2. Displays in a conspicuous place, inside his/her offi ce his/her CRASM;

4.3. Ensures that the requirements for the solemnization of marriage under the law are complied with;

4.4. Performs religious services except those SOs who solemnize marriage inherent to their functions, customs and traditions as provided by law;

4.5. Solemnizes marriages within the territorial jurisdiction;

4.6. Ensures the accuracy and completeness of entries in the Certifi cate of Marriage;

4.7. Submits the Certifi cate of Marriage to C/MCR for registration within the reglementary period;

4.8. Files, keeps and preserves Certifi cate of Marriage;

4.9. Complies with other requirements as may be prescribed by the CRG.

NOTE:

It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certifi cate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certifi cate not later than fi fteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing offi cer transmitting copies of the marriage certifi cate. The solemnizing offi cer shall retain in his fi le the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certifi cate, the original of the

193

marriage license and, in proper cases, the affi davit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in Article 8. (68a) (Article 23, Family Code of the Philippines).

Solemnizing Offi cer should prepare and distribute Marriage Certifi cates as follow:

(a) One for the contracting parties;

(b) One for the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, Manila;

(c) One for the Offi ce of the City/Municipal Civil Registrar which must be received by them within 15 days after the celebration); and

(d) One for the person solemnizing the marriage.

RULE 5 — DUTIES OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

5.1. Accepts, reviews and evaluates applications for registration of authority to solemnize marriage from the PSOs;

5.2. Records data pertaining to SOs;

5.3. Signs and issues the Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM);

5.4. Investigates applications which cannot be acted upon by the PSOs when necessary;

5.5. Recommends to the CRG for resolution applications which cannot be acted upon by the RD;

5.6. Files, keeps and preserves records of SOs;

5.7. Submits reports/updated data fi les to CRG on the tenth day after the reference month;

5.8. Supervises and monitor the activities of all PSOs under his jurisdiction relative to the implementation of this Order;

5.9. Implements security measures to preserve the integrity of the CRASM;

5.10. Performs other functions related to the implementation of this Order.



194

NOTE:

The NSO Regional Offi ce shall receive all applications for the issuance of the Certifi cate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) and release the same through the NSO Provincial offi ce, if all necessary requirements are complied with.

The issuance of CRASM by the Regional Offi ce is facilitated with the use of the decentralized Solemnizing Offi cers Information System or SOIS.

RULE 6 — DUTIES OF THE PROVINCIAL STATISTICS OFFICER

6.1 Ensures the availability of application forms (OCRG-SO Form No.1);

6.2. Accepts duly accomplished application forms together with the supporting documents as enumerated under Sec 7.4 of Rule 7;

6.3. Checks the completeness and correctness of entries;

6.4. Evaluates the application and supporting documents;

6.5. In case of doubt, conducts investigation with respect to the following:

a. Whether the applicant for registration is performing other religious rites and services and not merely solemnizing marriage.

b. Whether or not the religious sect to which the applicant is a member, has a church, temple or chapel in the province where the religious rites and services are periodically conducted.

c. Whether or not the religion or religious sect to which the applicant is a member, has a congregation of at least 200 bona fi de active members.

6.6 Endorses application forms and all other required documents to the Offi ce of the Regional Director;

6.7 Submits reports of investigations conducted;

6.8 Accepts payments on prescribed fees and issues corresponding offi cial receipts;

195

6.9 Submits monthly fi nancial report to the Accounting Division;

6.10 Releases CRASM to the concerned SOs;

6.11 Performs other functions related to the implementation of this Order.

NOTE:

Application forms for registration, whether for new applicant or renewal, are available at the NSO Provincial Offi ces through the Provincial Statistics Offi cers. All solemnizing offi cers who are required to apply for registration of their authority to solemnize marriage shall secure and fi le the application forms, OCRG Form No.1, at the Offi ce of the Provincial Statistics Offi cer where their respective church, temple or chapel is situated. Once the requirements are complied with by the applicant solemnizing offi cer, the provincial NSO offi cer shall forward all the applications received to the NSO Regional Offi ce for the issuance of the Certifi cate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM).

RULE 7 — REGISTRATION PROCEDURES

7.1 Who Shall Apply

The following shall apply for the registration of authority to solemnize marriage:

a. Bishop

b. Founder of the religion/religious sect

c. Head of the religion/religious sect

d. Priest

e. Imam

f. Tribal Head/Chieftain

g. Other religious ministers/pastors

NOTE:

Tribal heads/chieftains are included in the enumeration of those who are required to register their authority to solemnize marriage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 179, Series of 1993, provided that



196

aside from being the social and political leader of their respective tribes, they also stand as their priest or religious leader.

Pursuant to DOJ Opinion No 13, Series of 2005, Imams are not required to register their authority to solemnize marriage with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, when the parties to the marriage both are Muslims, or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized under the Muslim Law. (New Procedures in the Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage, A Paper Presented by Editha R. Orcilla, 4th National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers, Bacolod City, August 9-11, 2005).

7.2 Where to Apply

All SOs enumerated under Rule 7.1 shall secure and fi le their application forms for registration from the NSO Provincial Offi ce of the province where the church, temple or chapel is situated.

NOTE:

Solemnizing Offi cers will secure the application forms from the Provincial Offi ces of the National Statistics Offi ce where the church. Temple, chapel or mosque is situated. The Provincial Statistics of NSO accepts the duly accomplished application forms together with the supporting documents. The same will be submitted to NSO Regional Director for review and evaluation of the application and subsequently issue the Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) to applicants.

7.3 When to Apply

Applications for registration of authority to solemnize marriage maybe fi led anytime of the year. SOs whose registration shall expire on the 31st of December of any current year may submit their applications on or before the 31st of December but not earlier than the 1st of October of that current year.

7.4 Requirements for Registration

The SOs whose religion or religious sect are deemed operating in the Philippines and in good repute are required to register their authority to solemnize marriage with the CRG under Article 3 of the Family Code shall comply with the following:

197

a. Accomplished application form (OCRG-SO Form No. 1) in triplicate copies, subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer oath with affi xed documentary stamp;

b. Three copies of colored ID pictures (2x2) with white background taken not more than a month ago from the date of application. Pictures should not be computer generated to preserve its quality. In cases the person is using glasses, it should be removed to have a clear image of the person. The back of the ID picture should contain the signature of the applicant;

c. A machine copy of appointment as priest, head, founder, bishop, pastor and minister of the religion or religious sect;

d. Proper endorsement/designation/recommendation from the head of religion or religious sect to mention: the full name, nationality, complete address, location of the church, temple or mosque where the applicant regularly perform rites and indicate the extent of his territorial jurisdiction;

e. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted by NSO for SOs;

f. Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Live Birth;g. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration and

Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country;

h. Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Ordination issued by his/her respective church;

i. Payment of registration fee;

j. Certifi cate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations and by-laws, and updated General Information Sheet (G.I.S) certifi ed by the Head of the religion or religious sect.

For Heads/Bishops/Presidents/Founders, the following requirements are required in addition to Requirements 7.4.a to 7.4.i above:

a. Endorsement or recommendation from the Board of Trustees/Directors or Church Council.



198

b. In case there are no Board of Trustees/Directors, the head/bishop/president/founder of the religion/religious sect shall submit a sworn statement duly notarized.

c. Sworn statement containing brief history of the religion/religious sect and the list of 200 bona fi de active members stating therein their complete address and signed by the members.

d. A certifi ed Certifi cate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations and by-laws, and updated General Information Sheet (G.I.S.) issued by the Security Exchange Commission (SEC).

For Imams, the following requirements are required:



c. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted by NSO for SOs;

d. Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Live Birth;

e. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country;

f. Certifi cation from the Offi ce of Muslim Affairs (OMA) that the applicant is authorized to solemnize marriage

g. Payment of registration fee;

For Tribal Heads/Chieftains, the following requirements are required:

a. Accomplished application form (OCRG-SO Form No. 1) in triplicate copies, subscribed and sworn to before

199

a person authorized to administer oath with affi xed documentary stamp;




e. Certifi cation from the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) that the applicant is authorized to solemnize marriage

f. Payment of registration fee;

NOTE:

Republic Act No. 6514 is an Act Providing that the Authorization to Solemnize Marriage issued to Priests, Ministers or Rabbis shall be valid for a period of three years the same to expire on the thirty fi rst day of December of every third year, amending for the purpose Article Ninety-Five of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Meanwhile, the present Administrative Order requires proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted by NSO for Solemnizing Offi cers as well as certifi ed true copy of his/her certifi ed live birth, two by two colored ID pictures with white background and with signatures at the back taken not more than a month ago from the date of application. Pictures here should not be computer generated and eye glasses should be removed, if using one.

7.5 Fees

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 197 issued by President Joseph Ejercito Estrada on January 13, 2000 and implemented on April 4, 2000, the SOs shall pay the following fees:

For each registration and issuance of authority to solemnize marriage Php 500.00



200

For each certifi ed transcript from the registerof solemnizing offi cers ........................ Php 100.00

For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the certifi cate of authority to solemnize marriage ................................................ Php 100.00

For each certifi cation issued pertaining to solemnizing offi cers ............................ Php 100.00

All fees accruing from the application for registration of the authority to solemnize marriages of the SOs shall be payable to the National Statistics Offi ce.


For each registration and issuance of authority to solemnize marriage .............................. Php 500.00

For each certifi ed transcript from the register of solemnizing offi cers ............................. Php 100.00

For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the certifi cate of authority to solemnize marriage ..................................................... Php 100.00

For each certifi cation issued pertaining to solemnizing offi cers ................................. Php 100.00


NOTE:

A CASE DECLARING THAT THE FEES ARE FOR REGU-LATION AND NOT FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.

People vs. Fabillar, 38 O.G., No. 43, p. 964. It is contended that, under the provisions of section 34 of the Marriage Law, as far as the authority to solemnize marriage is concerned, the authorization, once issued, continues in force and that the requirement for its renewal is intended solely for revenue purposes. The contention is not in accord with either the spirit or the letter of the law. In the fi rst place, the required fee for the issuance of the certifi cate of authority

201

to solemnize marriages is, by its nominal character, intended purely for regulation and not for revenue. In the second place, renewal, as required by law, presupposes expiration of the authorization. And expiration means that the authorization has ceased to exist. In the third place, after the authorization has expired, the accused was suspended from the performance of his apostolic functions and, therefore, he had absolutely no authority to solemnize the marriage in question. (Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated. Ambrosio Padilla, Vol. 1. p. 138).

Civil Code of the Philippines Art. 95 — The public offi cial in charge of registration of priests and ministers, with the approval of the proper head of Department, is hereby authorized to prepare the necessary forms and to promulgate regulations for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this title. Said offi cial may also by regulations fi x and collect fees for the authorization of priests and ministers to solemnize marriages as amended by R.A. 6514 of 22 July 1972.

NSO OCRG Administrative Order. No. 1 Section 15 of 1988 prescribed the following rate:

For each registration & Issuance of Authority

To solemnizing marriage (new) 150.00

For reach renewal of authorization 100.00

For each certifi ed transcript from the Register of Solemnizing Offi cers 50.00

For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the Certifi cate of Authority to solemnize marriage 50.00

Likewise, in compliance with the Executive Order No. 159 issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos, the revised rates effective October 11, 1999 was implemented as follows:

For each registration & issuance of Authority to Solemnize marriage (New) 375.00

For each renewal of authorization 150.00

For each certifi ed transcript from the register of solemnizing offi cers 75.00

For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the Certifi cate of Authority to solemnize marriage 75.00



202

RULE 8 — GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF CRASM

The CRG through the RDs shall cancel the CRASMs issued to SOs based on the following grounds:

8.1 When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize marriage is made by bishop or head of the religion or religious sect of which the SO is a member;

8.2 When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize marriage is made by the SO himself;

8.3 When before the expiry date of his authorization, the SO ceases to be a member of the religion or religious sect which he represented at the time of registration;

8.4 When the SO has been convicted by fi nal judgment of any crime;

8.5 When the SO retires from his function as a priest or religious minister, or dies, or becomes permanently incapacitated to discharge the function of his offi ce;

8.6 When the SO willfully violates the provisions of the existing laws as when he offi ciates marriage where no one of the contracting parties is a member of his religion or religious sect;

8.7 When the SO offi ciates marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction;

8.8 When the SO fails or refuses to exhibit his authority to solemnize marriage when it is demanded from him by the contracting parties, their parents or guardian;

8.9 When the SO offi ciates marriage where the contracting parties do not have a valid marriage license when such license is required and such fact is known to him;

8.10 When the SO offi ciates marriage with expired marriage license;

8.11 When the SO fails or refuses to indicate on the marriage certifi cate his registry number and the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage;

8.12 In case of foreigner, when his visa/I-Card expires before the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage;

203

8.13 When the SO allows proxy marriages which is a kind of marriage arrangement where one of the parties to a marriage is represented merely by someone else who may be a delegate or a friend of one of the contracting parties;

8.14 When the SO is represented by a proxy SO or somebody else who performs the marriage for and in his behalf;

8.15 When the SO is physically incapacitated where his performance to solemnize marriage is substantially affected such as blindness, etc.;

8.16 When the SO does other acts in contravention with law.

NOTE:

The above-enumerated provisions are the specifi c grounds for cancellation of the certifi cate of registration and authority to solemnize marriage. The power to cancel the CRASM for any violation of the law is vested upon the Civil Registrar General through the Regional Director. Any violation of the above grounds shall subject the solemnizing offi cer concerned to criminal, and civil liability.

Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 94 states The public offi cial in charge of registration of priests and ministers shall cancel the authorization issued to a bishop, head, priest, rabbi, pastor or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church, sect, or religion, on his own initiative or at the request of any interested party, upon showing that the church, sect or religion whose ministers have been authorized to solemnize marriage is no longer in operation. The cancellation of the authorization granted to a priest, pastor, or minister shall likewise be ordered upon the request of the bishop, head or lawful authorities of the denomination, church, sect or religion to which he belongs.

RULE 9 — PENALTY PROVISIONS

ACT 3613

Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of marriage. Any priest or minister solemnizing marriage without being authorized by the Civil Registrar General or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses to exhibit his authorization in force when called upon to do so by the parties or parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons



204

having charge; and any bishop or offi cer, priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect the regulations and practices whereof require publications previous to the solemnization of a marriage in accordance with section 10, who authorizes the immediate solemnization of a marriage that is subsequently declared illegal; or any offi cer, priest or minister solemnizing marriage in violation of the provisions of this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two thousand pesos.

Section 40. Marriage in improper places Any offi cer, minister or priest solemnizing marriage in a place other than those authorized by this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by a fi ne of not less than twenty-fi ve pesos nor more than three hundred pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.

NOTE:

Under the Family Code, marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the offi ce of the consul-general, consul, or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the parties request the solemnizing offi cer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. (Article 8, Family Code).

Thus, aside from the places designated by law and the parties in proper cases, the solemnizing offi cer is prohibited to solemnize marriages elsewhere.

Section 41. Failure to deliver marriage certifi cate. Any offi cer, priest, or minister failing to deliver to either of the contracting parties one of the copies of the marriage contract or to forward the other copy to the authorities within the period fi xed by law for said purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one month or by a fi ne of not more than three hundred pesos, or both in the discretion of the court.

Section 42. Affi davit on marriage in articulo mortis. Any offi cer, priest, or minister who, having solemnized a marriage in articulo mortis, or any other marriage of an exceptional character,

205

shall fail to comply with the provisions of Chapter II of this Act (now Chapter 2 Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fi ne of not less than three hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

NOTE:

Under the Family Code, a person solemnizing a marriage in articulo mortis shall execute an affi davit attesting to the fact he has ascertained the ages, relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage. Likewise, he is required by law to submit the original of such affi davit to the local civil registrar of the municipality where the marriage took place together with the marriage certifi cate within thirty days. (Articles 29-30, Family Code) Failure to do so, he shall be punished under the above provision.

Section 43. Unlawful signboards. Any person who, not being authorized to solemnize marriage, shall publicly advertise himself, by means of signs or placards placed on his residence or offi ce or through the newspapers, as authorized to solemnize marriage, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fi ne of not less than fi fty pesos not more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 44. General penal clause. Any violation of any provision of this Act (now Family Code) not specifi cally penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be punished by a fi ne of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 45. Disqualifi cation of priests and ministers. Any priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church, sect, or religion convicted of any of the provisions of this Act or of any crime involving moral turpitude, shall, in addition to the penalties incurred in each case, be disqualifi ed to solemnize marriage for a period of not less than six months nor more than six years at the discretion of the court. (as amended by Act No. 4263)



206

REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law.

The penalty is imprisonment for not less one month nor more than two years, or a fi ne of not less than 200.00 nor more than P2,000.00 shall be imposed upon the offender. (Section 39, Act No. 3613, otherwise known as Marriage Law)

RULE 10 — RETROACTIVITY CLAUSE

These rules shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.

NOTE:

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (Article 4, Civil Code of the Philippines) In general, laws are prospective, not retroactive. If the rule is that laws are retroactive, grave injustice would occur, for these laws would punish individuals for violations of laws not yet enacted.

While in general, laws are prospective, they are retroactive in the following cases:

a. If the laws themselves provide for retroactivity;

b. If the laws are remedial in nature;

c. If the law is penal in nature, provided it is favorable to the accused or convict, and provided further that the accused or convict is not a habitual delinquent;

d. If the laws are of an emergency nature and are authorized by the police power of the government;

e. If the law is curative; and

If a substantive right be declared for the fi rst time, unless vested rights are impaired. (Paras, Civil Code, pp. 30-33)

207

RULE 11 — SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

If any portion or provision of these rules is declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such declaration.

RULE 12 — REPEALING CLAUSE

All circulars, memoranda, rules and regulations or issued by the CRG or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of these rules are hereby repealed or modifi ed accordingly.

RULE 13 — DATE OF EFFECTIVITY

These rules shall take effect fi fteen days after its publication in the Offi cial Gazette.

Done in the City of Manila, Philippines this 16th day of February, 2007.

NOTE:

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides: “Laws shall take effect after fi fteen days following the completion of its publication in the Offi cial Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided.”

Executive Order No. 200, dated June 18, 1987, modifying Article 2 of the Civil Code, now provides for the publication of laws either in the Offi cial Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines as a requirement for its effectivity.

It is well-settled that administrative orders, rules and regula-tions have the force and effect of law. The fact that administrative order, rules and regulations is punitive in character is the principal reason why publication should be made.

Administrative Order No. 1, series 2007 was issued by the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. It has the force and effect of law once it has become effective. Because of its penal character which can be found in its penal provisions, A.O. No. 1 should be published fi rst before it has to take effect. This is based on the principle and theory that before the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation, order or circular must fi rst be published, and the people offi cially and specifi cally informed of its contents and the penalties for violation thereof.



208

209

APPENDICES


210

211

Appendix 1

OCRG-SO Form No. 1 Revised March 2005(To be accomplished in triplicate)

O.R. No. ________________Date Paid _______________Amt. Paid _______________


OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALSta. Mesa, Manila

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

(Fill out completely, accurately and legibly. Use ink or typewriter.)

____________________Date

The Civil Registrar GeneralSta. Mesa, Manila

Sir/Madam:

I hereby declare:

1. That my full name is ________________________________

2. (For alien applicants) That I am a citizen of______________________ and my ICR No. is ___________ and my ACR No. is ___________ and presently residing at ________________________________________________________________

(No.) (Street) (Sitio/Barangay)

____________________________________________________ (City/Municipality/Province)

211

Attach 2 x 2 picturew/ signature at the back


212

3. That I was born on ________________ at ______________ ;

4. That I am a member of_______________________________; (Name of religion or religious sect)

5. That I am duly appointed as _________________________; (Specify the title or position)

by__________________________________________________; (State the title, name and position of the appointing offi cer)

6. That in accordance with my appointment, a true copy of which is hereto attached, I am authorized to perform religious rites and services including solemnization of marriages in accordance with my religion or religious sect;

7. That my jurisdiction for purposes of solemnizing marriages is (specify the exact territorial jurisdiction):

____________________________________________________

8. That my religion or religious sect operates in the Philippines and is in good repute and I am assigned to its church, temple or chapel situated in ________________________________________________;

(No.) (Street) (Sitio/Barangay) ________________________________________________ (City/Municipality/Province)

9. That I apply for registration as Solemnizing Offi cer in accordance with Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines promulgated on August 3, 1988 and Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007 and request that an authorization to solemnize marriage be issued to me. ________________________________________________

(Signature over Printed Name of the Applicant)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of _________________, in the city/municipality of __________________, applicant exhibiting his Community Tax Certifi cate No. _____________________, issued at __________________________, on _________________________.

______________________Notary Public

213APPENDIX 1OCRG-SO FORM NO. 1 (Revised March 2005)

Page No. ______ Doc. No. ______Book No. ______Series of ______

(Affi x documentary stamp)


214Secs. 3-4 THE JUDICIARY

Appendix 2

CIRCULARS/MEMORANDA ISSUED BY OCRG

Circular No. 89-121 March 1989

To : All Regional/Provincial Census Offi cers and Solem-nizing Offi cers

Subject : TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF SOLEMNIZ-ING OFFICERS

For the purpose of this Circular, only those solemnizing offi cers enumerated in Article 7(2) of the Family Code are covered. They are the priests, rabbis, imams, or ministers of any church or religious sect, including the bishops, heads and founders. The territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing offi cers refers to a defi ned but limited area or place where the solemnizing offi cer can validly offi ciate a marriage. The area or place may be the whole Philippines or only a province or a diocese.

Article 8 of the Family Code provides among other things that the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church, chapel or temple, and not elsewhere. Exceptions from the general rule are the following: (1) marriage contracted at the point of death, or in a remote place, and (2) where both of the parties request the solemnizing offi cer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

Reading the provision of the above-cited provision of Article 8 of the Family Code, the territorial jurisdiction of the solemnizing offi cer must be necessarily limited in the place where the church, chapel or temple is situated. For example, XYZ Religion has fi ve chapels, all of which are located within Metro Manila. The ministers (or pastors) of this religion can have territorial jurisdiction only within Metro

214

215

Manila and not whole Philippines, for an obvious reason, that said ministers (or pastors) do not have chapels in Mindanao, Visayas and in other places outside Metro Manila where they could solemnize marriage in accordance with law.

The second exception given in Article 8 of the Family Code does not mean an exception from the rule of territorial jurisdiction. It is an exception from the rule that a marriage shall be solemnized in a church, chapel or temple, but the house or place designated by the contracting parties must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned solemnizing offi cer.

As a rule, therefore, the territorial jurisdiction of solemnizing offi cer is the province where the church, chapel or temple to which he is assigned is located. For a Catholic priest, his territorial jurisdiction is the diocese or archdiocese to which he belongs. The territorial jurisdiction to cover whole Philippines shall be granted only to bishops, founders, presidents, and heads of religions or religious sects in consideration of the possible expansion and establishment of additional churches, chapels or temples of such religion or religious group.


19 December 2000

MEMORANDUM

For : All Regional Directors, Provincial Statistics Offi cers and Offi cers In-Charge

Subject : ASSIGNING OF POPULATION REFERENCE NUMBER (PRN) TO CERTIFICATES OF LIVE BIRTH FOR THE YEAR 2001 NO LONGER NEC-ESSARY

Under the Civil Registry System Information Technology Project (CRS-ITP), a sub-system for the generation of Birth Reference Number (BReN) is being developed to replace the system of generating Population Reference Number (PRN). The BReN will be used in connection with the issuance of Birth Card to interested party.

APPENDIX 2CIRCULARS/MEMORANDA ISSUED BY OCRG


216

In view of this new development, the PRNs will no longer be generated for the year 2001, and no PRN lists will be sent to the local civil registry offi ces.

Please disseminate the information to all city/municipal civil registrars in your respective areas of jurisdiction.


22 November 2000

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : SIGNATURE SPECIMEN OF GERMAN EMBASSY

OFFICERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY

Attached is a copy of the names and signature specimens of the offi cers of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany who are authorized to issue Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to a German national wishing to contract marriage under Philippine laws, for your information and reference.

CARLITO B. LALICONDirector III

25 July 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION LAW

OF 2000

This is to inform you that there is a new law on naturalization, which was recently approved by President G.M. Arroyo. The new law is Republic Act No. 9139 entitled “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN ALIENS BY ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” or otherwise known as “The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000”.

217APPENDIX 2CIRCULARS/MEMORANDA ISSUED BY OCRG

The object of R.A. No. 9139 is embodied in Section 2 (Declaration of Policy) which provides:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall control and regulate the admission and integration of aliens into its territory and body politic including the grant of citizenship of aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing in the Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings subject to certain requirements dictated by national security and interest.

In applying for naturalization under R.A. No. 9139, the petitioner (applicant) is required to submit to the Special Committee on Naturalization a certifi ed photocopy of civil registry documents enumerated in Section 5, Item 2. Excerpt of this section provides that:

Sec. 5 (2). Petition for Citizenship. — The application shall be accompanied by:

(a) Duplicate original or certifi ed photocopies of petitioner’s birth certifi cate;

(b) Duplicate original or certifi ed photocopies of petitioner’s alien certifi cate of registration and native born certifi cate of residence;

(c) Duplicate original or certifi ed photocopies of petitioner’s marriage certifi cate, if married, or the death certifi cate of his spouse, if widowed, or the court decree annulling his marriage, if such was the fact;

(d) Duplicate original or certifi ed photocopies of birth certifi cates, alien certifi cate of registration or native born certifi cate residence if any, of petitioner’s minor children wherever applicable;

In case the birth of the petitioner and that of his/her children (if any) have not been registered yet, the petitioner and his/her children may apply for delayed registration of their births as provided for under Section 15.

Sec. 15. Any person who failed to register his/her birth with the concerned city or municipal civil registrar may, within in two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, fi le a petition provided that the applicant possesses all the qualifi cations and


218

none of the disqualifi cations under this Act and subject to the requirements of existing laws.

Issuance of the various civil registry certifi cations and processing of the applications for delayed registration of vital events are most likely the areas where we can extend assistance to those aliens who may wish to be naturalized under R.A. No. 9139.

Under Section 17 of the law, the Special Committee on Naturalization is required to promulgate the implementing rules and regulations. As soon as we have the implementing rules and regulations, another memorandum defi ning exactly the LCRO’s role will be issued by this Offi ce.

CARMELITA N. ERICTACivil Registrar General

SAMPLE: REPORT TO THE SCN

(USE LETTERHEAD OF LCRO)

(Date)

Hon. Antonio L. VillamorExecutive DirectorSpecial Committee on NaturalizationOffi ce of the Solicitor General7/F Amorsolo St.,Makati City

Dear Dir. Villamor,

This is in regard to the requirements of Section 7, RA 9139, otherwise known as “The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000”.

Please be informed that this offi ce has received and posted the following petitions, along with the supporting documents, on the corresponding dates. Information received concerning the petitioner is likewise indicated opposite their names.

1. (Name of Petitioner) Date Posted List Any Information (or if none, place “No Information received”)





For your information and guidance.

Very truly yours,

(Name)Civil Registrar of (City / Municipality)

SAMPLE: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

The following are classes of persons who are not qualifi ed to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under Section 4 Republic Act No. 9139 (Administrative Naturalization law of 2000)

(a) Those opposed to organized government or affi liated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized government;

(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;

(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;

(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;

(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease.

(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;

(g) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country with whom the Philippines is at war; and

(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

In this connection, if you have knowledge of the fact or any information that might lead you to conclude that the


220

following petitioners, whose petitions and supporting documents are posted below, are NOT QUALIFIED to be naturalized as Filipino citizens, kindly inform the Civil Registrar immediately about the matter.

1. (Name of petitioner)



For information and guidance.

(Name)Civil Registrar

September 7, 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All Civil RegistrarsSubject : GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTING SECTION 7, RA

9139 PURSUANT TO THE PERTINENT PROVI-SIONS OF SECTION 7, REPUBLIC ACT (RA) NO. 9139, THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GUIDELINES IN IMPLEMENTING THE SAID PROVISIONS:

1. The Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) will furnish the Civil Registrar of the Petitioner’s Place of Residence with a copy of the petition for naturalization and its supporting documents together with a notice to cause the posting of said petition and its supporting documents.

2. Upon receipt of the petition for naturalization and its supporting documents, the Civil Registrar concerned shall immediately cause the posting of said petition and supporting documents for period of thirty (30) days, accompanied by a NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, a sample of which is attached for your reference.

3. A copy of the petition and supporting documents shall be posted in any public or conspicuous area in the building, offi ces and premises of the offi ce of the civil registrar concerned.


4. Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the petition, the local civil registrar concerned shall directly submit to the SCN a report stating:

5. In the absence of any derogatory information or adverse information, the civil registrar concerned, within the same period of time, should likewise notify the SCN of such fact. A form letter for such report is likewise attached for your ready reference.



Copy furnished:

Regional Directors Provincial Statistics Offi cers Management Committee

24 September 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarSubject : IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.

9139

Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9139, which read:

Section 7. xxx. The Committee shall immediately furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Bureau of Immigration (BI), the civil registrar of the petitioner’s place of residence and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) copies of the petition and its supporting documents. These agencies shall have copies of the petition posted in any public or conspicuous area in their buildings, offi ces and premises, and shall within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, submit to the Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on fi le or any such relevant and material information which might be adverse to petitioner’s application for citizenship.


222

For the implementation of the above provision, please be advised as follows:

1. The Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) will furnish the City/Municipal Registrar of the petitioner’s place of residence with a copy of the petition for naturalization and its supporting documents together with a notice to cause the posting of said petition and its supporting documents.

2. Upon receipt of the petition for naturalization and its supporting documents, the concerned City/Municipal Civil Registrar shall immediately cause the posting of said petition and supporting documents for a period of thirty (30) days, accompanied by a NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC which shall read as follows:

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

The following are the classes of persons who are not qualifi ed to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9139 (Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000):

(a) Those opposed to organized government or affi liated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized government;

(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;

(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;

(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;

(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable Contagious diseases;

(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos.

(g) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country with whom the Philippines is at war; and


(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

In this connection, if you have knowledge of the fact or any information that might lead you to conclude that the following petitioner/s, whose petition/s and supporting documents are below posted, are NOT QUALIFIED to be naturalized as Filipino citizens, kindly immediately about the matter:

1. xxxx

2. xxxx

3. xxxx

3. A copy of the petition and supporting documents shall be posted in any public or conspicuous area in the buildings, offi ces and premises of the local Civil Registry Offi ce concerned,

4. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the City/Municipal Civil Registrar concerned shall directly submit to the SCN a report stating:

(a) whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on fi le; or

(b) any such relevant information which might be adverse to petitioner’s application for citizenship.

5. In the absence of any derogatory information or adverse information, the City/Municipal Civil Registrar concerned, within the same period of time, should likewise notify the SCN of such fact.




224

Hon. Antonio L. VillamorExecutive DirectorSpecial Committee on NaturalizationOffi ce of the Solicitor General7/F Amorsolo St.,Makati City

Dear Dir. Villamor,

This is in regard to the requirements of Section 7, RA 9139, otherwise known as “The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000”.

Please be informed that this offi ce has received and posted the following petitions, along with the supporting documents, on the corresponding dates. Information received concerning the petitioner is likewise indicated opposite their names.






Very truly yours,

(Name)Civil Registrar of (City/Municipal)

15 November 2001

MEMORANDUM

To : All Regional Directors, Provincial Statistics Offi cer City/Municipal Civil Registrars

Subjects : FORMATION OF LCRO/NSO FIELD UNIT

This is to announce that we recently formed and established the “LCRO/NSO FIELD UNIT” for the benefi t of all Regional Offi ces and Provincial Offi ces of NSO, and Local Civil Registry Offi ces


(LCROs). The principal function of the unit is to receive and process applications for civil registration certifi cations coming from fi eld offi ces of NSO and from LCROs, either through fax, letter, e-mail or personal hand carry.

The Unit is headed by Ms. Marlene Aurellano, the Secretary of Director Carlito B. Lalicon, and the members with their respective assignment are the following:

Name Assignment

Daisy Rojo Regions 6 and 11

Meliza Chan Yu Regions 9 and 10

Irene Bernales Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12

CAR, ARMM, CARAGA, and all LCROs

In sending the requests or applications, please label your address in the following manner:

The Director Attn.: LCRO/NSO FIELD UNIT Civil Registry Department National Statistics Offi ce EDSA corner Times St. West Triangle, Quezon City

In case follow-up is necessary or if the requested certifi cations are not received in due time, the concerned party may call (02) 926-7357 and as for the particular employee responsible for the receiving and processing of the applications. Those who are connected with the internet may use this e-mail address of Ms. Marlene Aurellano ([email protected]) that of Director Carlito B. Lalicon ([email protected])

Lastly, please be informed also that the period of processing the applications by this Unit shall be the same as that of applications received from other sources. The requested certifi cations shall be sent to the requesting parties through the conventional postal service system.



226

18 April 2002

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/ Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : OPINION NO. 11, S. 2002 OF THE SECRETARY

OF JUSTICE CONCERNING FILING FEE OF PE-TITION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048

For your information and guidance, we are providing you the attached copy of Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 of the Secretary of Justice concerning the fi ling fee in connection with the implementation of Republic Act No. 9048. The issue which was resolved by the Secretary of Justice was whether or not a local government unit can impose a fi ling fee in an amount different from what was promulgated by the Inter-Agency Committee which was mandated under the said law to promulgate the implementing rules and regulations.

Among other things, the Secretary of Justice said:

“xxx… we rule that the fi ling fees as imposed by Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2001 should prevail over the fi ling fees imposed by the said City Ordinance since the rules and regulations promulgated by the civil registrar general pursuant to the provisions of R.A No. 9048 have the force and effect of law (U.S v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]; See Co Chiong v. Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative Order was issued in implementation of R. A. No. 9048 and under the said Law, it is the civil registrar, not the local government units, that has the authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation of the provisions thereof.”




March 8, 2002

Ms. Carmelita N. ErictaCivil Registrar GeneralOffi ce of the Civil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceEDSA Corner Times St., West TriangleQuezon City 1104

Madam:

This refers to your request for opinion as to which fi ling fees shall prevail, that prescribed under Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 (implementing rules and regulations) promulgated and issued by the Civil Registrar General or that prescribed under Ordinance No. 7786-2001 passed by the City Council of Cagayan de Oro.

The query arose when prior to the promulgation of the said ADMINISTRATIVE order on July 24, 2001, Rules and Regulations Governing the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9048 (An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinance No. 7786-2001 on June 19, 2001 entitled “ AN ORDINACE LEVYING A FILING FEE FOR PETITION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY, OR TO CHANGE THE FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME, IN THE CITY CIVIL REGISTER AT THE RATES PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.:

Section 1 of the said Ordinance provides:

Section 1. — There shall be levied, imposed or collected a fi ling fee upon any person who will fi le with the City Civil Registrar a petition for the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry, or for the change of fi rst name or nickname, in the City Civil Register, at the following rates:

(a) correction of a clerical or typographical error P250.00

(b) change of fi rst name or nickname P500.00


228

On the other hand, Rule 18 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001, provides, among others, that the city/municipal civil registrar or the district/circuit registrar “is hereby duly authorized to collect from every petitioner a fi ling fee in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for the correction of clerical or typo-graphical error, and three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) for the change of fi rst name or nickname,’’ but that an indigent petitioner as defi ned under Rule 2.7 shall be exempt from the payment of said fee.

It is also provided under the said Rule that the local legislative body shall ratify the fees therein prescribed upon affectivity of said Order. Prior to ratifi cation by the local legislative body, all fees collected in connection with the Order shall go to the Local Civil Registry Offi ce (LCRO) trust fund provided that the fees prescribed therein shall be uniform in all cities and municipalities in the country, and in all Philippine Consulates.

The said Administrative Order was enacted pursuant to Section 10 of R.A No. 9048, which states that “The civil registrar general shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Offi ce of the Supreme Court Administrator, the University of the Philippines Law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not later than three (3) months from the affectivity of this law.”

Subject to the discussion hereunder, we rule that the fi ling fees as imposed by Administrative Order No. 1, S. 2001 should prevail over the fi ling fees imposed by the said City Ordinance since the rules and regulations promulgated by the civil registrar general pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 9048 have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]; See Co Chiong v. Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative Order was issued in implementation of R.A. No. 9048 and under the said law, it is the civil registrar general, not the local government units, that has the authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation of the provisions thereof.

Finally, it is a well-established principle in the law of municipal corporations that the legislative bodies of municipal corporations, which are mere creations of Congress, may not enact municipal legislation invading or intruding into an area already covered by a


statue, or contravening provisions of the same (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 77, s. 1971).

Very truly yours,

HERNANDO B. PEREZ Secretary

August 5, 2005

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/ Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : REITERATION OF THE GUIDELINES IN IMPLE-

MENTING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9139

This refers to the attached OCRG Memorandum (Ref. No. 01CRD00-214, dated July 25, 2002; Ref. No. 01CRD00-1273, dated September 7, 2001 and Ref. No. 01-CRD00-278 dated September 24, 2001) on the implementation of the pertinent provisions of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9139.

Please be reminded on the following guidelines:

1. The petition for naturalization and its supporting documents should be posted for a period of thirty (30) days;

2. Posting of the petition should start upon receipt from the Special Committee on Naturalization (SCN) of the following: a) petition for naturalization; b) supporting documents; and c) notice to the public;

3. The concerned City/Municipal Civil Registrar shall directly submit to the SCN within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition a report stating: a) whether or not the petitioner has any derogatory record on fi le; or b) whether or not there is any information adverse to the petition for naturalization.

4. Please furnish the OCRG with a copy of the report. Submit the report to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, attention: Lourdes J. Hufana, OIC-Director, Civil Registry Department, National Statistics Offi ce, EDSA corner Times St., West Triangle, Quezon City.


230



September 9, 2002

MEMORANDUM

From : (SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTATo : Regional DirectorsSubject : ADJUSTMENT OF FEES FOR UNCONVERTED

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

After two (2) years of implementing the Civil Registry System-Information Technology Project (CRS-ITP), our offi ce has classifi ed the civil registry documents in its archives into two. Those that were converted into digital formats and are now loaded into the computerized database are called converted documents while those that are yet to undergo this process are called unconverted documents. The converted documents can be released within the day or the following day upon request.

For the unconverted documents, the requests are electronically sent to Manila for verifi cation. After verifi cation, the completed document requests are delivered through the postal system using our franking privilege (Census-Free Postal mails). The delivery period using this system is stretched and affects the schedule of release of requested documents to our clients, especially for areas outside Metro Manila.

After projecting the expected volume and distribution of requests, NSO has concluded that a P10.00 increase in the fee will allow for the use of a courier service to avail of a more speedy means of document delivery, without having to pass the full burden of faster service on to our clients. To make this feasible, documents will be sent by groups using standard courier packet envelopes from the central offi ce to the regional Census Serbilis Centers.

Last June 10, 2002, the National Economic Development Authority communicated to NSO the approval of the P10.00 increase through the offi ce of Deputy Director General Raphael Perpetou M. Lotilla. Hence, the fee for unconverted document requests shall


be increased from the current P60.00 to P70.00 per copy in all our Census Serbilis Centers outside Metro Manila. The approved increase is expected to defray the cost of sending the completed documents from the NSO central offi ce back to the fi eld offi ces using courier services.

This fee adjustment shall take effect on October 1, 2002. As part of your responsibility, please refl ect the newly approved rate of P70.00 in the “Schedule of Fees” posted in your respective outlets. The Regional Director concerned should countersign this notice regarding the new rate and should be posted at the outlet beginning September 13, 2002 to inform the public of the adjustment of fees.

For your immediate compliance.

January 27, 2002

MEMORANDUM

To : Regional Directors, Provincial Census Offi cers, Accountants, Bookkeepers and Collecting Offi cers

From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA AdministratorSubject : REVISED PROCEDURES IN THE REMITTANCE

AND REPORTING OF COLLECTIONS FROM SALE OF CIVIL REGISTRY FORMS

In view of the fact that all NSO Provincial Offi ces can already avail of the on-line deposit facility by Land Bank of the Philippines, the following are the revised procedures in the remittance and reporting of collections from sale of Civil Registry Forms:

1. All payments received from sale of Civil Registry forms shall be issued Offi cial Receipts and remitted intact the following banking day through the nearest Land Bank Branch, for on-line credit to the account of the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General No. 1442-1003-02, LBP, UN Avenue Branch.

2. Charges for on-line deposit, if any, shall be deducted from the amount to be remitted. Payment for the bank service fee will be refl ected by the bank teller on the deposit slip.

3. The duplicate Offi cial Receipt, Report of Collections and Deposits (see attached form) and validated copy of the


232

deposit slip shall be submitted to the Central Offi ce, Attn.: Accounting Division, within fi ve days (5) days after the reference month for the accounting of the transactions.

4. Centralized accounting including procurement and payment of these forms is being done for the following reasons:

• To avoid additional manpower and other incidental expenses in handling forms.

• With the increase in the required bank maintaining balance, the Offi ce cannot afford to provide the amount for every province/region.

• To facilitate the control and monitoring of accounts payable and receivable accounts.

5. All one-way deposit accounts previously maintained with Land Bank shall be closed. The balance including interest earned shall be remitted to the OCRG account. Copy of the bank statement or passbook shall be forwarded to the Accounting Division for recording and reconciliation purposes.

This takes effect immediately and shall remain enforced until revoked or modifi ed.

For your guidance and compliance.

REPORT OF COLLECTIONS AND DEPOSITS (RCD)

INSTRUCTIONS

A. This report shall be accomplished as follows:

1. Agency — name of the agency

2. Date — date covered by the report

3. Report No. — shall be numbered one series for each year as follows:

00-00-000

Serial number (one series per year)

Month

Year


4. Sheet No. — page number of the report which shall be series for each month

5. Offi cial Receipt Date — date of the Offi cial Receipt or Report of Collections by Sub-Collector

6. Offi cial Receipt Number — serial numbers of the Offi cial Receipts issued by the Cashier or Sub-Collector including the cancelled ones listed in numerical sequence

7. Responsibility Center Code — code assigned to each cost center

8. Payor — name of the cashier/Sub-Collector

9. Particulars — details or nature of the collection

10. Amount — amount received per Offi cial Receipt or per report of Collections of the Sub-Collector

11. Certifi cation — the certifi cation shall be signed by the Collecting Offi cer on the last sheet of the report after the totals.

B. A summary shall be prepared below the last entry in the report as follows:

Summary:

Undeposited Collections per last Report P xxxx.xx

Collections per OR Nos.--_____to_____ xxx.xx

Deposits:

Date:______________ P xxx.xx

Date:______________ P xxx.xx xxx.xx

xxxx.xx

C. This shall be prepared two (2) copies daily to be distributed as follows:

Original — Accounting Division together with the duplicate copy of the OR

Duplicate Copy — Cash Section/ Collecting Offi cers’ File

D. Collections should be deposited intact daily. The balance of collections not deposited during the day to cut-off should be deposited on the fi rst banking hour of the next working day.


234

To : All Regional DirectorsFrom : (Sgd.) LOURDES J. HUFANA OIC-Director, Civil Registry DepartmentSubject : AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURE TO BE AD-

OPTED AT THE REGIONAL CENSUS SERBILIS CENTERS

This is to formalize the agreement made during the recent Regional Conference regarding the authentication procedure to be adopted at the Regional Census Serbilis Centers.

As per discussion, all Regional Serbilis Centers shall now follow the authentication procedure enumerated below starting November 4, 2002.

1. Requests for authentication whose records are covered by converted years (Converted) —

The process shall automatically proceed to copy issuance of the requested birth record through CRS. If a certain request results to a negative fi nd, the certifi ed true copy submitted by the requesting party shall be used and the request shall undergo signature verifi cation using the CRS.

Please be informed that as of October 30, 2002, all birth documents, from 1945 to 1999 including late registered, endorsements and births which occurred outside the Philippines, are now converted and now located in the production database.

The authentication fee is P110.00

2. Requests for authentication whose records are not covered by the converted years (Unconverted) —

Authentication shall follow signature verifi cation. No verifi cation of the document shall take place.

Authentication fee is P110.00

3. Requests for authentication of late registered docu-ments —

These are forwarded electronically to CF for verifi cation to ensure that there are no duplicate records at NSO’s physical archives and the CRS database. If NSO has a copy, a certifi ed true copy is issued. Otherwise, using the certifi ed true copy submitted by the party, signature verifi cation using the CRS is followed.


With the completion of the conversion and migration of timely and late registered birth documents for the years 1945 to 1999 and the endorsed documents, this procedure shall apply to late marriage and death documents. For births, this procedure will apply to those registered late in 2000 onwards.

Fee is P60.00.

Please be informed that the above-mentioned procedure is found in the Job Aids for Request Service Offi cers and Outlet Supervisors given to you.


26 November 2002

To : All Regional Directors/Outlet SupervisorsFrom : (SGD.) LOURDES J. HUFANA OIC-Director, Civil Registry DepartmentSubject : NEW RATE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CIVIL REG-

ISTRY DOCUMENTS

Please be informed that effective 02 December 2002, NSO shall implement the new rate for the issuance of certifi ed true copies of converted documents. For example, birth documents from 1945 to 1999 including late registrations, endorsements and foreign births, shall be P 125.00 as approved by National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).

The fee to be collected for the authentication of timely registered documents, converted or unconverted, shall likewise be increased to P125.00.

Attached herewith is a copy of the poster, as a notice to the public on the increased rate for certifi cation on civil registry documents.



236

NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE ADVISORY SCHEDULE OF FEES

EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 2, 2002

ISSUANCE OF CERTI-FIED COPIES AND AU-THENTICATION OF:• BIRTH• MARRIAGE • DEATH

P 60.00(Metro Manila)

P 70.00(Outside Metro Manila)

P 125.00

CERTIFICATE OF NO MARRIAGE (CENOMAR)

P 110.00 Not Applicable

v SOURCE DOCUMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT

CARMELITA N. ERICTA NSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General

December 28, 2002

To : All Regional Directors/OICsFrom : (SGD.) LOURDES J. HUFANA OIC-Director; Civil Registry DepartmentSubject : RENEWAL OF CRASM

The implementation of the decentralized Solemnizing Offi cers Information System (SOIS) dated October 4, 2002 allowed the NSO Regional Offi ces to receive and process applications for renewal of Certifi cate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage granted by the religious heads to their members.

However, acceptance of applications and processing for renewal of Certifi cate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) belonging to a SECT of national coverage was still done by the Central Offi ce. Reason given was to allow the Regional Offi ces to be familiar with the system and for CRD to clean the SOIS database. These include:


1. Roman Catholic Church

2. Iglesia ni Cristo

3. Iglesia Filipina Independiente

4. Luzon Convention of Southern Baptist Churches

5. North Philippine Union Mission of Seventh Day Adventist

6. Proclaim Christ Until He Comes Fellowship

7. Samahang Tagapaglaganap ng mga Iglesia ni Kristo

8. Jesus is Lord Fellowship

9. Jesus is Alive Community

10. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the Phils.

Please be informed that effective January 2, 2002, all Regional Offi ces shall be allowed to receive and process the applications for renewal of CRASM belonging to the above-mentioned SECTs. Hence, the Central Offi ce shall accept and process applications for solemnizing offi cers who will register their authority for the fi rst time and those considered new applications only.

Cc: Adm. CARMELITA N. ERICTA OIC-Deputy Adm. Paula Monina G. Collado

February 10, 2003

Memorandum Circular 03-01

To : All Civil Registrars/ Offi cers-in-ChargeSubject : OFFICERS-IN-CHARGE AT THE LOCAL CIVIL

REGISTRY OFFICE

The Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) has observed the increasing number of Local Civil Registry Offi ces (LCRO), which have incumbent Local Civil Registrars, and yet the duties and functions of the LCRO are performed by a designated Offi cer-In-Charge (OIC).

The situation contemplates a case where a designated OIC performs all functions of an LCR, except the provisions of R.A. 9048. The incumbent LCR who is not on leave or does not have any administrative case fi led against him, is detailed elsewhere, but made to sign only, and/or process only R.A. 9048 petitions.


238

This results in two personalities performing one function creating a confusion for the public, and undermines the smooth fl ow of operations of the system.

Civil registration is one undertaking made up of several fi elds. The functions and duties arising from R.A. 9048 are merely additional functions to those already existing at the local civil registry offi ce and with the LCR. They are not separate and distinct functions. Therefore, it is not proper for an OIC referred to above, to perform some of the functions of the offi ce, while at the same time another performs just R.A. 9048 functions.

This practice defeats the intent of R.A. 9048 which provides that the head of the local civil registry system, effective immediately, the OCRG will recognize the duly designated OIC as the valid occupant of the LCRO. However, if circumstances of such designation not fall under any of the exceptions allowing OICs to act on R.A. 9048 petitions, any and all such petitions emanating from the LCRO will be impugned.


CARMELITA N. ERICTA Civil Registrar General

03 April 2003

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsFrom : (SGD.) LOURDES J. HUFANA OIC-Director, Civil Registration DepartmentSubject : REITERATION OF MEMORANDUM DATED AU-

GUST 10, 2001 RE PRICE OF CIVIL REGISTRA-TION FORMS

This is to reiterate that the new price of Municipal Forms 102, 103, 90, 97 and the attachments are as follows:

Certifi cate of Marriage — P 170.00/pad

Certifi cate of Live Birth — P 170.00/pad

Certifi cate of Death — P 170.00/pad

Application of Marriage — P 135.00/pad

Certifi cate of Foundling — P 90.00/pad

Fetal Death — P118.50/pad


MUSLIM FORMS

Birth Attachment — P 45.00/pad

Death Attachment — P 45.00/pad

Marriage Attachment — P 45.00/pad


Copy Furnished: All NSO Regional Directors All NSO Provincial Statistics Offi cers

26 June 2003

MEMORANDUM

To : All Regional Director/ Provincial Statistics Offi cersSubject : REQUESTS MADE THROUGH E-MAILS, FAX

MESSAGES AND LETTERS/COMMUNICATIONSFrom : CARMELITA N. ERICTA NSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General

Effective immediately, all Regional and Provincial Offi ces with Serbilis Centers are hereby instructed to stop sending applications for certifi cations of birth, marriage, death and other documents through e-mails, fax, and/ or letters/communications. All applications fi led in your offi ce must be processed through the CRS.

On the other hand, all Provincial Offi ces which do not have Serbilis Centers are advised to enter the applications using BREQS.

Please be reminded that requests for Court Order, Legal Instruments and Endorsements shall still be forwarded to the Central Offi ce, attention CRD while R.A. 9048 requests will be addressed to the Administrator’s Offi ce. However, the Central Offi ce will not accept follow-up on R.A. 9048 petitions. Please advise petitioners to course their inquiry at the Local Civil Registry Offi ce where they fi led the said petition.

For your information and strict compliance.

Thank you.


240

5 July 2003

MEMORANDUM

To : All Regional Director/Provincial Statistics Offi cersFrom : (SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTA Administrator and Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : TRANSFER AND APPLICATIONS FOR AN-

NOTATED CIVIL REGISTRY DOCUMENTS AFFECTED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRA-TOR IN NSO-STA. MESA TO THE CIVIL REG-ISTRY DEPARTMENT IN NSO-EDSA

1. Effective 16 July 2003, all applications for civil registry documents in Security Paper (SECPA) that have been processed under Republic Act No. 9048 shall be fi led at:

Area A, Ground Floor, Vibal Building NSO EDSA corner Times St. West Triangle, Quezon City

2. Therefore, the requesting public may no longer fi le their application for SECPA, at the Offi ce of the Administrator at NSO in Sta. Mesa starting July 16, 2003.

3. The fee for a copy of annotated SECPA is P 125.00

4. Please be reminded that the requirements for fi rst time requesters of annotated SECPA are the following C/MCR-issued documents: a.) C/MCR and CRG approved PETITION, b) Certifi cate of Finality, c) annotated certifi cate, and d) original (un-annotated) certifi cate.

5. Together with the above-mentioned requirements and the payment in Postal Money Order, all applications coming from the fi eld offi ces shall be sent to the following address:

Lourdes J. Hufana OIC-Director, Civil Registry Department 3/F Vibal Bldg., NSO EDSA cor Times St. West Triangle, Quezon City

6. Please disseminate to your constituents and respective C/MCRs


MEMORANDUM

To : All Regional Directors/ Provincial Statistics Offi cersDate : September 15, 2003Subject : PROHIBITION OF CERTIFYING PHOTOCOPIES

OF NSO-ISSUED CIVIL REGISTRY DOCUMENTS IN SECPA

It has come to our knowledge that there are clients requesting NSO to certify photocopies of their civil registry documents, allegedly true copies of previously issued documents in security paper (SECPA). In most instances, clients were able to previously secure a copy of the civil registry document from a Census Serbilis Centers (CSCs) and are need of additional copies of the same.

The act of certifying a photocopy (Xerox) to be a true copy of the record is well-intended but there remains the need to safeguard the integrity of the documents we issue and stake our reputation upon. If we certify the photocopy without direct verifi cation from our own database, we cannot say with certainty that the document presented to us is genuine including the paper it was allegedly printed on. While in all probability small, there is a possibility that tampering or modifi cation may have occurred.

To preserve the integrity of NSO-issued documents, the practice of certifying photocopy is hereby disallowed. Clients are to be advised to secure additional copies from any CRS outlet.

For your guidance and implementation.

CARMELITA N. ERICTAAdministrator and Civil Registrar General


242

4 November 2003

MEMORANDUM

For : All Employees at the Civil Registry Department Re-gional Directors and Regional Serbilis Outlet Staff Provincial Statistics Offi cers and Provincial Serbilis Outlets

Subject : GUIDELINES IN PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA

From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Civil Registrar General

The Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) is considered by the media and other agencies as the main source of reliable information to establish identity and status of persons. This is especially true for private individuals and public offi cials who are the focus of intense media scrutiny.

To maintain the integrity of civil registry product and the quality of our service, the following guidelines are formulated for the information and strict compliance of all concerned. Violation of these guidelines is tantamount to a violation of reasonable offi ce rules and regulations, and may subject the offender to administrative penalties.

1. Unless accompanied by an express written clearance from the Administrator, the Deputy Administrator or Director of the Civil Registry Department (CRD) or their duly authorized representatives, no personnel is authorized to provide any information, whether verbal or otherwise, pertaining to the civil status or identifi cation of any individual, to a representative of the media or agency. In the case of fi eld offi ces, such clearance shall be given by the Regional Director (RD), Provincial Statistics Offi ce (PSO) or their duly authorized representatives.

2. Duly authorized representatives are limited to the Division Chiefs of the CRD, or in the case of the Administrator and Deputy Administrator, whoever shall be designated, provided that in no case shall their salary grades be lower than SG 18. For fi eld offi ces, authorized representatives shall be those designated by the RD or PSO, whose salary grade should not be lower than SG 15. Designation orders to this effect shall be issued by the proper offi cial.


3. No request from any media or other agency pertaining to the above-mentioned cases shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a letter request from their respective heads.

4. Offi cial response to such requests shall be only through a certifi cation, the templates of which are attached to this memorandum. Should a copy of the document be required, an application must be fi led and approved by the person identifi ed in Items 1 and 2, after which, general processing and issuance procedures shall be followed.

5. Release of the offi cial response shall be made only to the same representative who fi led the application or made the request.

6. Copies of all such requests, certifi cations and documents issued shall be kept on fi le at the OCRG for record purposes.

4 January 2004

MEMORANDUM

For : ALL RDs/ PSOs/OICsFrom : CARMELITA N. ERICTA AdministratorSubject : NEW DECENTRALIZED VITAL STATISTICS SYS-

TEM

An updated Decentralized Vital Statistics System (DVSS2K) will be implemented this year. Civil registry documents registered starting January 2004 shall be processed using this new system. DVSS2K is windows-based and is an interactive system from processing of documents to preparation and matching of index fi elds with scanned images for the CRS.

In this regard, the Central Offi ce (CO) will conduct two levels of fi ve-day training (see Annex A) for CO employees, Regional Statisticians and Provincial Representative with Assistant Statistician level or higher. There will be fi ve training centers in the country for seven groups of trainees. Two representatives each from the Civil Registration Department and Information Resources Department will be trainers for the fi ve-day training in each of the Regional Training Centers.


244

The Regional Statisticians will serve as the Help Desk Offi cers to document DVSS2K related problems and solutions provided to POs in their respective regions and will be fi rst to know and help out in any problems encountered by the PO on DVSS2K operations. The Provincial representative will be the processor or the immediate supervisor of the DVSS2K processor/s.

Machines to be utilized in the training and eventually in the operations will be delivered and assembled in the regional training centers two or three weeks before the training (see Annex 2). In the Visayas and Mindanao Areas, an employee of the Information Technology Operations Division (TOD) will be going to each of the regional center for the computer assembly with the help of the computer technician of the host of the region.

Please provide the list of trainees from your region to the Civil Registration Department not later than January 12, 2004 for documentation purpose through e-mail at [email protected].


MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 2004-01

January 8, 2004

To : All Local Civil Registrars Consuls/DFA/DepEd/DOH/DSWD/DOJ/DOLE/

CHR/PNP ARMM OMA UCP Punong Barangays National Barangay Operations Offi ce NSO Regional Directors/Provincial Statistics Offi -

cers/OICsSubject : RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE REGISTRA-

TION OF BIRTHS OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF SPECIAL PROTECTION (CNSP)

In addition to the procedures provided for in Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, (Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act. No. 3753 and Other Laws on Civil Registration) the following rules and regulations shall apply to all cases of Children In Need


of Special Protection (CNSP) pursuant to Republic Act 610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).

WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development;

WHEREAS, the best interest of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities and legislative bodies consistent with the principles of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child;

WHEREAS, every effort therefore shall be exerted to promote the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life;

NOW, THEREFORE, the following rules and regulations governing the registration of births of CNSP are hereby adopted.

Rule 1. Defi nition. Children in Need of Special Protection (CNSP) shall refer to all persons below 18 years of age, or those 18 years old and over but are unable to take care of themselves because of physical or mental disability or condition; who are vulnerable to or are victims of abuse, neglect, exploitation, cruelty, discrimination and violence (armed confl ict, domestic violence) and other analogous conditions prejudicial to their development. CNSP include but are not limited to:

1. Sexually/physically-abused children;

2. Children in commercial sexual exploitation;

3. Children in confl ict with the law;

4. Children involved in armed confl ict;

5. Working children or victims of child labor;

6. Children in various circumstances of disability;

7. Displaced children/refugee children;

8. Children directly affected by Human Immuno-defi ciency Virus (HIV/Sexual Transmitted Infections/Diseases (STI/D);


246

9. Street children;

10. Children in substance abuse;

11. Mentally challenged children; and

12. Abandoned children/ children without primary caregiver.

Rule 2. Persons Responsible to Register CNSP. Imme-diately after fi nding a CNSP, the fi nder shall report the incident to the Punong Barangay of the place where the CNSP was found/rescued, and to the nearest Police Headquarters/authorities. Thereafter, the fi nder with the assistance of the Punong Barangay or the police authority shall facilitate the commitment of the child to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), or to a duly licensed and accredited orphanage or charitable institution. In case the fi nder is given custody of the child, he shall cause the registration of the child.

Any government institution or non-government organization (NGO) licensed and accredited by DSWD which is in custody of CNSP or who possesses any information about the CNSP shall cause the registration of the birth.

Rule 3. Place of Registration and Reglementary Period. The registration of CNSP shall be made in the Local Civil Registry Offi ce (LCRO) where the child was born, if known. If the place of birth is unknown, the registration shall be made in the place where the child was found, or in the residence of the custodian.

The registration shall be made sixty (60) days from the date of the actual custody of the child, except during armed confl icts, emergencies, natural calamities and other diffi cult circumstances, in which case registration shall be made (60) days, after the cessation thereof. Failure of the custodian to register the child within the reglementary period shall make him liable under existing laws.

Rule 4. Requirements for the Registration of CNSPs.

The following requirements shall be complied with for the registration of birth of a CNSP:

1. Certifi cation of no birth record (Negative Certifi cation) from the OCRG

2. Certifi cation from DSWD that the child is a CNSP indicating the following information:

a. Name of the child;


b. Sex of the child;

c. Date of birth;

d. Place of birth;

e. Name of al least one parent; and

f. Citizenship of parent/s

For unfi lled items in the Certifi cate of Live (COLB) the word “Unknown” is acceptable.

The approximate date of birth of the child may be certifi ed by medical/dental practitioners as proof of age.

Rule 5. Fees. No fees and other related charges such as processing fees and/or penalties shall be imposed on the registration of births of CNSPs.

Rule 6. Multiple Registration. In case of multiple registration of CNSPs, the fi rst registration shall prevail. Appropriate annotation shall be indicated by the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) in the Remarks portion of the Municipal Form 102 stating that the child was “PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED ON (date/place)’’ with a corresponding registration number.

Rule 7. Regular Reporting. The LCR shall submit the list of registered CNSPs to DSWD and OCRG every tenth day of the month.

Rule 8. Annotations on the COLB. The COLB shall bear the annotation that the registration is done pursuant to this Memorandum Circular.

This Memorandum Circular shall take effect on January 15, 2004.



248

October 8, 2004

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALMEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 2005-002

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsFrom : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : GUIDELINES ON SECURING COPIES OF DOCU-

MENTS AFFECTED BY R.A. NO. 9255 FROM THE OCRG

Please be informed that effective October 1, 2004 the Civil Registration Department shall observe the following:

a.) The new offi ce hours at NSO-EDSA is from 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Only clients who are inside the premises on or before 4:30 shall be served.

b.) Workdays will be from Monday to Friday only.

c.) Overtime services shall be for Monday to Friday only after offi ce hours.

There shall be no work on Saturdays.

For your information.

cc. Civil Registration Department

All C/MCRs

File


October 11, 2004

MEMORANDUM

To : All Local Civil Registrars/ Offi cers-in-ChargeFrom : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Administrator and Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : USE OF BIRTH REFERENCE NUMBER (BREN)

GENERATED THROUGH THE CIVIL REGISTRY SYSTEM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJ-ECT (CRIS-ITP) REPLACING THE POPULATION REFERENCE NUMBER (PRN)

This is to reiterate the attached memorandum with Reference No. 00CRD00-795 issued on December 19, 2000 which provides that the Population Reference Number (PRN) in the Certifi cates of Live Birth will no longer be generated from the year 2001 onwards. The Civil Registry System Information Technology Project (CRS-ITP) has replaced the PRN with the generation of Birth Reference Number (BReN).

It is observed that some Local Civil Registrars are still submitting reports using the PRN. Please be informed that this is no longer required.

For your information and compliance.


All NSO Regional Directors and Provincial Statistics Offi cers

File


250

October 18, 2004

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERALMEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 04-12

To : All Local Civil Registrars/ Offi cers-in-ChargeFrom : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Administrator and Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : CLARIFICATION ON THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC

DOCUMENTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255

Under Rule 2.1 of Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255), public document is defi ned as “affi davits of recognition executed by the father such as the Affi davit of Admission of Paternity or the Affi davit of Acknowledgement”.

The defi nition of public document as provided by the Supreme Court, however, is not limited to the two affi davits mentioned. Specifi cally, a public document is a document to the execution of which a person in authority or notary public takes part (Bermeho vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764). In addition, the Rules of Court (Section 19, Rule 132) also provided examples of public documents. Annex A of this circular provides a list of examples of public document.

For purposes of R.A. No. 9255, the defi nition of public document is hereby changed to include those enumerated in Annex a, provided that in such document, the paternity of the father to the child is clearly shown.



All NSO Regional Directors and Provincial Statistics Offi cers

File

THE FOLLOWING ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC DOCU-MENTS

Section 19, Rule 132, Rules of Court

1. Written offi cial acts, or records of the offi cial acts of the sovereign authority, offi cial bodies and tribunals, and


public offi cers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country;

2. Documents acknowledge before a notary public, except last wills and testaments; and

3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

Supreme Court Rulings

1. Any instrument notarized by a notary public or a competent public offi cial with the solemnities required by law.

2. Blank forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippines in accordance with Act 90 of the Philippine Commission.

3. Offi cial receipts prescribed by the governments to be issued upon receipts of money for public purposes.

4. A cashbook of a public offi cial in which entries are made of account of public moneys received.

5. An offi cial receipt printed in accordance with standard forms.

6. A copy of the record of possesory information, the original of which was fi led in the registry of property, partakes of the character of a judicial proceeding and of a public document.

7. Legislative acts.

8. Civil service examination papers are public documents because they form part of the documents on the fi les of the civil service.

9. A cedula or certifi cate.

10. Certifi cate of land registration.

11. Personnel information sheet of the NBI.

12. All documents acknowledgement by a notary public and certifi ed to by him are considered public document in this jurisdiction.

13. Transcript of stenographic notes taken during a hearing by an offi cial court stenographer.


252

14. Pleadings fi led in court.

15. Index cards of the civil service containing data about a civil service employee, including his passing of the civil service, his appointments, service records.

16. All records of the civil register.

November 9, 2004

MEMORANDUM

To : All Regional Directors All Provincial Statistics Offi cersFrom : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Administrator and Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : NSO FEES TO BE IMPOSED IN BREQS TRANS-

ACTIONS

The Batch Request Entry System (BREQS) is an of-line application software designed for use by NSO-authorized partners in managing applications for certifi cations and copy issuance of civil registry documents.

For BREQS application at the LGUs, the following fees shall be collected:

Php125.00 for copy issuance of birth, marriage and death certifi cate.

Php160.00 for issuance of CENOMAR Please be informed that the LGU may charge additional fees as allowed by their local ordinance.

BREQS processing for copy issuance of birth, marriage and death certifi cate is three days while for CENOMAR request, nine days, exclusive of delivery time.

For your guidance.

cc. Civil Registration Department File

CARMELITA N. ERICTAAdministrator, National Statistics Offi ce


January 21, 2005

MEMORANDUM

To : All City/Municipal RegistrarsSubject : CIVIL REGISTRATION MONTH (FEBRUARY

2005)

In accordance with Proclamation No. 682, issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on 19 January 1991, February is Civil Registration Month. This year we will celebrate this with theme “Pangalan ko, Karapatan ko.” One of the highlights of this year’s celebration is the launching of the Global Campaign on Universal Birth Registration (UBR). UNICEF together with international non-government organizations such as Plan International spearheads this campaign. Since the Birth Registration Project (BRP) is in its preliminary stage, this is the best time to promote the project as well. An intense information dissemination and education drive through tri-media (TV, Radio and Newspaper) nationwide shall be administered. Apart from this, we encourage all Regional Directors, Provincial Statistics Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars to conduct the following activities:

Mobile Registration

All Local Civil Registry Offi ces in coordination with the Provincial Statistics Offi cers may conduct the mobile registration. The City/Municipal Civil Registrars are requested to initiate the passing of a resolution from their respective Sangguniang Bayan declaring February 7-11, 2005 as Mobile Registration Week. The Provincial Statistics Offi cers may also coordinate with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for the enactment of a similar resolution.

Display of Streamers

The display of streamers in all fi eld offi ces of NSO-Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General and Local Civil Registry Offi ces has been institutionalized to promote awareness on the Civil Registration Month. The streamers are usually solicited from commercial fi rms who take the occasion as an opportunity for advertisement. The theme of the celebration should be clearly printed on the streamer. (Attached is the standard format of the streamer)


254

Charitable Activity

One of the most rewarding feelings is to be to share what you have without expecting something in return. Since, February is celebrated as the love month, we may also consider having Charitable Activity during this celebration. Local Civil Registry Offi ces and NSO-OCRG Field Offi ces may choose their target institution.

Free Issuance of Certifi cations

Free issuance of certifi cations by all Local Civil Registry Offi ces in connection with Civil Registration Month is one of the essential activities that directly benefi t the general public. If possible, we suggest that this be done on the 23 of February as a support to the global campaign on Universal Birth Registration (UBR). For this activity to be effective, the Local Civil Registry Offi ces shall offi cially inform their respective offi cials (members of the Sangguniang Bayan, the Mayor and the City/Municipal Treasurer) that the free issuance of certifi cations is a yearly activity in connection with Civil Registration Month. In the past years and for some local government units, a resolution from the Sangguniang Bayan was passed authorizing the City/Municipal Civil Registrars to issue certifi cations of birth, death and marriage free of charge. The same way may be done this year, if necessary.

Other Relevant Activities

For other activities relevant to this celebration, the NSO fi eld offi ces and the Local Civil Registry Offi ces are given the discretion to determine which activities can be undertaken in their respective localities. These activities could be motorcade, mass wedding, symposium, information/education campaign, slogan contest, etc.

We are also attaching herewith the schedule of activities to be conducted by NSO-CRD Manila.

CARMELITA N. ERICTANSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General

cc: Regional Directors Provincial Statistics Offi cers


10 February 2005


To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : GUIDELINES ON SECURING COPIES OF DOCU-


The following guidelines are issued to ensure a standard procedure in securing copies of OCRG-annotated documents resulting from the provisions of R.A. No. 9255:

A. FOR PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED COLB

1. Applicants may be advised to fi le their requests for copies of annotated civil registry documents resulting from the provisions of R.A. No. 9255 at:

NSO-EDSA Area A, Ground Floor, Vibal Building EDSA corner Times Street West Triangle, Quezon City

2. Requests may also be coursed through the NSO Regional/Provincial Offi ce, which shall facilitate the fi ling of requests.

3. Requests fi led at the NSO Regional/Provincial Offi ces should be forwarded together with the payment in Postal Money Order to the NSO Civil Registration Department with the following address:

Dir. Lourdes J. Hufana Director III, Civil Registration Department 3/F Vibal Building EDSA corner Times St. West Triangle, Quezon City

Subject: RA 9255

4. First time requests for annotated documents must be accompanied by the following documents:


256

a. Certifi ed true copy of the unannotated COLB

b. Certifi ed true copy of the annotated COLB

c. Certifi ed true copy of the Public Document/Private Handwritten Instrument, if applicable

d. Certifi ed true copy of the Affi davit to Use the Surname of the Father, if applicable

5. The above requirements need not be submitted for subsequent requests.

6. Requests for annotated documents under these rules, the applicant should indicate in the application form that the request concerns R.A. No. 9255.

7. The processing fee for a copy of annotated document from NSO is P125.

B. FOR NEWLY REGISTERED COLB

Newly registered COLBs affected by R.A. No. 9255, whether timely or delayed, are included in the regular submissions of the LCROs to NSO Provincial Offi ces.

1. Requests for copies of these COLBs maybe fi led at any Census Serbilis Outlets.

2. If the requested documents have not been enrolled in the CRS database, these will be treated as unconverted and will follow the same procedures for securing unconverted documents.


Cc: Civil Registration Department All NSO Regional Directors and Provincial Statistics Offi cers All NSO Department Directors File


MEMORANDUM

To : All RDs/PSOs/MCRsSubject : FREE BIRTH REGISTRATION OF CHILDREN IN

NEED OF SPECIAL PROTECTION (CNSP)Date : August 1, 2005

It is the policy of the State to promote the welfare of the children. As stated in the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603), “every effort should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life.”

Children in Need of Special Protection (CNSP) includes dependent, abandoned and neglected children whose parental authority has been transferred to the care of suitable/accredited person or institution.

In accordance with Presidential Decree No. 326 (sic) issued by then President Fidel V. Ramos on February 14, 1994 and with the Memorandum of Agreement entered into with the League of Municipalities on October 14, 2002, we advocate and encourage that all City/Municipal Civil Registrars (C/MCRs) shall facilitate the registration of CNSPs free of charge.

We reiterate the need to strengthen the effective civil registration of these CNSPs. The NSO-OCRG supports free birth registration of CNSPs provided they have complied with the Certifi cate of Indigency issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.



258



To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsSubject : GUIDELINES ON SECURING COPIES OF DOCU-


Date : August 1, 2005

The Re-verifi cation (RV) Tracking Utility of CRS is a facility in the Serbilis Outlets mainly used to track a processed transaction which was electronically sent to the Special Request Unit (SRU) or Vibal for re-verifi cation.

The following guidelines are hereby promulgated to ensure a uniform procedure in sending documents to CRD for RV:

a. Who are allowed to use the RV Tracking Utility?

Only NSO Serbilis Centers Personnel are allowed to use the RV Tracking Utility of CRS. For online fi eld offi ces, documents for RV shall be sent to their respective Regional Offi ces for processing. The process of Electronic Endorsement shall be followed in sending requests for RV at CRD.

b. When is re-verifi cation applicable?

v A copy issuance or CENOMAR transaction yielded a negative result in the CRD database, but upon verifi cation in the CRQS database (old NSO database), yielded a positive match. (POSITIVE IN THE CRQS)

v A copy issuance/authentication transaction resulted in a positive result but the image is blurred/unreadable. (BLURRED/UNREADABLE IMAGE)

v A copy issuance/authentication transaction yielded negative in both CRS and CRQS database, but the client is able to show personal copy of the document. (WITH PERSONAL COPY)

v A copy issuance/authentication transaction resulted in a positive result but the document does not


have the proper annotation. (WITHOUT PROPER ANNOTATION)

c. What cases are outside the scope of the RV Tracking Utility?

v The client was issued a negative certifi cation done through manual process (unconverted) and has undergone the process of endorsement.

v The client was issued a copy of the document with blurred/unreadable entries verifi ed through the manual process (unconverted) and has undergone the process of endorsement.

v The client was issued an “Exception Notice” certifi cation and has followed the instructions set forth in the “Exception Notice”.

d. For cases in Item C, how will the documents be sent to CRD?

The document/certifi cation issued by CRD together with the necessary supporting documents which can help in the retrieval of the proper document shall be forwarded to CRD using the following address:

EDITHA R. ORCILLA Chief, Document Management Division National Statistics Offi ce West Triangle, Quezon City Re: Document for RV

e. How will the result of the re-verifi cation be transmitted back to the requesting client?

SRU, Vibal shall return of re-verifi cation to the Servicing Outlets, which in turn shall transmit the documents to the transmitting fi eld offi ce/client. Servicing Outlets are on-line Regional and Provincial CRS Outlet where original copies of endorsement/piecemeal documents are accepted for processing. It is also responsible in using copy of the approved endorsement/piecemeal in CRS paper.


260




21 June 2005

To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars/Consuls Gener-al

Subject : CLARIFYING SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048 (PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT FOR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME)

Pursuant to Section 2 of the Civil Registry Law (Act No. 3753 as amended by the Local Government Code of 1991), this Memorandum Circular is hereby issued to clarify the application of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9048, particularly the form to be used in compliance with the publication requirement of petition for change of fi rst name (CFN).

Section 5 of R.A No. 9048 provided that the petition to be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

It appears that some petitions for CFN are denied by C/MCRs on the ground of non-compliance with the publication requirement of the law i.e. for not publishing the petition for CFN itself (Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2). Some C/MCRs insist that the petition itself (Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2) should be published and not the Notice of Publication (Form No. 10.0 and 10.2).

Section 5 of R.A. 9048 should not be interpreted to limit publication only to Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2. The term “petition should be liberally construed to refer to “act” of petitioning for the change of name, and not the pleading itself.

In Section 3 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, the law which applies to petitions for change of name prior to the approval of R.A. No. 9048, the court allows the publication of order reciting the purpose of the petition with the date and place of hearing. The contents of the entire pleading are not published.


Taking into consideration the above interpretation and the high cost of publication, petitions for CFN shall be granted/affi rmed upon substantial compliance with the publication requirement under Section 5 of R.A. 9048.

Further, Forms Nos. 10.1 and 10.2 (Notice of Publication) notify all persons adversely affected by the petition to fi le their written opposition with the Local Civil Registrar or Consular Offi ce abroad. This notice is not provided in Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2.

Petitions for CFN denied by the C/MCR for using Forms Nos. 10.1 and 10.2 can fi le an Appeal as provided under R.A. 9048.

This Memorandum Circular takes effect immediately.


cc. Department of Foreign Affairs Civil Registry Department All Regional Directors/OIC All NSO Provincial Statistics Offi cer/OIC

June 28, 2005


To : All Regional Directors/Provincial Statistics Offi cers/OICs

Subject : REGISTRATION OF THE AUTHORITY TO SOL-EMNIZE MARRIAGE

1. Effective 01 July 2005, applications for Certifi cate of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) of new solemnizing offi cers as well as applications for renewal of authority to solemnize marriage shall be fi led at their respective NSO Provincial Offi ces (POs).

New Solemnizing Offi cers include those who apply for the fi rst time, those whose authority to solemnize marriage has already expired but did not fi le for renewal within the prescribed period which is on or before the


262

31st of December of the third year and those who changed religious sect.

The PO shall subject all applications to preliminary quality check and conduct investigation if necessary. After the preliminary checks, new applications shall be forwarded to the NSO-OCRG for processing and issuance of CRASM. Application for renewal shall be forwarded to NSO Regional Offi ce (RO) for processing and issuance of CRASM.

2. Effective 01 January 2006, all applications whether new or renewal shall be sent by the POs to the ROs for processing and issuance of CRASM.

The OCRG shall be responsible in the keeping, maintenance and preservation of the register of all Solemnizing Offi cers.

For your guidance and strict compliance.



April 8, 2005

To : All City/Municipal Civil RegistrarsFrom : (SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTA Administrator and Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : CENOMAR AS REQUIREMENT FOR LEGITIMA-

TION

It has been observed that documents for legitimation submitted and endorsed by the City/Municipal Civil Registrars (C/MCRs) to the PCRG have been processed and allowed for legitimation without checking whether the parents have been previously married. The CENOMAR is hereby made an additional requirement to prevent instances of approving legitimation of children particularly with parents either of whom has as existing valid marriage with another person.

Under Rule 66(2) of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, “only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parent/s who,


at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other, may be legitimated. Since previous marriage is an impediment to remarry, legitimation shall not prosper.

In this respect, the concerned C/MCR may require the parties applying for legitimation to present a CENOMAR. The CENOMAR shall become an additional requirement before annotating the COLB of the child. This is to make sure that the parent/s of the child whose legitimation is being sought is free from a previous marriage.

For your guidance.

cc: All Regional Directors All Provincial Statistics Offi cers

2 January 2005

Ms. Olivia GullaRegional DirectorNSO-CAR

Dear RD Gulla:

This refers to your fax letter regarding the case raised by Mr. George Gunday, Municipal Civil registrar of Balbalan, whose fi rst name appears as “BOY” in the Certifi cate of Live Birth (COLB) of one Aldrin Bagne.

Please be informed that the opinion cited in the letter (Ref. No. 04GAD06-386) assumed that the birth of Mr. Aldrin Bagne occurred in 1993 or thereafter. However per attached birth certifi cate, the birth occurred in 1972, prior to the effectivity of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993. Given this, the name “BOY” was consi-dered as descriptive word as embodied in Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1942, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1975 and Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983. As such, a supplemental report is appropriate in this case to supply the true name in the COLB.

We hope to have clarifi ed the issue further. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

CARMELITA N. ERICTAAdministrator


264

cc: Director Lourdes Hufana All NSO Regional Director Mr. George Gunday, MCR, Balbalan, Kalinga

October 17, 2005

Mr. Marieto M. Tan, Sr.League PresidentLeague of City/Municipal Civil Registrars ofMisamis Occidental, IncorporatedClarin, Misamis Occidental

Dear Mr. Tan:

This refers to Resolution No. 2005-005 of the League of City/Municipal Civil Registrars of Misamis Occidental for the indefi nite suspension of the implementation of Memorandum Circular No. 2005-01 issued by our Offi ce making CENOMAR a requirement for legitimation.

To clear the issue on this Memorandum Circular, we would like to particularly refer you to the third paragraph of the same. Please note the word “may” in the sentence herein. We used the word “may” to reiterate that this requirement is not mandatory but provides an option to the C/MCR to require the parties to present the CENOMAR in applying for legitimation.

In the second sentence of the same paragraph. Please note that we used the word “shall”. This means that when the parties submit the CENOMAR or when the C/MCR requires the submission of such document, it automatically becomes a requirement for legitimation.


Very truly yours,

LOURDES J. HUFANADirector, Civil Registration Department

cc: Mr. Salvador A. Aves Regional Director, National Statistics Offi ce Region X Cagayan de Oro City


January 6, 2006

Dr. Salvador A. AvesRegional DirectorNational Statistics Offi ceRegion XCagayan de Oro City

Dear Mr. Aves:

This refers to your query on whether Memorandum Circular 90-04 on delayed registration of births of illegitimate children needs approval of the Civil Registrar General is still in effect?

Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, has expressly superseded Memorandum Circular 90-04, specifi cally in Rule 25. There maybe some similar provisions between the two but under the Statutory Rule of laws, “the latter law supersedes the other”. Further, all provisions of the said Memorandum Circular has been extensively covered by Administrative Order No. 1.

As to the application of R.A. 9255 in cases of delayed registration, we have already reiterated that the law covers births occurring during the enactment of the Family Code. A child, if born within the effectivity of the Family Code and was late registered shall follow the rule on delayed registration and shall immediately use the surname of the father, if acknowledged pursuant to R.A. 9255.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LOURDES J. HUFANADirector, Civil Registration Department


266

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 2007 – 004

February 7, 2007

To : City/Municipal Civil Registrars and Offi cers-in-Charge

From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Administrator and Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : GUIDELINES IN PREPARING AND ISSUING

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

Rule 11 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993 (A.O. 1) provides the guidelines in preparing a supplement report at the local civil registry offi ce. The specifi c provisions in A.O. 1 are reiterated and additional guidelines are issued to ensure the uniformity of procedures being implemented by all local civil registrars and personnel.

The following are the guidelines:

1. A supplemental report is used to supply entries or information in the Certifi cate of Live Birth, Certifi cate of Marriage, Certifi cate of Death, and Certifi cate of Fetal Death, which are inadvertently omitted when the document was registered.

2. However, the “Medical Certifi cate” in the Certifi cate of Death and all applicable certifi cations contained in the Certifi cate of Marriage should be accomplished completely before registration. Hence, no supplemental report having reference to the mentioned certifi cates is acceptable. [A.O. 1 a, Rule 11 (1)]

3. The supplemental report shall not be used in any manner to change or to correct any entry, which was previously entered in the civil register, or to circumvent the provisions of Article 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which prohibits any change or correction of an entry in the civil register without judicial order. [A.O. 1, Rule 11(2)]

This rule still applies with the enactment of Republic Act 9048, which amended Article 412.

4. The civil registrar shall accept only one supplemental report for more than two omitted information in any


registered event. In cases where there are more than two omitted information, all papers related thereto shall be forwarded to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. [A.O. 1, Rule, 11(13)]

Cases which need to be referred to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) shall be submitted to the:

Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General Attn. Ms. Editha R. Orcilla Vibal Bldg., corner Times St. and EDSA West Triangle, Quezon City

5. The OCRG shall provide the feedback to the civil registrar regarding the result of the submitted case/s of supplemental report for more than two omitted information within fi fteen days after receipt of the cases. Feedback means whether the case/s raised have been approved or disapproved. Whenever necessary, follow-up on the results of the cases may be through the following email addresses:

to: E. [email protected]

cc: C. [email protected], L. [email protected]

6. Pending approval by the OCRG on supplemental report cases with more than two omitted information, the local civil registry offi ces should refrain from effecting the supplemental report and from issuing civil registry documents with supplemental report to the client.

7. The supplemental report may be fi led by the parents/guardian or the party concerned, if of age, who shall execute an affi davit indicating the entry/entries missed in the registration and the reason/s why there was a failure in supplying the required entry. [A.O. 1, Rule 11 (4)]

8. Ensure that the following requirements are complied with:

• Affi davit for supplemental report indicating the facts of events like name/s of the documents owner/s, date and place of event, entry/entries, omitted, and reason/s for failure to supply the missing information at the time of registration;


268

• Certifi ed copy of the document with the omitted entry/entries;

• Supplemental report using the appropriate form as stated in guideline # 9;

• Certifi ed copy of the Certifi cate of Marriage of the parents of the document owner, if document affected is a Certifi cate of Live Birth.

9. Upon receipt of the requirements stated in the guidelines # 8 above, the local civil registry offi ce shall prepare the supplemental report using the appropriate form, that is, Certifi cate of Live Birth, Certifi cate of Marriage, Certifi cate of Death, or Certifi cate of Fetal Death, whichever is appropriate.

The omitted entry/entries shall be entered in the appropriate space/s in the said forms in addition to the following items:

• Certifi cate of Live Birth/Certifi cate of Death/ Certifi cate of Fetal Death

Province City/Municipality Registry Number Name of the Document Owner Informant Prepared By Received at the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar

• Certifi cate of Marriage Names of the contracting parties Received at the Offi ce of the Civil Registrars

10. The Affi davit for supplemental report shall not be registered in the Registry Book for Legal Instruments. For control purposes, the registry number of the civil registry document affected by the supplemental report should be transcribed on the upper right hand portion of the Affi davit.

11. Correspondingly, the following shall also be written under the Remarks column of the Civil Register:

“With Supplemental Report, prepared by (complete name of the person who prepared the supplemental


report) on (date of entry of the supplemental report) for (omitted entry/entries).”

12. The local civil registry offi ce shall issue a certifi ed copy or transcription of the document bearing the effects of the supplemental report. Said certifi ed copy shall be marked “with Supplemental Report” to be written on the upper right hand portion of the document.

13. The local civil registry offi ce shall submit certifi ed true copies of the following documents to the OCRG

• Copy of the Affi davit for Supplemental Report

• Copy of the supplemental report

• Copy of the document with omitted entry/entries

• Copy of the document bearing the effects of the supplemental report with the mark “With Supplemental Report”

The above shall be submitted to the:

Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General Attn: Ms. Editha R. Orcilla Vibal Bldg., cor. Times St. and EDSA West Triangle, Quezon City Subject: Supplemental Report

For your compliance.


To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars Consuls Gener-al

From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : MIDDLE NAME AND MIDDLE INITIAL IN THE

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTHDate : February 13, 2007

For the information of all concerned, this Memorandum Circular is hereby adopted in response to various queries relative to the proper use of middle name and middle initial. This will ensure uniformity in recording civil registry documents.


270

Please be informed that in the birth registration procedures the City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) shall require the infor-mant to fi ll-up the Certifi cate of Live Birth (COLB) completely, i.e., the child’s fi rst, middle and last name. Illegitimate children, may, however, opt to have or not have a middle name. In case the infor-mant provides for the middle name the entry maybe as follows:

“a. The mother’s maiden surname, if the child is legitimate;

b. The mother’s maiden middle name, if the child is illegitimate, was born on or before 3 August 1988 and was acknowledged only by the mother;

c. The mother’s middle name, if the child is illegitimate and was born after 3 August 1988;

d. The father’s middle name, if the child is illegitimate and was acknowledged only by the father;

e. The mother’s middle name, if the child is illegitimate and neither parent acknowledged the child.”

(page 15, Instructions Manual Civil Registry Forms/Accomplishment and Coding, Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General)

Once registered, the fi rst, middle and last names entered in the COLB becomes the permanent name of the child. The same may only be changed of corrected under RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) or under the proper court as the case may be.

If the informant supplied the middle name in the COLB, all entries therein become the middle name of the child. For compound middle names such as dela Cruz, de la Cruz, del Rosario and de Guzman, the preposition dela, de la, del and de form part of the middle name. As such, the fi rst letter of the said preposition which is “D” becomes the middle initial. However, it should be noted that what was asked in COLB is middle name and not middle initial, hence, the complete middle name should be entered in the COLB.

Similarly, for compound middle names such as Lopez Vito, Palma Gil, Sta. Rosa and San Buenaventura, the middle initial shall be the fi rst letter of the compound name which is L, P, and S as the case maybe.

This Memorandum Circular applies without prejudice to existing rules for registration of Muslim Filipinos and Indigenous Peoples.

For your guidance.



To : All City/Municipal Civil Registrars Consuls Gener-al

From : CARMELITA N. ERICTA Civil Registrar GeneralSubject : GUIDELINES IN FILING THE APPROPRIATE

PETITION INVOLVING THE USE OF JR., II, III AND THE LIKES UNDER RA 9048

Date : February 13, 2007

The following illustrated cases serve as guidelines in the fi ling of appropriate petition involving the use of Jr., II, III and the like. The Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

“Article 375 — In case of identity of names and surnames between ascendants and descendants, the word “Junior” can be used only by a son. Grandsons and other direct male descendant shall either:

1. Add a middle name or the mother’s surname, or

2. Add the Roman numerals, II, III and so on.”

Further, Rule 11 of Administrative Order No. 1 series of 1993, otherwise known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act No. 3753, provides:

“Rule 11 (1) — A supplemental report using the appropriate form maybe fi led to supply information inadvertently omitted when the document was registered. xxx.”

(2) — The supplemental report shall not be used in any manner to change or to correct any entry which was previously entered in the civil register or to circumvent the provision of Article 412 of the Civil Code (or Republic Act No. 9048)..”

Based on the foregoing laws, and rules, the illustrated cases and the guidelines in the proper course of action to take care provided as follows:

CASE NO. 1. The word Jr. is inadvertently omitted in the child’s fi rst name in Certifi cate of Live Birth (COLB).


272

Example:

Name of Child in COLB Name of Father

Juanito Juanito

The additional name “Jr.” was not entered (omitted) in the COLB to distinguish the father from the child. The petitioner may apply for supplemental report under Rule 11 of AO No. 1, Series of 1993, we considered the fi rst name “Baby Boy” and “Baby Girl” as if names were omitted, hence these are cases falling under the procedure of supplemental report in 1993, onwards the entry “Baby Girl or Boy” were considered as an entry in name, hence, can be fi led as a petition as a petition for correction of entry under RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law).

CASE NO. II. The additional name “JR.” was erroneously entered in the COLB as part of the child’s fi rst name but the father’s fi rst name is different from the child. “JR.” can be considered erroneously entered.

Example:


Ramon, Jr. Ramoncito

Thus, the proper petition to be fi led is a petition for correction (CCE) of child’s fi rst name to delete “Jr.” as provided under Republic Act 9048.

If the petitioner wants to correct the father’s fi rst name from Ramoncito to Ramon, the proper petition to be fi led is the petition for correction of clerical error (CCE) in the father’s fi rst name under RA 9048.

CASE NO. III. The Roman numeral “II” (instead of Jr.) is inadvertently placed as part of the child’s fi rst name in the COLB.

Example:


Mario II Mario


Under this case, the additional name to be entered should be Jr. not II. A petition for correction of clerical error is proper under this case.

CASE NO. IV. The Roman numeral “III, IV” and so on was added to the fi rst name of the child without any other previous or older child using the additional name “JR”.

Example:


Tirso III Tirso

The fi rst name of the child is registered with Roman numeral “III” but the father’s fi rst name is the same as that of the child. Under this case, the petitioner may fi le a petition for correction of clerical error to correct III to Jr.

CASE NO. V. The additional name “JRA” or the use of Roman numeral II was inadvertently placed in the child’s name who is a female.

Example:


Julie Jra./Julie II Julie

There is no legal basis for a daughter or other female descendants to use the additional name “JRA” or placing any Roman numeral with their fi rst names. Article 375 of the Civil Code applies only to the “son”, grandson”, or “other direct descendants”.

The proper petition to be fi led is a petition for Change of First Name (CFN) under RA 9048.

CASE NO. VI. If the name of the child is written in full as “JUNIOR” and it is to be changed to short “JR” and vice-versa, the proper petition to be fi led should be a petition for CFN.


274

Example:

Name of Child in COLB

From To

Junior Jr.

Ric, Jr. Ric Junior

CASE NO. VII. If the additional name Sr./Jr., is to be entered in the father’s name either in the COLB and Certifi cate of Marriage (CM) the same must be subjected to the fi ling of a petition for correction of clerical error (CCE) under RA 9048 and not through the procedures of supplemental report under A.O. 1 s. 1993 provided the Sr./Jr. appear in the father’s COLB.

Example: Father’s fi rst name is to be corrected.

Name of Child in COLB

From To

Carlo Cruz Carlo Cruz Jr.

Carlo Cruz Carlo Cruz Sr.


275

Appendix 3

DOJ OPINIONS

OPINION 73, S. 2005



February 28, 2005

Ms. CARMELITA N. ERICTAAdministratorNational Statistics Offi ceP.O. Box 779 Manila

Madam:

This has reference to your request for opinion on the queries stated therein relating to the effect/s, if any, of the provisions of Article 7 of Executive Order No. 209,1 as amended, upon the pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1083,2 Article of E.O. No. 209, as amended, in part, reads:


xx xx;

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by church or religious sect xxx;

xx xx3

1Entitled “The Family Code of the Philippines,” promulgated on July 6, 1987.2Also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines”, issued

on Feb. 4, 1977.3Op. cit., stress supplied.

275


276

The queries, it appears, are raised in connection with Article 18 of P.D. No. 1083 which pertinently provide, to wit:

Art. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. — Marriage may be solemnized:


(b) Upon 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 of Shari’a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifi able reason, to authorize the solemnization.4

You state that the above-quoted legal provision of the decree is silent as to the prior registration of the imams before they can solemnize marriage. In view of your perceived confl ict between the aforesaid provision and the earlier-quoted provision of the Family Code, you now elevate the matter to the Department for opinion.

To us, the resolution of the issues raised would require a look into the other pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1083 and E.O. No. 209, as amended respectively, specifi cally those relating to the interpretation and application of their respective provisions.

The subject Code of Muslim Personal Laws, insofar as material, states;

Art. 3. Confl ict of provisions. — (1) In case of confl ict between any provision of this Code and laws of general application, the former shall prevail.

(2) Should the confl ict be between any provision of this Code and special laws or laws of local application, the latter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the former.

(3) The provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the prejudice of a Non-Muslim.5

4Op. cit., Section 1 (Requisites of Marriage), Chapter Two (Marriage [NIKAM]), Title II (Marriage and Divorce), Book Two (Persons and Family Relations). 5Ibid, Title II (Construction of Code and Defi nition of Terms), Book One (General Provisions); underscoring ours.

277APPENDIX 3DOJ OPINIONS

Art. 13. Application. — (1) The provision of this Title shall apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines.

(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim solemnized not, in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the Civil Code of the Philippines shall apply.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage, xxx solemnization and registration of marriage xxx, shall be governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws,6

Upon the other hand, Article 254 of the Family Code is clear, thus:

ART. 254, Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Article 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamation, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.7

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction to give effect to the general intent of the legislature that can be ascertained from a consideration of the whole statute and not only a particular provision thereof.8 The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from any single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or sentences but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole.9

Equally basic is the rule that when the words and phases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, the meaning thereof must be determined from the language used and the statute must be taken to

6Ibid., Chapter One (Applicability Clause), title II (Marriage and Divorce), Book Two (Persons and Family Relations); emphasis provided.

7Title XII (Final Provisions); stress added.8Manila Lodge No. 761 vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 162, 177.9Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, 13 SCRA 459, 446-467.


278

mean exactly what it says.10 The rationale is because when the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation-only for application.11

The provisions of P.D. No. 1083, earlier quoted, governing the construction of its provisions vis-à-vis other laws as well as the application thereof are clear and categorical. Thus, in case of confl ict between the provisions of said Code or decree which, incidentally, is a special law and those of laws of general application, the Family Code or E.O. No. 209 included, the former shall govern. This is true even if the general law is a later enactment and broad enough to include the provisions of the Code.12 The reason is because the Code itself has expressly and explicitly revealed the intent of the legislature. Moreover, and as specifi cally applied to the Family Code, its repealing clause is a general one, i.e., save for provisions of Civil Code, as amended, and P.D. No. 603, as amended, it does not repeal in express terms the provisions of the Muslim Personal Code. For the same reasons stated above, a similar conclusion would be reached even if we assume that E.O. No. 209, as amended, is also a special law.

As the Decree itself explicitly states, however, the above conclusion should be qualifi ed. This is because under Article 3 thereof, “the provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslims and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.” Likewise, by express mandate of Article 13 of the Decree, “the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage” and “solemnization and registration” the marriage of the persons mentioned therein, among others things, “shall be governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.”

Consequently, when the parties to the marriage are both Muslims or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized under the Muslim laws, the provision of Section 18 of P.D. No. 1083 enumerating those persons authorized to solemnize marriage, which undeniably includes an imam,13 governs.14 Conversely, when the aforesaid elements or conditions are not present, the provision on the authority of the solemnizing offi cer, including the registration

10Baranda vs. Gustillo, 165 SCRA 757, 770.11Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. NLRC, 206 SCRA 701, 711.12Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487,

496.13See also, Raul and Ghazali, Muslim Code of the Philippines: Commentaries

and Jurisprudence, 1984 ed., p. 128.14Also, Article 13, P.D. No. 1083.

279APPENDIX 3DOJ OPINIONS

with the civil registrar general, under Article 7 of the Family Code, which further amended the Civil Code of the Philippines, applies. This is explicit even from a reading of Article 13(2) of the Muslim Personal Laws itself.


Very truly yours,

(SGD.) RAUL M. GONZALESSecretary


280

Appendix 4

REFERRED CASES/QUERIESOPINION NO. 90, S. 2000

Use of the Surname by the Son of Malaysian National

November 9, 2000

Sir:

The opinion of this Department is requested regarding the use of a surname by the son of a Malaysian national, Mr. Redi Mik bin Abdullah.

As stated in your letter, Brendan Christopher was born on June 21, 2000, in Guimbal, Iloilo, the legitimate child of the spouses Redi Mik bin Abdullah, a Malaysian national, and Victoria G. Alemania, a Filipino citizen; that in his Certifi cate of Live Birth, the hospital entered the name of the child as: “Brendan Christopher Alemania Abdullah”, while his mother’s name was entered as “Victoria Abdullah”; that his father, however, alleges that he has no surname and that the word “bin” in his name means “son of”, hence if he is to identify himself, his name is “Redi Mik son of Abdullah” and that “Abdullah” is his father’s name and not his surname.

The Municipal Civil Registrar withheld the registration of the birth of the child and submitted the problem for your resolution. It is your position that pursuant to Article 364 of the Civil Code, which states that “Legitimate and legitimated children should use the surname of the father”, should be strictly followed and, therefore, “Abdullah” should be regarded as the surname of the child and which should also be adopted as the married name of the wife. This, however, is not acceptable to Mr. Redi Mik bin Abdullah. Hence, this request.

We regret to inform you that we have to decline rendition of opinion on the subject matter of your query. The query involves

280

281

the substantive rights of private parties and since the opinion of the Secretary of Justice is merely advisory in nature, such opinion would not be binding upon said private parties, who, if adversely affected by such opinion, may take issue therewith and contest it before the courts. As a matter of policy therefore, the Secretary of Justice consistently refrained from rendering opinions on questions which are justifi able in nature or those which may be the subject of litigation before the courts. (Secretary of Justice Opinion No. 91, 1957; Op. Nos. 19 and 92, s. 1971; Op. No. 108, s. 1978 and Op. No. 46, s. 1981).

Very truly yours,

ARTEMIO G. TUQUEROSecretary

OPINION NO. 26, S. 2001

1) Re power to control and supervised LCRs2) Whether LCRs can still perform duty to administer

oath

May 17, 2001

Administrator Tomas F. AfricaCivil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceEDSA, Corner Times St.West Triangle, Quezon City 1104

S i r:

Subject of herein request for opinion are the following queries, to with:

1. Whether or not the power to control and supervise local civil registry offi ces in the country by the Civil Registrar General has been removed by Section 479 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. In connection therewith, are City/Municipal Registrars no longer under the control and supervision of the Civil Registrar General; and

APPENDIX 4REFERRED CASES/QUERIES


282

2. Whether or not the City/Municipal Civil Registrars can still perform their duty to administer oath.

The fi rst query, it appears, was precipitated by the view expressed by some quarters that Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991, which defi nes the “Qualifi cations, Powers and Duties” of the local civil registrar, repealed Act No. 3753, otherwise known as the Civil Registry Law of the Philippines.

It is the contention of that Offi ce, however, that Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed only Section 12 of the Civil Registry law which pertains to the duties of local civil registrars and not Section 2 which pertains to the powers and duties of the Civil Registrar General. It is stated that if it were true that the Civil Registrar General has no more power to control and supervise local civil registry offi ces, there would be chaos in the implementation of the laws on civil registration as there would be no more single and higher authority to give uniform orders and instructions to them, and to enforce the provisions of the Civil Registry Law; that in such a case, the 1,607 City/Municipal Registrars would be having his or her own rules and regulations governing civil registration in his or her local government units, thereby creating the possibility that one vital event may not be acceptable for registration in one municipality, but a similar vital event can be registered in another municipality. It is the belief of the Offi ce that removing or diminishing the power of the Civil Registrar General “to control and supervise” local civil registry offi ces was never intended by Congress in enacting the Local Government Code of 1991.

The second query, on the other hand, was raised in view of the absence of an expressed provision in the Local Government Code of 1991 allowing local civil registrars to administer oath. It is the position of the Offi ce, however, that the local civil registrars can still administer oath based on the provisions of the Family Code which expressly or impliedly give such authority to them. Cited in particu-lar is Article 24 which expressly authorizes the local civil registrar to administer oath to all interested parties mentioned therein.

The crux of the fi rst query lies on whether the Civil Registrar General exercises supervision and control over local civil registrars.

We answer in the negative. Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991 did not remove the power “to control and supervise local civil registry offi ces” from the Civil Registrar General, because there was nothing to remove in the fi rst place.

283APPENDIX 4REFERRED CASES/QUERIES

Obviously, the fi rst query refl ects a misreading or misapprehension of Act. No. 3753 entitled “An Act to Establish a Civil Register.” It must be stressed that even under the said Act, the Civil Registrar General has only “direction and supervision” over local civil registrars and not “control and supervision” as claimed. The Civil Registry Law, as amended, is clear and categorical:

Section 2. Civil Registrar General: His Duties and Powers. — The Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce shall be the Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The Administrator of National Statistics Offi ce, in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and to prepare and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance. In the exercise of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce shall have the power to give orders and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be the duty of the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce to report any violation of the provisions of this Act and irregularities, negligence or incompetency of the City/Municipal Registrars to the City or Municipal Mayors, as the case may be, who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.

Section 3. City/Municpal Civil Registrars — The City/Municipal Civil Registrar appointed by the City/Municipal Mayor shall be under the direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar General. (Emphasis supplied)

The power of “control and supervision” is not the same as the power of “direction and supervision”, which is the power expressly granted by the Civil Registry Law (see Section 3, supra.) to the Civil Registrar General over the City/Municipal Civil Registars.

“Supervision and control” means and shall include authority to act directly whenever a specifi c function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate offi cials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards, guide-lines, plans and programs (Section 38 (1) Chapter 7, Book IV, E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987).

“Supervision”, on the other hand, as defi ned in the case of Mondano vs. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 (1955), means overseeing or the


284

power or authority of an offi cer to see that subordinate offi cers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglect to fulfi ll them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform these duties, while “direction” is an instruction or series of instructions for doing something; information as to the method, route, etc. (Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition; and in another sense, it is nearly synonymous with instruction (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary).

Applying the aforequoted defi nitions to the instant case, the Civil Registrar General cannot modify, reverse or annul the acts and decisions of city or municipal civil registrars for that would be an exercise of the power of control which he does not possess. What he can do is to see to it that the city or municipal civil registrars perform their duties in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations on civil registration. And this is completely in line with the powers expressly granted to the Civil Registrar General under Section 2 of the Civil Registry Law, which is the “power to give orders and instructions to the City/Municipal Registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such” and “to report any violation and irregularities, negligence or incompetency of the City/Municipal registrars to the City/Municipal Mayors who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.” To stress, it is the city or municipal mayor concerned, acting upon the report of the Civil Registrar General, who shall take disciplinary action against any local civil registrar found to have violated the provisions of the Civil Registry Law. (see Section 2, Act No. 3753, as amended)

In any case, Act No. 3753, as amended, a special law, is not among the laws expressly and explicitly repealed by Section 534 of the Local Government Code of 1991, a general law. This can only mean that there was no such intent on the part of the legislature to abrogate the power of direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar General over local civil registrars in the country. For if repeal of particular or specifi c law or laws is intended, the proper step is to so express it. (Agujetas vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17) Neither is there an implied repeal. It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals of statutes by implications are not favored (Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction, Third Edition, p. 322, citing Valdez vs. Tuazon, 40 Phil. 943 (1920); Phil. American Management Co., Inc. vs. Phil. American Management Employees Assn., 120 SCRA 760 (1983). The presumption against implied repeal is stronger when, of the two laws, one is special, and the other


general, as obtaining in the instant case, and this rule applies even though the terms of the general act are broad enough to include the matter covered by the special statute (Ibid., citing Manila Railroad Co. vs. Rafferty, 40 SCRA 224 (1919); Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487 (1992).

Anent the second query, we believe that the power of local civil registrars to administer oath as provided in Section 12 (g) of the Civil Registry Law still exists. Section 12 (g) provides:

Section 12. Duties of the Local Civil Registrars — Local Civil Registrars shall xxx (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil registry purposes.”

The power of the local civil registrars to administer oath under the aforequoted provision is suffi ciently within the purview of the general clause in Section 479 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which states that the local civil registrar shall “exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance” (see par. 3). However, as stated in the Civil Registry Law (see Sec. 12 (g), supra.) the power of the local civil registrar to administer oath shall be limited to civil registry matters and the same must be free of charge.


Very truly yours,

HERNANDO B. PEREZSecretary


286


Whether Permanent or Temporary/OIC/Assistant LCR acting as LCR can validly Act RA 9048.

Ms. CARMELITA N. ERICTACivil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceEDSA Corner Times St., West TriangleQuezon City 1104

Madam:

This refers to your request for opinion on whether or not a duly appointed Offi cer-in-Charge (OIC) in case other than the following, namely:

1. City/Municipal Civil Registrar with permanent or temporary status of appointment duly confi rmed by the Civil Service Commission;

2. OIC who acts for an incumbent City/Municipal Civil Registrar who is on leave; and

3. Assistant City/Municipal Civil Registrar who acts for and in behalf of the incumbent City/Municipal Civil Registrar who may either be on leave or cannot perform the function on account of physical or legal causes.

can validity-carry out the provisions of Republic Act No. 9048 (An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical error in an entry and/or change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without need of a Judicial Order; Amending for this purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines).

The request arose in the wake of your concern towards the practice of some local government units where there are permanently appointed city/municipal civil registrars, but the mayors detail them elsewhere and another person is designated as OIC to perform the functions of the civil registrar.

This Department answers the query in the affi rmative.

The law makes it mandatory for city and municipal governments to appoint a civil registrar. The instant query contemplates of a


situation where there is a duly appointed civil registrar but the mayor designates another person as OIC to perform the functions of the civil registrar.

In the case of Teodoro J. Santiago vs. The Commission of Audit (199 SCRA 125), the Supreme Court held that designation connotes merely the impositions or additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment (or election). (see also Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 158)

A public offi cer has the right to exercise the powers and perform the duties connected with his offi ce. (Martin, Administrative Law, Law of Public Offi cers and Election Law, 1987, p. 261)

As such, the authority of the public offi cers consists of those powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the act appointing him; expressly annexed to the offi ce by law; attached to the offi ce by common law as incidents to it; and under the doctrine of necessary implication, all powers necessary for the exercise of the powers are deemed impliedly granted. (Nachura, Political Law, 1991 Ed., p. 294)

Having been duly designated as OIC of the offi ce of city/municipal civil registrar, the person so designated has the authority to perform the powers and duties of the offi ce on top of his regular duties.

However, for your information and guidance only, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has ruled that by the very nature of his designation, an offi cer-in-charge enjoys limited powers which, it is believed; are at best confi ned to the functions of administration and to see to it that the offi ce continues its usual activities. (CSC Resolution No. 1692 dated October 20, 1987)


Very truly yours,



288


On which fi ling fees shall prevail, those prescribed by RA 9048 or those prescribed by city ordinance of Cagayan de Oro City.

March 08, 2002

Ms. CARMELITA N. ERICTACivil Registrar GeneralOffi ce of the Civil Registrar GeneralNational Statistics Offi ceEDSA corner Times St., West TriangleQuezon City 1104

Madam:

This refers to your request for opinion as to which fi ling fees shall prevail, that prescribed under Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 (implementing rules and regulations) promulgated and issued by the Civil Registrar General or that prescribed under Ordinance No. 7786-2001 passed by the City Council of Cagayan de Oro.

The query arose when prior to the promulgation of the said Administrative order on July 24, 2001, Rules and Regulations Governing the implementation of Republic Act No. 9046 (An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted Ordinance No. 7786-2001 on June 19, 2001 entitled “AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A FILING FEE FOR PETITION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY, OR TO CHANGE THE FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME, IN THE CITY CIVIL REGISTER AT THE RATES PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”

Section 1 of the said Ordinance provides:

Section 1. — There shall be levied, imposed or collected a fi ling fee upon any person who will fi le with the City Civil Registrar a petition for the correction to a clerical or


typographical error in an entry, or for the change of fi rst name or nickname, in the City Civil Register, at the following rates:

(a) correction of a clerical or typographical error — P 250.00

(b) change of fi rst name or nickname — P 500.00

On the other hand, Rule 18 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001, provides, among others that the city/municipal civil registrar or the district/circuit registrar “is hereby duly authorized to collect from every petitioner a fi ling fee in the amount of one thousand pesos (P 1,000.00), for change of fi rst name or nickname,” but that an indigent petitioner as defi ned under Rule 2.7 shall be exempt from the payment of said fee.

It is also provided under the said Rule that the local legislative body shall ratify the fees therein prescribed upon affectivity of said Order. Prior to ratifi cation by the local legislative body, all fees collected in connection with the Order shall go to the Local Civil Registry Offi ce (LCRO) trust fund: provided that the fees prescribed therein shall be uniform in all cities and municipalities in the country, and in all Philippine Consulates.

The said Administrative Order was enacted pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 9048, which states that “The civil registrar general shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Offi ce of the Supreme Court Administrator, the University of the Philippines law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not later than three (3) months from the effectivity of this law.”

Subject to the discussion hereunder, we rule that the fi ling fees as imposed by Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2001 should prevail over the fi ling fees imposed by the said City Ordinance since the rules and regulations promulgated by the civil register general pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 9048 have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1941]; See Co Chiong v. Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative Order was issued in implementation of R.A. No. 9048 and under the said law; it is the civil registrar general, not the local government units, that has the authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation of the provisions thereof.

Finally, it is a well-established principle in the law of municipal corporations that the legislative bodies of municipal corporations,


290

which are mere creation of Congress, may not enact municipal legislation invading or intruding into an area already covered by a statute, or contravening provisions of the same (Secretary of Justice Op. No. 77, s. 1971).

Very truly yours,


February 28, 2005

Ms. CARMELITA N. ERICTAAdministratorNational Statistics Offi ceP.O. Box 779 ManilaMadam:

This has reference to your request for opinion on the queries stated therein relating to the effect/s, if any, of the provisions of Article 7 of Executive Order No. 2091, as amended, upon the per-tinent provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1083, Article 7 of E.O. No. 209, as amended, in part reads:


xx xx;

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the civil register general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect xxx;

xx xx.

In general, you inquire “whether or not Article 7(2) of the Family Code of the Philippines repealed or amended Presidential Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as ‘Code of Muslim Personal Laws (of the Philippines).”’ In particular, you ask “whether the requirement for registration of written authority to solemnize marriage found in the Family Code takes precedence over P.D. No. 1083”.

The queries, it appears, are raised in connection with Article 18 of P.D. No. 1083 which pertinently provide, to wit:


Art. 18. Authority to solemnized marriage. — Marriage may be solemnized:


(b) Upon 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 of Shari’a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifi able reason, to authorized the solemnization.

You state that the above-quoted legal provision of the decree is silent as to the prior registration of the imams before they can solemnize marriage. In view of your perceived confl ict between the aforesaid provision and the earlier-quoted provision of the Family Code, you now elevate the matter to this Department for opinion.

To us, the resolution of the issues raised would require a look into the other pertinent provisions of P.D. No. 1083 and E.O No. 209, as amended, respectively, specifi cally those relating to the interpretation and application of their respective provisions.

The subject Code of Muslim Personal laws, insofar as material, states:

Art. 3. Confl ict of provisions. — (1) In case of confl ict between any provision of this Code and laws of general application, the former shall prevail.

(2) Should the confl ict between any provision of this Code and special laws or laws of local application, the latter shall be liberally constructed in order to carry out the former.

(3) The provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.

xxx xxx

Art. 13. Application. (1) The provision of this Titles shall apply to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslim, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines.

(2) In case of a marriage between a Muslim and non-


292

Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the Civil Code of the Philippines shall apply.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage, xxx solemnization and registration of marriage xxx, shall be governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.

Upon the other hand, Article 254 of the Family Code is clear, thus:

ART. 254. Titles III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XV of Book I of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines, as amended, and Articles 17, a8, a9, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclaiming, rules and regulations, on parts thereof, inconsistent the herewith are hereby repealed.

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction to give effect to the general intent of the legislature that can be ascertained from a consideration of the whole statute and not only a particular provision thereof. The meaning of the law is not to be extracted from any single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or sentence but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole.

Equally basic is the rule that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, the meaning thereof must be determined from the language used and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The rationale is because when the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation-only for application.

The provisions of P.D. No. 1083, earlier quoted, governing the construction of its provisions vis-à-vis other laws as well as the application thereof are clear and categorical. Thus, in case of confl ict between the provisions of said Code or decree which, incidentally, is a special law and those of laws of general application, the Family Code or E.O. No. 209 included, the former shall govern. This is true even if the general law is a later enactment and broad enough to include the provisions of the Code. The reason is because the Code itself has expressly and explicitly revealed the intent of the legislature. Moreover, and as specially applied to the Family Code, its repealing clause us a general one, i.e., save for provisions of


Civil Code, as amended, and P.D. No. 603, as amended, it does not repeal in express terms the provisions of the Muslim Personal Code. For the same reasons stated above, a similar conclusion would be reached even if we assume that E.O. No. 209, as amended, is also a special law.

As the Decree itself explicitly states, however, the above conclusion should be qualifi ed. This is because under Article 3 thereof, “(t)he provisions of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslim and nothing herein shall be construed to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim.”

Likewise, by express mandate of Article 13 of the Decree, “the essential requisites and legal impediments to marriage” and “solemnization and registration” the marriage of the persons mentioned therein, among other things, “shall be governed by this Code and other applicable Muslim laws.”

Consequently, when the parties to the marriage are both Muslim or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized under the Muslim laws, the provision of Section 18 of P.D. No. 1083 enumerating those persons authorized to solemnized marriage, which undeniably includes an imam, governs. Conversely, when the aforesaid elements or conditions are not present, the provision on the authority of the solemnizing offi cer, including the registration with the civil registrar general, under Article 7 of the Family Code, which further amended the Civil Code of the Philippines, applies. This is explicit even from a reading of Article 13(2) of the Muslim Personal laws itself.


Very truly yours,

RAUL M. GONZALESSecretary


294

Seventh Congress of theREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sixth Special Session

Begun and held in the City of Manila on Friday, the nineteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and seventy-two

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6514

AN ACT PROVIDING THAT THE AUTHORIZATION TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE ISSUED TO PRIEST, OR MINISTERS OR RABBIS SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS THE SAME TO EXPIRE ON THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER OF EVERY THIRD YEAR AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE NINETY-FIVE OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in congress assembled:

Section 1. Article 95 of Republic Act Numbered Three Hundred and eighty-six is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Art. 95. The public offi cial in charge of registration of priests, ministers or rabbis with the approval of the proper head of department, is hereby authorized to prepare the necessary forms and to promulgate rules and regulation for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Title: PROVIDED, That the authorization to solemnize marriages shall be valid for a period of three years, shall expire on the thirty-fi rst day of December: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the authorization to solemnize marriage issued prior to and valid on the date of the approval of this amendatory Act shall continue to be valid until the thirty-fi rst day of December of the year when this amendatory Act takes effect, any regulation to the contrary notwithstanding: PROVIDED, FINALLY, That the words “my authority to solemnize marriage expires on December 31, 19__” shall be indicated in all marriage contracts just below the title of the person so authorized to solemnize marriages.

“Priests or minister, or rabbis belonging to one diocese, religious order or congregation, or sect, may apply for autho-


rization and or renewal of such authorization, through their bishop, head of religious order or congregation chief of minis-ters, or duly authorized representative.

“The public offi cial who is in charge of registration may also regulate, fi x and collect fees for the authorization to solemnize marriage.”

SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

APPROVED:

GIL J. PUYAT CORNELIO T. VILLAREAL President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives

This Act, which originated in the Senate was fi nally passed by the same on June 20, 1972.

Finally passed by the House of Representatives on June 14, 1972.

Eliseo M. Tonza Inocencio B. Pareja Secretary of the Senate Secretary of the House of Representatives

APPROVED: July 22, 1972

FERDINAND E. MARCOSPresident of the Philippines

LEGAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING MARRIAGES

3.1. Article 34 Family Code:

“No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least fi ve years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affi davit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing offi cer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifi cations of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage”.


296

3.2. Article 3 (3) Family Code:


1. xxxxxxx

2. xxxxxxx

3. A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing offi cer 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.


“No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing offi cer 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 signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing offi cer”.

3.4. Article 7 (2) Family Code:

“Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the Civil Registrar General, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing offi cer’s church or religious sect”.


“Marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church, chapel or in the temple”.


“A marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting parties reside, except where no license is required”.

3.7. Article 352 Revised Penal Code:

“Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal


marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the marriage law”.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1083

Chapter Two

Marriage (Nikah)

SECTION 1. — Requisites of Marriage

ART. 14. Nature. — Marriage is not only a civil contract but a social institution. Its nature, consequences and incidents are governed by this Code and the Shari’a and not subject to stipulation, except that the marriage settlement may to a certain extent fi x 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 the acceptance (gabul) duly witnessed by at least two competent persons after the proper guardian in marriage (wali) has given his consent; and

(d) Stipulation of customary dower (mahr) duly witnessed by two competent persons.

ART. 16. Capacity to control marriage. — (1) Any Muslim male at least fi fteen years of age and any Muslim female of the age of puberty or upwards and not suffering from any impediment under the provision of this Code may contract marriage. A female is presumed to have attained puberty upon reaching the age of fi fteen.

(2) However, the Shari’a District Court may, upon petition of a proper wali, order the solemnization of the marriage of a female who though less than fi fteen but not below twelve years of age, has attained puberty.

(3) Marriage through a wali by a minor below the prescribed ages shall be regarded as betrothal and may be annulled upon the petition of either party within four years after attaining the age of


298

puberty, provided no voluntary cohabitation has taken place and the wali who contracted the marriage was other than the father or paternal grandfather.

ART. 17. Marriage ceremony. — No particular form of marriage ceremony is required but the ijab and the gabul in marriage shall be declared publicly in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and two competent witnesses. This 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 offi cer who shall keep the third.

ART. 18. Authority to solemnize marriage. — Marriage may be solemnized:


(b) Upon 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 of Shari’a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali, refuse without justifi able reason, to authorize the solemnization.

ART. 19. Place of solemnization. — Marriage shall be solemnized publicly in any mosque, offi ce of the Shari’a judge, offi ce of the District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or at any other suitable place agreed upon by the parties.

ART. 20. Specifi cation of dower. — The amount or value of dower may be fi xed by the contracting parties (mahr-musamma) before, during or after the celebration of the marriage. If the amount or the value thereof has not been so fi xed, a proper dower (mahr-mithl) shall, upon petition of the wife, be determined by the court according to the social standing of the parties.

ART. 21. Payment of dower. — Subject to the stipulation of the parties, the dower may be fully or partially paid before, during or after the marriage. The property or estate of the husband shall be liable for the unpaid dower, or any part thereof.

ART. 22. Breach of contract. — Any person who entered into a contract to marry but subsequently refuses without reasonable ground to marry the other party who is willing to perform the same


shall pay the latter the expenses incurred for the preparation of the marriage and such damages as may be granted by the court.

SECTION 2. — Prohibited Marriages

ART. 23. Bases of prohibition. — No marriage may be contracted by parties within the prohibited degree;

(a) Of consanguinity;

(b) Of affi nity; and

(c) Of fosterage.

ART. 24. Prohibition by consanguinity (tahrimjbin-nasab). — No marriage shall be contracted between:

(a) Ascendants and descendants of any degree;

(b) Brothers and sisters, whether germane, consanguine or uterine; and

(c) Brothers or sisters and their descendants within the third civil degree.

ART. 25. Prohibition by affi nity (tahrim-bil-musahara). — (1) No marriage shall be contracted between:

(a) Any of the spouses and their respective affi nal relatives in the ascending line and in the collateral line within the third degree.

(b) Stepfather and stepdaughter when the marriage between the former and the mother of the latter has been consummated;

(c) Stepmother and stepson when the marriage between the former and the father of the latter has been consummated; and

(d) Stepson or stepdaughter and the widow, widower or divorcee of their respective ascendants.

(2) The prohibition under this article applies even after the dissolution of the marriage creating the affi nal relationship.

ART. 26. Prohibition due to fosterage (tahrim-bir-rada’a). —

(1) No person may validly contract marriage with any woman


300

who breastfed him for at least fi ve times within two years after his birth.

(2) The prohibition on marriage by reason of consanguinity shall likewise apply to persons related by fosterage within the same degrees, subject to exceptions recognized by Muslim law.

SECTION 3. — Subsequent Marriages

ART. 27. By a husband. — Notwithstanding the rule of Islamic law permitting; Muslim to have more than one wife but not more than four at a time, no Muslim man can have more than one wife unless he can deal with them with equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic law and only in exceptional cases.

ART. 28. By widow. — No widow shall contract a subsequent marriage unless she has observed an idda of four months and ten days counted from the date of the death of her husband. If at that time the widow is pregnant, she may remarry within a reasonable time after delivery. In such case, she shall produce the corresponding death certifi cate.

ART. 29. By divorce. — (1) No woman shall contract a subsequent marriage unless she has observed an idda of three monthly courses counted from the date of divorce. However, if she is pregnant at the time of the divorce, she may remarry only after delivery.

(2) Should a repudiated woman and her husband reconcile during her idda, he shall have a better right to take her back without need of a new marriage contract.

(3) Where it is indubitable that the marriage has not been consummated where the divorce was effected, no idda shall be required.

ART. 30. Marriage after three talaq. —

(1) Where a wife has been thrice repudiated (talaq bain kubra) on three different occasions by her husband, he cannot remarry her unless she shall have married another person who divorces her after consummation of the intervening marriage and the expiration of the idda.

(2) No solemnizing offi cer shall perform the subsequent marriage mentioned in the preceding paragraph unless he has ascertained that there was no collusion among the parties.


SECTION 4. — Batil and Fasid Marriages

ART. 31. Batil marriages. — The following marriages shall be void (batil) from the beginning:

(a) Those contracted contrary to Articles 23, 24 and 26;

(b) Those contracted in contravention of the prohibition against unlawful conjunction; and

(c) Those contracted by parties one or both of whom have been found guilty of having killed the spouse of either of them.

ART. 32. Fasid marriages. — The following marriages shall be irregular (fasid) from their performance:

(a) Those contracted with a female observing idda;

(b) Those contracted contrary to Article 30;

(c) Those wherein the consent of either party is vitiated by violence, intimidation, fraud, deceit or misrepre-sentation;

(d) Those contracted by a party in a condition of death, illness (marad-ul-maul) without the same being consummated;

(e) Those contracted by a party in a state of ihram, and

(f) Mixed marriages not allowed under Islamic law

ART. 33. Validation of irregular marriages. —

(1) Irregular marriages may be made regular by a new marriage contract in the following cases:

(a) Those referred to in Article 32(a), after the impe-diment has been removed;

(b) Those referred to in Article 32(b), upon compliance with the requirement of Article 30;

(c) Those referred to in Article 32(c), after the causes vitiating consent have ceased;

(d) Those referred to in Article 32(d), in case the party recovers;

(e) Those referred to in Article 32(e), when the party is no longer in a state of ihram, and


302

(f) Those referred to in Article 32(f), after conversion to a faith that could have made the marriage valid.

(2) The effects of the new marriage under the fi rst paragraph shall retroact to the date of the celebration of the irregular marriage.

SECTION 5. — Rights and Obligations Between Spouses

ART. 34. Mutual rights and obligations. —

(1) The husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fi delity, and render mutual help and support in accordance with this Code.

(2) When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or brings danger, dishonor or material injury upon the other, the injured party may petition the court for relief. The court may counsel the offender to comply with his or her duties, and take such measures as may be proper.

(3) The husband and the wife shall inherit from each other in accordance with this Code.

(4) The husband and the wife shall have the right to divorce in accordance with this Code.

ART. 35. Rights and obligations of the husband. — The husband shall fi x the residence of the family. The court may exempt the wife from living with her husband on any of the following grounds:

(a) Her dower is not satisfi ed in accordance with the stipulations; or

(b) The conjugal dwelling is not in keeping with her social standing or is, for any reason, not safe for the members of the family or her property.

ART. 36. Rights and obligations of the wife. —

(1) The wife shall dutifully manage the affairs of the household. She may purchase things necessary for the maintenance of the family, and the husband shall be bound to reimburse the expenses, if he has not delivered the proper sum.

(2) The wife cannot, without the husband’s consent, acquire


any property by gratuitous title, except from her relatives who are within the prohibited degrees in marriage.

(3) The wife may, with her husband’s consent, exercise any profession or occupation or engage in lawful business which is in keeping with Islamic modesty and virtue. However, if the husband refuses to give his consent on the ground that his income is suffi cient for the family according to its social standing or his opposition is based on serious and valid grounds, the matter shall be referred to the Agama Arbitration Council.

(4) The wife shall have the right to demand the satisfaction of her mahr.

(5) Unless otherwise stipulated in the marriage settlements, the wife retain ownership and administration of her exclusive property.

(6) The wife shall be entitled to an equal and just treatment by the husband.

SECTION 6. — Property Relations Between Spouses

ART. 37. How governed. — The property relations between husband and wife shall be governed in the following order:

(a) By contract before or at the time of the celebration of marriage.

(b) By the provisions of this Code; and

(c) By custom.

ART. 39. Stipulation in the marriage settlements. — Every stipulation in the marriage settlements or contract referred to in the preceding article shall be void and without effect whatsoever, should the marriage not take place. However, stipulation that do not depend upon the contract of marriage shall be valid.

ART. 40. Ante nuptial property. — The wife shall not lose ownership and administration of all properties brought by her to the marriage in the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, and she may dispose of the same by deed or otherwise even without the consent of her husband.

ART. 41. Exclusive property of each spouse. — The following shall be the exclusive property of either spouse.


304

(a) Properties brought to the marriage by the husband or the wife;

(b) All income derived by either spouse from any employment, occupation or trade;

(c) Any money or property acquired by either spouse during marriage by lucrative title;

(d) The dower (mahr) of the wife and nuptial gifts to each spouse;

(e) Properties acquired by right of redemption, purchase or exchange of the exclusive property or either; and

(f) All fruits of properties mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.

ART. 42. Ownership and administration. — Each spouse shall own, possess, administer, enjoy and dispose of his or her own exclusive estate even without the consent of the other. However, the court may, upon petition of either spouse, grant to the other the administration of said spouse.

ART. 43. Household property. — Household property which customarily pertains to or is used by either spouse shall be prima facie presumed to be the property of said spouse.

ART. 44. Right to sue and be sued. — The wife may independently of the husband, sue or be sued in the following cases:

(a) When the litigation is between husband and wife;

(b) If the suit concerns her exclusive property;

(c) If the litigation is incidental to her profession, occupation or business;

(d) If the litigation concerns the exclusive property of the husband, the administration of which has been transferred to her; or

(e) Such other appropriate cases as may be allowed by the general principles of Islamic law and other laws.

Laws on Marriage re Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004

Rules and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning Civil Status of Filipino Indigenous Peoples


Rule 2.7. Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage. — refer to community elders, tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-political structures certifi ed by NCIP or authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal communities and registered in accordance with the guidelines of OCRG on Solemnizing Offi cers who perform and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the community.

Rule 8. Registration of Marriages. — Registration of marriages among members of ICCs/IPs shall be governed by the following rules:

1. Marriages performed in accordance with customary laws, rites, traditions and practices shall be recognized as valid. (Rule VI, Section, RA 8371)

2. Marriages among ICCs/IPs performed in accordance with customary laws, rites, traditions, and practices, shall be reported within thirty (30) days after the date of marriage by the person authorized to solemnize marriage, or in his default, by the parties to the marriage, to the C/MCR of the city or municipality where the marriage ceremony was celebrated.

3. In cases of delayed registration of marriages among members of ICCs/IPs, the testimony of authorized community elders, solemnizing offi cers or authorities of traditional socio-political structures stating the facts and circumstances of marriage shall be admissible as evidence of marriage for purposes of registration.

4. The person authorized to solemnize marriage, or in his default the C/MCR, shall indicate on the remarks portion of the Certifi cate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, Revised January 1993) that said marriage was solemnized in accordance with ICCs/IPs customary laws of either contracting party.

5. Upon receiving the Certifi cate of Marriage (Municipal Form 97, Revised January 1993), the C/MCR shall require the informant to accomplish or to give the following data in the accomplishment of Municipal Form No. 97 Attachment IP Form No. 3: ethnic affi liation of contracting parties, marriage order, amount of dowry and other stipulations of the marriage.


306

6. The Municipal Form 97 and the attachment thereto shall be permanently kept together and shall constitute the record of marriage of ICCs/IPs.

7. Other matters relative to registration of marriages among ICCs/IPs not covered by this rule shall be governed by the pertinent provisions of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993.

Rule 9. Registration of Dissolution of Marriages. — Registration of dissolution of marriages performed in accordance with customary laws and practices of ICCs/IPs shall be governed by the following rules:

1. Dissolution of marriages refers to the termination of marriage as declared in a ruling or decision of the Council of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holders, or other tribunal and body authorized under the indigenous political structure of the ICC/IP for causes sanctioned by established customary law or practice after exhaustion of all possible means or reconciliation between the spouses.

2. Dissolution of marriage by agreement of the parties or unilateral declaration of separation of any party to the marriage without observing the processes and requirements of customary law and practice of the concerned ICC/IP shall not be registered.

3. For purposes of registration of dissolution of marriage, the NCIP Provincial Offi ce of the area where the marriage was celebrated in accordance with customary law and practice shall issue a certifi cation to the effect that the parties and members of a particular ICC/IP and that the marriage dissolution was made in accordance with the customary law and practice of the ICC/IP concerned or the testimony of community elders, solemnizing offi cers or authorities of traditional socio-political structures of specifi c ICCs/IPs tribe shall be admissible evidence of marriage dissolution. Such certifi cation/testimony shall constitute the Certifi cate of Dissolution of Marriage (IP Form No. 4).

4. Five copies of the Certifi cate of Dissolution of Marriage shall be submitted within thirty (30) days after the date of the dissolution of marriage by the interested party to


the C/MCR for registration in the city or municipality where the marriage was dissolved. For purposes of this rule, the interested party may either be the husband, the wife of the immediate relatives.

The C/MCR shall distribute the fi ve copies of the Certifi cate of Dissolution of Marriage as follows: fi rst copy to the husband; second copy of the wife; third copy to the Civil Registrar General; forth copy for his fi le and fi fth copy to the NCIP.

5. The C/MCR of the City or municipality where the marriage was dissolved shall record the Certifi cate of Dissolution of Marriage in the Register of Dissolution of Marriage for members of ICCs/IPs and shall forward a copy to the C/MCR where the marriage was registered for proper annotation.

Rule 10. Registration of Revocation of Dissolution of Marriage. — Registration of Revocation of Dissolution of Marriage among members of ICCs/IPs shall governed by the following specifi c rules:

1. Within seven (7) days after the revocation of dissolution of marriage reconciliation, wether the husband or the wife shall fi le a sworn statement (IP Form No. 5) in fi ve copies with the C/MCR of the city or municipality where the Certifi cate of Dissolution of Marriage was registered. Such fact of revocation shall be annotated in the Certifi cate of Dissolution of Marriage.

The fi ve copies of the Sworn Statement of Revocation of Dissolution of Marriage, after registration, shall be distributed by the C/MCR as follows: fi rst copy to the husband; second copy of the wife; third copy to the Civil Registrar General; fourth copy for his fi le and fi fth copy to the NCIP.

2. The C/MCR of the city or municipality where the dissolution of marriage was revoked shall record the sworn statement (IP Form No. 5) in the Register of Revocation of Dissolution of Marriage for members of ICCs/IPs and shall forward a copy to the C/MCR where the marriage was registered for proper annotation.


308

REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE

(AO No. 1, series of 1993)

Rule 47. Reglementary Period and Place of Registration. (1) Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties shall fi le separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar (now civil registrar) which shall specify the following:

a) Full name of the contracting parties;

b) Place of birth;

c) Age and date of birth;

d) Civil status;

e) If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled;

f) Present residence and citizenship;

g) Degree of relationship of the contracting parties;

h) Full name, residence and citizenship of the father;

i) Full name, residence and citizenship of the mother; and

j) Full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian or person having charge, in case the contracting party has neither father nor mother and is under the age of twenty-one years. (Article 11, Family Code) (N)

(2) The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all applications for marriage licenses fi led with him in a registry book strictly in the order in which the same are received. He shall record in said book the names of the applicants, the date on which the same are received. He shall record in said book the names of the applicants, the date on which the marriage license was issued, and such other data as may be necessary. (Article 25, Family Code) (N)

Rule 48. Requisites of Application for Marriage. (1) The local civil registrar, upon receiving such application, shall require the presentation of the original birth certifi cates or, in default thereof, the baptismal certifi cates of the contracting parties or copies of such documents duly attested by the persons having custody of the originals. These certifi cates or certifi ed copies of the documents


required by this Article (now Rule) need to be sworn to and shall be except from the documentary stamp tax. The signature and offi cial title of the person issuing the certifi cate shall be suffi cient proof of its authenticity. (Article 12 paragraph 1, Family Code) (N)

If either of the contracting parties is unable to produce his birth or baptismal certifi cate or a certifi ed copy either because of the destruction or loss of the original, or if it is shown by an affi davit of such party or of any other person that such birth or baptismal certifi cate has not yet been received though the same has been required of the person having custody thereof at least fi fteen days prior to the date of the application, such party may furnish in lieu thereof his current residence certifi cate or an instrument drawn up and sworn to before the local civil registrar concerned or any public offi cial authorized to administer oaths. Such instrument shall contain the sworn declaration of two witnesses of lawful age, setting forth the full name, residence and citizenship of such contracting party and of his or her parents, if known, and the place and date of birth of such party. The nearest of kin of the contracting parties shall be preferred as witnesses, or, in their default, persons of good reputation in the province or the locality. (Article 12 paragraph 2, Family Code) (N)

The presentation of the birth or baptismal certifi cate shall not be required if the parents of the contracting parties appear personally before the local civil registrar concerned and swear to the correctness of the lawful age of said parties, as stated in the application, or when the local civil registrar shall, by merely looking at the applicants upon their personally appearing before him, be convinced that either or both of them have the required age. (Article 12 paragraph 3, Family Code) (N)

(2) In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married, the application shall be required to furnish, instead of the birth or baptismal certifi cate required in the last preceding Article (now paragraph), the death certifi cate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of the absolute divorce, or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage, in case the death certifi cate cannot be secured, the party shall make an affi davit setting forth this circumstance and his or her actual civil status and the name and date of death of the deceased spouse. (Article 13, Family Code) (N)

(3) In case either or both of the contracting parties, not having been emancipated by a previous marriage, are between the ages of


310

eighteen and twenty-one, they shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding Articles, exhibit to the local civil registrar, the consent to their marriage of their father, mother, surviving parent or guardian, or persons having legal charge of them, in the order mentioned. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the interested party, who personally appears before the proper local civil registrar, or in the form of an affi davit made in the presence of two witnesses and attested before any offi cial authorized by law to administer oaths. The personal manifestation shall be recorded in both applications for marriage license, and the affi davit, if one is executed instead, shall be attached to said applications. (Article 14, Family Code) (N)

(4) Any contracting party between the age of twenty-one and twenty-fi ve shall be obliged to ask their parents or guardian for advice upon the intended marriage. If they do not obtain such advice, or if it be unfavorable, the marriage license shall not be issued till after three months following the completion of the publication of the application thereof. A sworn statement by the contracting parties to the effect that such advice has been sought, together with the written advice given, if any, shall be attached to the application for marriage license. Should the parents or guardian refuse to give any advice, this fact shall be stated in the sworn statement. (Article 15, Family Code) (N)

(5) In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed, the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding Articles, attach a certifi cate issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this Code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling. Failure to attach said certifi cate of marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application, issuance of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing offi cer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage. (Article 16 paragraph 1, Family Code) (N) should only one of the contracting parties need parental consent or parental advice, the other party must be present at the counseling referred to in the preceding paragraph. (Article 16 paragraph 2, Family Code) (N)

(6) The local civil registrar shall prepare a notice which shall contain the full names and residences of the applicants for


a marriage license and other data given in the applications. The notice shall be posted for ten consecutive days on a bulletin board outside the offi ce of the civil registrar located in a conspicuous place within the building and accessible to the general public. This notice shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to advise the civil registrar thereof. The marriage license shall be issued after the completion of the period of publication. (Article 17, Family Code) (N)

(7) In case of any impediment known to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention, he shall note down the particulars thereof and his fi ndings thereon in the application for a marriage license, but shall nonetheless issue said license after the completion of the period of publication, unless ordered otherwise by a competent court at his own instance or that of any interested party. No fi ling fee shall be charged for the petition nor a bond required for the issuance of the order. (Article 18, Family Code) (N)

(8) When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular offi cials. (Article 21 paragraph 1, Family Code) (N)

Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall, in lieu of the certifi cate of legal capacity herein required, submit an affi davit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage. (Article 21 paragraph 2, Family Code) (N)

(9) The local civil registrar shall require the payment of the fees prescribed by law or regulations before the issuance of the marriage license. No other sum shall be collected in the nature of a fee or tax of any kind for the issuance of said license. It shall, however, be issued free of charge to indigent parties, that is, those who have no visible means of income or whose income is insuffi cient for their subsistence, a fact established by their affi davit or by their oath before the local civil registrar. (Article 19, Family Code) (N)

(10) The license shall be valid in any part of the Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue, and shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration of said period if the contracting parties have not made use of it. The expiry date shall be stamped in bold characters on the face of every license issued. (Article 20, Family Code) (N)


312

Rule 49. Number of copies to be accomplished for Distribution. — It shall be the duty of the contracting parties to accomplish four (4) copies of the Application for Marriage License for registration. After the registration, the civil registrar shall distribute copies of the document bearing the civil registry number as follows: fi rst copy to the registrant; second copy to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General; third copy shall be retained for his fi le; and fourth copy to the solemnizing offi cer. (N)

THE CIVIL REGISTRY LAW ACT NO. 3753,AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A CIVIL REGISTER

SECTION 1. Civil Register. — A Civil register is established for recording the civil status of persons, in which shall be entered: (a) births; (b) deaths; (c) marriages; (d) annulment of marriages; (e) divorces; (f) legitimations; (g) adoptions; (h) acknowledgement of natural children; (i) naturalization; and (j) changes of name.

SECTION 2. Civil Registrar General; His Duties and Powers. — The Director of the National Library* shall be Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. The Director of the National Library, in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized to prepare and issue, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act, and to prepare and order printed the necessary forms for its proper compliance. In the existence of his functions as Civil Registrar General, the Director of the National Library shall have the power to give orders and instructions to the local civil registrars with reference to the performance of their duties as such. It shall be the duty of the Director of National Library to report any violation of the provisions of this Act and all irregularities, negligence or incompetency on the part of the offi cers designated as local civil registrars to the (Chief of the Executive Bureau or the Director of the Non-Christian Tribes) Secretary of the Interior, as the case may be, who shall take the proper disciplinary action against the offenders.

SECTION 3. Local Civil Registrars. — Except in the City of Manila, where the duties of local civil registrar shall be performed by the offi cer of the Philippine Health Service designated by the

*Director of the Bureau of the Census and Statistics under Sec. 21 (f), Act 591 and now Executive Director, National Census and Statistics Offi ce, PD No. 418.


Director of said Service, the treasurers of the regular municipalities, municipal districts and cities shall be local civil registrars of the respective municipalities, municipal district or cities, and shall perform the duties imposed upon them by this Act without extra compensation, in addition to their ordinary duties. In his capacity as local civil registrar, the offi cer designated by the Director of the Health Service as local civil registrar of Manila and the treasurers above mentioned shall be under the direction and supervision of the Civil Registrar General.

SECTION 4. Civil Registry Books. — The local civil registrars shall keep and preserve in their offi ces 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, acknowledgement, adoption, change of name, and naturalization register.

SECTION 5. Registration and Certifi cation of Births. — The declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, shall be suffi cient for the registration of a birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newly born child.

In such declaration, the persons above mentioned shall certify to the following facts:(a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship, and religion of parents or, in case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; (f) and such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued.

In the case of an exposed child, the person who found the same shall report to the local civil registrar the place, date and hour of fi nding and other attendant circumstances.

In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certifi cate shall be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only by the mother if the father refuses. In the latter case, it shall not


314

be permissible to state or reveal in the document the name of the father who refuses to acknowledge the child, or to give therein any information by which such father could be identifi ed.

Any fetus having human features which dies after twenty-four hours of existence completely disengaged from the maternal womb shall be entered in the proper registers as having been born and having died.

SECTION 6. Death Certifi cate and Register. — No human body shall be buried unless the proper death certifi cate has been presented and recorded in the offi ce of the local civil registrar. The physician who attended the deceased or, in his default, the health offi cer concerned, or in default of the latter, any member of the family of the deceased or any person having knowledge of the death, shall report the same to the local health authorities, who shall issue a death certifi cate and shall order the same to be recorded in the offi ce of the local civil registrar. The death certifi cate, which shall be issued by the attending physician of the deceased or, in his default, by the proper health offi cer, shall contain the following data which shall be furnished by the person reporting the death: (a) date and place of death, (b) full name, (c) age, (d) sex, (e) occupation or profession, (f) residence, (g) status as regards marriage, (h) nationality of the deceased, and (i) probable cause of death.

During epidemics, bodies may be buried provided the proper death certifi cates have been secured, which shall be registered not later than fi ve days after the burial of the body.

SECTION 7. Registration of Marriages. — All civil offi cers and priests or ministers authorized to solemnize marriages shall send a copy of each marriage contract solemnized by them to the local civil registrar within the time limit specifi ed in the existing Marriage Law.

In cases of divorce and annulment of marriage, it shall be the duty of the successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of marriage to send a copy of the fi nal decree of the court to the local civil registrar of the municipality where the dissolved or annulled marriage was solemnized.

In the marriage register there shall be entered the full name and address of each of the contracting parties, their ages, the place and date of the solemnization of the marriage, the names and addresses of person or persons who gave their consent to the marriage, and


the full name, title, and address of the person who solemnized the marriage.

In cases of divorce or annulment of marriage, there shall be recorded the names of the parties divorced or whose marriage was annulled, the date of the decree of the court, and such other details as the regulations to be issued may require.

SECTION 8. Registration of Legitimations by Subsequent Marriage. — The acknowledgment of the children legitimated by subsequent marriage, referred to in article one hundred and twenty-one of the Civil Code, may be recorded in the legitimation register, entering: (a) the names of the parents; (b) that at the time when the children were conceived, the aforesaid parents could have contracted marriage, and that they actually contracted marriage, stating the date and place when such marriage was solemnized, the minister who offi ciated, and the civil register where such marriage was recorded; (c) the names of the children legitimated, with reference to their birth certifi cates.

SECTION 9. Registration of Acknowledgments by Public Instrument. — Any voluntary acknowledgment by the natural parents or by only one of them by public instrument, shall be recorded in the acknowledgment register of the civil register of the municipality where the birth of the acknowledged child was registered, setting forth the following data: (a) full name of the natural child acknowledged; (b) age; (c) date and place of birth; (d) status as to marriage, and residence of the child acknowledged; (e) full name of the natural father or mother who makes the acknowledgment; (f) full name of the notary public before whom the document was acknowledged; (g) full names of witnesses to the document; (h) date and place of acknowledgment of said document, and entry and page number of the notarial register in which the same was recorded.

It shall be the duty of the natural parent whose voluntary acknowledgment was made by means of a public instrument to send a certifi ed copy thereof to the local civil registrar of the municipality in the civil register where of the acknowledged child was recorded, not later than twenty days after the execution of such instrument for registration thereof.

SECTION 10. Registration of Adoption, Changes of Name, and Naturalizations. — In cases of adoptions, changes of name, and naturalizations, it shall be the duty of the interested parties or petitioners to register the same in the local civil register of


316

the municipality where the decree was issued. The names of the interested parties and such other data as may be required by the regulations to be issued shall be entered in the register.

SECTION 11. Duties of Clerks of the Court to Register Certain Decisions. — In cases of legitimation, acknowledgment, adoption, naturalization, and change of given or family name, or both, upon the decree of the court becoming fi nal, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court which issued the decree to ascertain whether the same has been registered, and if this has not been done, to have said decree recorded in the offi ce of the civil registrar of the municipality where the court is functioning.

SECTION 12. Duties of Local Civil Registrar. — Local civil registrars shall (a) fi le registrable certifi cates and documents presented to them for entry; (b) compile the same monthly and prepare and send any information required of them by the Civil Registrar General; (c) issue certifi ed transcripts or copies of any certifi cate or document registered upon payment of the proper fees; (d) order the binding, properly classifi ed, of all certifi cates or documents registered during the year; (e) send to the Civil Registrar General, during the fi rst ten days of each month, a copy of the entries made during the preceding month, for fi ling; (f) index the same to facilitate search and identifi cation in case any information is required; and (g) administer oaths, free of charge, for civil register purposes.

SECTION 13. Documents Registered are Public Documents. — The books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and be prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts therein contained. They shall be open to the public during offi ce hours and shall be kept in a suitable safe which shall be furnished to the local civil registrar at the expense of the general fund of the municipality concerned. The local civil registrar shall not under any circumstances permit any document entrusted to his care to be removed from his offi ce, except by order of a court, in which case the proper receipt shall be taken. The local civil registrar may issue certifi ed copies of any document fi led, upon payment of the proper fees required in this Act.

SECTION 14. Expenses and Fees of the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar. — All expenses in connection with the establishment of local civil registers shall be paid out of municipal funds and for this purpose, municipal councils and boards shall make the necessary appropriations out of their available general funds.


For the registration of documents and for certifi ed copies of documents on fi le in the local civil registrar’s offi ce, fees shall be charged in accordance with the following schedule:

For registration of a legitimation ...................... 2.00

For registration of an adoption .......................... 2.00

For registration of an annulment of marriage .. 10.00

For registration of a divorce............................... 10.00

For registration of a naturalization................... 20.00

For registration of a change of name ................ 2.00

For certifi ed copies of any document in the register for each one hundred words ............................ 20

The Civil Registrar General or any local civil registrar may issue certifi ed copies of documents free of charge for offi cial use or at the request of a competent court. All fees collected for such purposes shall accrue to the general fund of the municipality concerned.

SECTION 15. Preservation of Present Register Books. — All birth, death, and marriage registers and other papers relating thereto at present in the keeping of the municipal secretaries or the clerk of the Municipal court of Manila shall be transferred by the same to the offi cers acting as local civil registrars in each city of municipality and shall form part of the archives of the latter.

SECTION 16. False Statements. — Any person who shall knowingly make false statements in the forms furnished and shall present the same for entry in the civil register, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than six, or by a fi ne of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than fi ve hundred, or both, in the discretion of the court.

SECTION 17. Failure to Report Other Violations. — Any person whose duty is to report any fact concerning the civil status of persons and who knowingly fails to perform such duty, and any person convicted of having violated any of the provisions of this Act, shall be punished by a fi ne of not less than ten nor more than two hundred pesos.

SECTION 18. Neglect of Duty with Reference to the Provisions of this Act. — Any local registrar who fails properly to perform his duties in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the


318

regulations issued hereunder, shall be punished, for the fi rst offence, by an administrative fi ne in a sum equal to his salary for not less than fi fteen days nor more than three months, and for a second or repeated offense, by removal from the service.

SECTION 19. Application of This Act to the Special Provinces. — The Director of the National Library, in his capacity as Civil Registrar General, is hereby authorized, upon recommendation of the (Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes) Secretary of the Interior, to designate the municipalities in the specially organized provinces where the provisions of this Act shall be applied.

SECTION 20. Transitory Provisions. — All rights, duties, and powers established by Act Numbered Thirty-six hundred and thirteen, entitled the Marriage Law, with reference to the procedure for the issuance of the marriage license prior to the solemnization of marriage, the registration of marriages, and the fi ling of the documents in connection therewith, conferred and imposed by said Act upon the clerk of the Municipal Court of Manila and the municipal secretaries, are hereby transferred to the offi cer of the Health Service designated by the Director of said Service, in accordance with section three of this Act, and to the municipal treasurers, respectively, in their capacity as local civil registrars.

All duties and powers established by subsections (d) and (e) of section twenty-two hundred and twelve of the Administrative Code, imposed and conferred by said section upon the municipal secretaries, are hereby likewise transferred to the municipal treasurers in their capacity as local civil registrars.

SECTION 21. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 22. This Act shall take effect three months after its approval.

Approved, November 26, 1930.


REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6809

AN ACT LOWERING THE AGE OF MAJORITY FROM TWENTY-ONE TO EIGHTEEN YEARS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED TWO HUNDRED NINE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209, the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:

“Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of eighteen years.”

Sec. 2. Articles 235 and 237 of the same Code are hereby repealed.

Sec. 3. Article 236 of the same Code is also hereby amended to read as follows:

“Art. 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualifi ed and responsible for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases.

“Contracting marriage shall require parental consent until the age of twenty-one.

“Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.”

Sec. 4. Upon the effectivity of this Act, existing wills, bequests, donations, grants, insurance policies and similar instruments containing references and provisions favorable to minors will not retroact to their prejudice.

Sec. 5. This Act shall take effect upon completion of its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: December 13, 1989


320

PAPERS PRESENTED DURING THE 4th NATIONAL CONVENTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS HELD AT

BACOLOD CITY ON AUGUST 9-11, 2005

NEW PROCEDURES IN THE REGISTRATION OF THE AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

ByEditha R. Orcilla

The provisions of the Civil Code concerning the registration of the authority to solemnize marriage of solemnizing offi cers, particularly Article 92, were amended by the Family Code of the Philippines which took effect on August 3, 1988. The amendatory provision of the law is Article 7, paragraph 2. Under this provision, the duties and powers of the Director of the National Library to register the authority to solemnize marriage of solemnizing offi cers were transferred to the Civil Registrar General (CRG) who is also the Administrator of the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO).

For the purpose of implementing the provision of Article 7(2) of the Family Code, the CRG promulgated Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1988 which was published in the Offi cial Gazette on October 24, 1988 and took effect on November 9, 1988. This Order contained the rules and regulations governing the granting of authority to solemnize marriage to bishops, heads of religions and religious sects, priests, rabbis, imams and other religious ministers and their registration with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG). It contained seventeen (17) sections.

After almost seventeen (17) years, the OCRG fi nds it appropriate to amend Administrative Order No. 1 series of 1988 to further improve the services it renders to the solemnizing offi cers (SOs), hence, the promulgation of Administrative Order No. 2 series of 2005. This Order contains the new rules and regulations including the new registration procedures governing the registration of authority to solemnize marriage of solemnizing offi cers and shall be implemented in January 2006.

The new registration procedure is contained under Rule 7 of the said Order. It includes the sub-topics on:

(a) Who shall apply

(b) Where to apply


(c) When to apply

(d) Requirements for registration

(e) Fees

(f) Forms to be used

These subtopics shall be discussed separately.

Before we discuss the new registration procedures for solemnizing offi cers, it is important to consider fi rst the two (2) general requirements which the religion or religious sect has to comply with before its solemnizing offi cers can be entered in the register solemnizing offi cers. These are:

(a) that the religion or religious sect is operating in the Philippines

(b) that the religion or religious sect is in good repute

These two general requirements are still maintained in the new Administrative Order.

When can we say that a religion or religious sect is operating in the Philippines?

A religion or religious sect is deemed operating in the Philippines when a great number of Filipinos profess it as shown by census records. Questionnaires used during censuses of population and various surveys of NSO carry an item of information concerning religious affi liation. Civil registration forms such as Certifi cate of Live Birth, Certifi cate of Death and Certifi cate of Marriage also carry this information. Hence, these documents are suffi cient proof that a particular religion or religious sect is operating in the Philippines.

In a case where the religion or religious sect of which the solemnizing offi cer is a member is not in the census records, or not publicly known, or in case of doubt, its founder or head is required to declare in a public instrument the following information:

(a) brief history of the religion or religious sect

(b) religion or religious sect is incorporated and registered with SEC

(c) religion or religious sect at least one church, temple or chapel and if more than one, the places where these are situated, and the name of the priests or religious ministers assigned to each


322

(d) Religion or religious sect has at least 200 bona fi de active members who are residents of the Philippines.

This sworn statement shall be submitted to the OCRG. Without this document, the application of the solemnizing offi cer for registration will not be accepted.

The other requirement is that it is in good repute. A religion or religious sect is in good refute when it holds religious services or gatherings periodically in a fi xed place devoted actually and exclusively for religious rites and worship, complies with the requirements of the marriage law and of the implementing rules and regulations and that there is nothing in its teachings, principles and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good customs and public policy.

Unless and until otherwise shown, the religion or religious sect appearing in the latest census records of the Philippines, as being professed by a great number of Filipinos, shall be presumed to be in good refute.

When the religion or religious sect does not appear in the census records, or in case of doubt, the question of its being in good refute may be proven by means of a certifi cation of the Mayor having jurisdiction over the place where its church, temple or chapel is situated affi rming the fact that it holds religious services or gathering periodically in a place of worship, that it complies with the marriage laws, and that there is nothing on its teachings, principles and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good custom and public policy.

Let us now proceed with the registration procedures. First, we shall discuss who among the authorities/persons who can solemnize marriage are required to register with the OCRG their authority to solemnize marriage.

Section 7.1 of Rule 7 of AO # 2 s of 2005 provides that only the following solemnizing offi cers are required to apply for the registration of their authority to solemnize marriage with the OCRG.

(a) Bishop

(b) Founder of the religion/religious sect

(c) Head of the religion/religious sect


(d) Priest

(e) Tribal heads/Chieftain

(f) Other religious ministers/pastors

The tribal heads/chieftains are included in the enumeration pursuant to the DOJ Opinion No. 179 series of 1993 provided that aside from being the social or political leader of their respective tribes, they also stand as their priest or religious head.

Pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 13 series of 2005, Imams are not required to register their authority to solemnize marriage with the OCRG when the parties to the marriage are both Muslims or the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized under the Muslim Law.

Where to apply? This is still a question to many applicant SOs specially those who are new applicants.

For the information of all concerned, application forms for registration whether for new applicant or renewal, are available at the NSO Provincial Offi ces (NSO POs). All solemnizing offi cers who are required to apply for registration their authority to solemnize marriage shall secure and fi le the application forms, OCRG SO Form No. 1, at the NSO PO where their respective church, temple or chapel is situated.

Once the required requirements are complied with by the applicant SO, the NSO-PO shall forward all the applications received to the NSO Regional Offi ce (RO) for the issuance of the Certifi cate of Registration and Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM). The issuance of CRASM by the RO is facilitated with the use of the decentralized Solemnizing Offi cers Information Systems or SOIS.

Example:

Solemnizing Offi cer A is a member of religious sect Y whose church is situated in Bacolod City. If Solemnizing Offi cer A wants to apply for the registration of his authority to solemnize marriage, he shall proceed to the NSO PO of Bacolod City to secure and fi le his application since his church is situated in Bacolod City.

When can a Solemnizing Offi cer fi le for registration his/her authority to solemnize marriage?


324

Filing of applications for the registration of the authority to solemnize marriage maybe done at any time of the year. However, those solemnizing offi cers whose registration shall expire on the 31st day of December of any current year may submit their applications on or before the 31st day of December but not earlier than the 1st day of October of that current year.

What are the requirements then for registration? Take note that under this new registration procedures, there is only one set of requirements for new applicants and those renewing their CRASM.

In order that the application for the registration of the authority to solemnize marriage of a SO be approved by NSO, whether a new applicant SO or renewal, he/she shall comply with the following requirements:

(a) Proof of attendance in one-day orientation seminar conducted by NSO for SOs. A separate guidelines shall be issued to this effect;

(b) Certifi ed true copy of his/her Certifi ed of Live Birth;

(c) Accomplished application form (OCRG SO Form No. 1) in triplicate copies, subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer oath with affi xed documentary stamp;

(d) Two by two colored ID pictures with white background and with signatures at the back taken not less than a month ago from date of application. Pictures should not be computer generated to preserve its authenticity. In case the person is using glasses, it should be removed to have a clear image of the person;

(e) A machine copy of appointment as priest, head, founder, bishop, pastor and minister of the religious sect;

(f) Proper endorsement/designation/recommendation from the head of religion or religious sect to mention: the full name, nationality, complete address, location of the church, temple or chapel where the applicant regularly perform rites and indicate the extent of his territorial ju-risdiction;

(g) In case the applicant is the head/bishop/president/founder of the religion or religious sect, an endorsement


or recommendation from the Board of Trustees/Directors or Church Council;

(h) In case there are no Board of Director/Trustees, the head/bishop/founder/president of the religion or religious sect shall submit a sworn statement duly notarized;

(i) In case the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country, he shall submit his Alien Certifi cate of Registration (ACR) or Immigration Certifi cate of Registration (ICR) issued by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID);

(j) Sworn statement containing brief history of the religion/religious sect and the list of 200 bona fi de active members stating therein their complete address and signed by the members;

(k) A certifi ed Certifi cate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations and by-laws, and update General Information Sheet (G.I.S) issued by the Security Exchange Commission (SEC);

(l) Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Ordination issued by their respective church;

(m) Payment of registration fee

For tribal Heads/Chieftain, the requirements are:

(a) Accomplished application form (OCRG-SO Form No. 1) in triplicate copies, signed, subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer oath with affi xed documentary stamp;

(b) Two by two colored ID pictures with white background and with signatures at the back taken not less than a month a ago from the date of application. Pictures should not be computer generated to preserve its authenticity. In case the person is using glasses, is should be removed to have a clear image of the person;

(c) Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Live Birth;

(d) Certifi cation from the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) certifying that the applicant is authorized to solemnized marriage;

(e) Payment of registration fee


326

How much is the registration fee? Pursuant to Executive Order No. 197 issued by the President Joseph Estrada on January 13, 2000 and implemented on April 4, 2000, the registration fees are follows:

P 500.00 for each registration and issuance of CRASM

P 100.00 for each certifi ed transcript from the registration of solemnizing offi cers

P 100.00 for each duplicate or subsequent copy of CRASM

P 100.00 for each certifi cation issued pertaining to solemnizing offi cer

Take note that all fees accruing from the application for registration of the authority to solemnize marriage of the SOs shall be payable to NSO.

What form shall be used in applying for the registration of the authority to solemnize marriage?

The form to be used is the modifi ed version of the OCRG-SO Form No. 1. It is to be accomplished in triplicate and shall be subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer oath. This form is available in any NSO PO and all items of information shall be fi lled up correctly by the applicant. The items of information are:

Item No. 1 — Full name of the applicant

Item No. 2 — Citizenship/ICR/ACR No./Address of the applicant

Item No. 3 — Date and place of birth of the applicant

Item No. 4 — Name of the religion/religious sect where the applicant SO is a member

Item No. 5 — Title or Position of the Solemnizing Offi cer/Title, name and position of the Appointing Offi cer

Item No. 6 — A solemn promise of the SO to perform marriages according to their religious rites and services

Item No. 7 — Exact territorial jurisdiction of the SO

Item No. 8 — Complete/full address where the church, temple or chapel is situated


Item No. 9 — Request of the SO for the issuance of his/her certifi cate of authority to solemnize marriage

Item No. 10 — Signature of the applicant

It is also worthwhile to include in these new registration procedures the grounds for cancellation of the Certifi cate of Regis-tration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM). Each SO shall see to it that they are aware of these grounds. For the information of everyone, the Civil Registrar General through the Regional Directors (RDs) shall cancel the CRASM issued to any SO based on the following grounds:

(a) When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize marriage is made by bishop or head of religion or religious sect of which the SO is a member

(b) When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize marriage is made by the SO himself

(c) When before the expiry date of his authorization, the SO ceases to be a member of the religion or religious sect which he represented at the time of registration

(d) When the SO has been convicted by fi nal judgment of any crime

(e) When the SO retires from his function as a priest or religious minister, or dies, or becomes permanently incapacitated to discharge the function or his religion or religious sect

(f) When the SO willfully violates the provisions of the existing laws as when he offi ciates marriage where no one of the contracting parties is a member of his religion or religious sect

(g) When he offi ciates marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction

(h) When he fails or refuses to exhibit his authority to solemnize marriage when it is demand from him by the contracting parties, their parents or guardian

(i) When he offi ciates marriage where the contracting parties do not have a valid marriage license is required and such fact is known to him


328

(j) When he fails or refuses to indicate on the marriage certifi cate his registry number and the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage

(k) In case of foreigner, when his visa expires before the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage

(l) Allowing proxy marriages which is a kind of marriage arrangement (which is not being tolerated) where on of the parties to a marriage is represented merely by someone else who may be a delegated or a friend of one of the contracting parties

(m) Non-appearance or proxy SO where one SO is represented by somebody else who performs the marriage for and in behalf of the SO

(n) Physical incapacity of the SO which substantially affects his performance to solemnize marriage, such as blindness, etc.

(o) Marriages contracted with expired marriage licensed

(p) Other acts in contravention with law

Lastly, I would like also to include in this paper the duties and responsibilities of the Solemnizing Offi cers, as provided by Administrative Order No. 2 series of 2005. These are:

(a) Registers his authority to solemnize marriage at the NSO, if applicable;

(b) Ensure that the requirements for the solemnization of marriage under the laws are complied with;

(c) Performs religious services except those SOs who solemnized marriage inherent to their functions, customs and traditions are provided by law;

(d) Solemnize marriages within the territorial jurisdiction;

(e) Ensure the accuracy and completeness of entries in the Certifi cate of Marriage;

(f) Submits the Certifi cate of Marriage to C/MCR for registration within the reglementary period;

(g) Files, keeps and preserves Certifi cate of Marriage;


(h) Compiles with other requirements as maybe prescribe by the CRG

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION: ISSUES AND CONCERNS

ByLourdes J. Hufana

I. Introduction

This paper aims to present the problems that the offi ce encounters in the processing of the marriage documents that we received from the various civil registry offi ces in the country. However, before we do that let me fi rst give you a brief background on how the NSO became the central depository of all registrable documents including the marriage documents. Please allow me to present to you the important uses of the marriage documents in order that you will understand better why we need these problems that we are going to discuss this afternoon.

The National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) is the agency mandated by law to carry out the civil registration functions in the Philippines.

The Administrator of the NSO, concurrently the Civil Registrar General (CRG), is vested with authority to issue rules and regulations in carrying out the purposes of the Civil Registry Law (Act No. 3753). Section 2 of the said Act provides among others that “The Director of the National Library shall be the Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act”. Thus, the system is said to be centralized because all rules and regulations pertaining to civil registration emanates from the CRG.

When Commonwealth Act No. 591 (CA 591) was enacted on August 19, 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now NSO).

The NSO is also mandated to generate general purpose statistics. One of the statistics we generate is the vital statistics which are obtained from the civil registry documents.


330

Importance and Uses

Beyond the existence of a valid marriage is the process of registration. A marriage certifi cate best evidences the validity of the marriage between a man and a woman and clothes such union with the legal precepts of the law.

Marriage certifi cate proves the occurrence of the event. The entries in the marriage certifi cate are essential not merely to prove relation of the parties to their children but also to establish the right of the said children to their inheritance or their legitimes. This is notwithstanding the fact if they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Other use of the marriage records include proof of right to issuance of benefi ts, pensions, for obtaining passports, tax deduction, provisions and allocation of specifi c types of government housing and numerous other facilities that relate to a married man and his wife, including claims to a change of nationality on the basis of marriage.

Some Statistics

Preliminary results of the Decentralized Vital Statistics System (DVSS) showed 593,553 marriages that occurred in 2003. The highest recorded occurrence of marriage took place in May with a total of 67,851. August has the least number of recorded marriage occurrences with 32,031.

Among the regions, National Capital Region (NCR) got the highest recorded occurrence of marriage which is 100,665. The region with the lowest recorded occurrence of marriage is Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with 1,001 recorded marriages.

About 235,351 marriages, the highest so far, occurred to women between the ages 20 to 24 years. On the other hand, the highest number of marriages occurred to males between the ages of 25 to 29 years old with 191,627.

Marriages performed under the civil rites are 244,890. For marriages performed under religious ceremonies, 220,393 are recorded solemnized under the Roman Catholic Church.


II. Common Errors

We now go to the primary concern of this paper which is to present the problems encountered by the offi ce in the marriage documents submitted to us. These are the following:

A. Marriage Exempt from License Requirement

Under the law, there are two types of marriages. One is the ordinary marriage which requires the marriage license and the other is the marriage of exceptional character which does not require a marriage license.

Following are the marriages which are exempted from the license requirement:

a. Either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death (articulo mortis);

b. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar;

c. Parties who have been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other; and

d. Marriage among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of marriage license, provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or practices.

If no information about the marriage license is indicated in the certifi cate, such as the license number and date and place of the issuance, the oath of the solemnizing offi cer at the back of the form must be executed by the solemnizing offi cer.

If no information pertaining to the marriage license requirement was indicated in the marriage certifi cate nor the affi davit at the back of the marriage certifi cate was executed by the SO, submission of supplemental report is not the remedy as mentioned in Rule 11 of AO 1, Series of 1993. It states that “A supplemental report using appropriate form (Certifi cate of Live Birth, Certifi cate of Death, Certifi cate of Fetal Death or Certifi cate of Marriage) may be fi led to supply information inadvertently omitted when the document was registered. However, the “Medical Certifi cate” in the Certifi cate of Death


332

and Certifi cate of Fetal Death and all applicable certifi cations contained in the Certifi cate of Marriage should be accomplished correctly and completely before registration. Hence, no supplemental report having reference to the mentioned certifi -cates is acceptable.

If there is some doubt cast upon the validity of the marriage license because of the absence of the information on the marriage license we leave it to the user of the document to ask for proof or evidence as to the marriage validity.

B. Wrong Place of Registration

The place of occurrence is the place of registration. This is to ensure an effective and orderly system of civil registration. Without such rule, our system of civil registration would be chaotic because the place of registration would be primarily dependent on the discretion or convenience of the interested party.

There are many cases of marriage registrations where the place of registration is not the place where the marriage took place. NSO has issued Memorandum Circular No. 91-6 where it says that, the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of the place where the marriage is wrongfully recorded shall negotiate with the LCR where the marriage occurred for the physical transfer of the marriage certifi cate. In this case, the document to be transferred and the registry book where it is recorded shall have the remark “Transferred to the LCR of ____________ on (state the date) in accordance with Circular No. 91-6”.

The C/MCR where the marriage was registered may reconstruct the document by getting the information from the Register of Marriage, or by preparing a certifi ed transcription from the register, if the original document is unavailable and shall transfer the same to the place where the marriage took place. The transcription should bear the remark or annotation that the document is transferred pursuant to Circular No. 91-6.

C. Double Registration

There is double registration when the marriage of a man and a woman is registered twice. In cases where two marriage


registrations of the same parties are recorded in our offi ce, we consider the fi rst marriage as the valid one. When an interested party requests for a copy of the marriage record, the fi rst registration shall be the one to be issued.

D. Multiple Marriages

The offi ce has encountered several cases of multiple marriages of a person either to the same person or to another person. An example of the fi rst is when a man and a woman contracted marriage twice, one under the civil rites and the other under the church rites. What is considered valid in the example given is the fi rst marriage. So if the fi rst marriage is the civil marriage, then the church marriage becomes invalid and should not be registered. When an interested party requests for a copy of the record of the said marriage, we will issue the fi rst marriage.

For marriages occurring to a person with different party/ies, the offi ce will issue copies of the marriage certifi cates after marriage validation.

E. Wrong Form Used

Under Rule 43 of Administrative Order # 1, Series of 1993, it shall be the duty of the person concerned to accomplish and send four (4) copies of the Certifi cate of Marriage to the civil registrar for registration. After the registration, the civil registrar shall distribute copies of the document within 5 days from receipt thereof as follows: fi rst, to the contracting parties; second, to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG); third, for fi ling of the said offi ce; and fourth, to the solemnizing offi cer.

We have encountered cases where the document forwarded to our offi ce is not the copy for OCRG. In this case, we notify the concerned city/municipal civil registrar (C/MCR) that the document that has been forwarded is not the correct form and request that an endorsement of said document be made. The C/MCR shall prepare the certifi ed true copy of the marriage certifi cate using the standard copy for OCRG form. After this the C/MCR shall submit the CTC to our offi ce through the Provincial Offi ce (PO). The PO shall accept the CTC in standard


334

form for OCRG. The CTC shall be fi led on top of the original copy of the marriage certifi cate.

F. Entries in Colored Ink

In the scanning of documents for conversion to digital format, it has been observed that those that were written using colored ink other than black resulted to blurred and illegible images. Documents with blurred and illegible images are excluded in the indexing and uploading stages. This explains the situation where the NSO issues negative certifi cations from the database even if the paper documents are on fi le.

In view of this and to ensure better archiving system of quality documents, please be informed that effective immediately black ribbon shall be used in fi lling-up all civil registry documents, whether timely or late registered. Thus, general instruction 2.1 of the Instructions Manual: Civil Registry Forms (Accomplishments and Coding) issued in 1993, to wit:

In every case of delayed registration of birth, death, marriage and other registrable documents, the entry in the civil registry book and the registry number transcribed on the certifi cate of vital event shall be written on the Remarks/Annotation portion of the certifi cate and the “Remarks” portion of the registry book.

Is partially superseded only as to the entries in the certifi cate of vital event is concerned.

G. Incomplete/Wrong Entries

The marriage form must be completely and correctly fi lled up. This is to avoid waste of time and money in correcting inconsistent and wrong entries and also of correcting forms with incomplete entries.

We see marriage documents submitted to us with some entries either omitted or erroneously entered. The advice we give to the parties in cases like this is to fi le a supplemental report to supply the entries which were inadvertently omitted. For wrong entries, the remedy is to fi le a petition under R.A. 9048 to correct clerical errors or in court for correction of entries beyond the scope of R.A. 9048.


In some cases, one of the contracting parties place the entries in the wrong portion of the marriage certifi cate. For example, the husband fi lls up the right portion of the document which is allotted for the wife. For these cases, the remedy is to fi le a petition under R.A. 9048 to correct clerical errors.

H. No Registry Number

The registry number is assigned to every document to indicate that such has passed registration in the local registry offi ce. It is also necessary for identifi cation of such document.

The absence of a registry number in the marriage certifi cate puts doubt on the validity of the said document and oftentimes agencies where it is submitted reject such document.

To resolve this, we inform the C/MCR of the problem. If the LCRO copy has a registry number, he should prepare a certifi ed true copy of the document and submit the same to NSO. NSO will transcribe the registry number on the original copy of the marriage certifi cate.

I. Same Registry Number Assigned to Different Marriages

The registry number is a unique number assigned to a civil registry document. Hence no two documents shall have the same registry number.

The remedy is this happens is to notify the C/MCR so that he can make the necessary correction in the documents. NSO will make the correction to its own copy upon receipt of the correction made by the C/MCR.

J. Signatures of Solemnizing Offi cers/Contracting Parties

The signatures of the solemnizing offi cers/groom and the bride in the marriage certifi cate presume that the essential requisites for contracting a valid marriage had been complied with. There are instances where the marriage certifi cate does contain these signatures. Some institutions do not accept a marriage certifi cate without the signature of the solemnizing offi cer or both or either of the contracting parties. Absence


336

of the corresponding signatures of these parties creates a suspicion that the document is spurious hence; its validity is put to question.

In this kind of situation, where the marriage certifi cate does not contain the signature/s of the solemnizing offi cer or the contracting party/ies, the party/ies is/are requested to visit the civil registry offi ce (CRO) or the NSO if residing within reasonable distance to affi x the signature/s on the document.

For some other instances, the C/MCR is requested to forward a copy of the document bearing the signature/s of the party/ies through endorsement.

K. Date of Signing Inconsistent with Date of Marriage

Under the Family Code, the parties must appear before the Solemnizing Offi cer and personally declare that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses (Art. 3, Par. 3, Family Code of the Philippines). In consideration to the provision of this law is the signing by the parties of their marriage certifi cate. So it is important to note that the date of signing of the marriage certifi cate should be done after the marriage ceremony.

In some cases, our offi ce encountered discrepancies as to the date of the signing of the marriage certifi cate with the date of marriage. These discrepancies oftentimes create confusion as which would be done fi rst, the celebration of marriage or the signing.

No corrections shall be done by the LCRO in its fi le copies. In case the client wants the entries to be changed or corrected, the client shall fi le a petition under R.A. 9048. We shall accept the document fi led with our offi ce.

L. Date of Registration versus Date of Event

We observed that there are marriage certifi cates where the date of the registration is earlier than the date of marriage.

To correct the wrong entry in this case the party/ies must fi le a petition for correction of entries under R.A. 9048.


III. Conclusion

Marriage as defi ned in our introduction is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law.

The validity of the marriage does not solely depend on the substantive aspect of the law. Much emphasis should be given to the certifi cate where the evidence of marriage is recorded. As marriage enjoys the presumption of permanency, nothing more can establish said permanency but the record where it is fi led.

We may overlook the seriousness of fi lling-up of the marriage certifi cate but what we do not know is that it is the fi rst defense against fraud, much less the validity. It is also one of the sources of the rights of an individual.

We believe that as offi cers of the government, we are mandated by law to safeguard the validity and integrity of these documents.

Thank you and mabuhay.

ISSUES AND CONCERNS PERTAINING TO MARRIAGE REGISTRATION

WILMA P. BAYASCity Civil Registrar

Tagaytay City

A pleasant good afternoon to my co-participants, the Solemnizing Offi cers composed of the Honorable Mayors, Honorable Judges, priests, pastors and imams, Regional Directors and Provincial Statistics Offi cers of the National Statistics Offi ce on this 4th National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers which is being held here in Bacolod City Convention Center.

I am especially honored and grateful for the invitation given to me by Ms. Carmelita N. Ericta, Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Offi ce and I consider it a privilege to be accorded an opportunity to speak and share with you my


338

experiences as City Civil Registrar of Tagaytay and to discuss some issues and concerns pertaining to marriage registration.

To those participants who attended the 3rd National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers in Tagaytay International Convention Center last August 5-7, 2003, you are already familiar with my place of duty and destination.

When you happened to stay in Tagaytay, you don’t need to hang portraits on your walls. Just open your window and you will see beauty which no artist’s masterpiece could equal. It is known for its lovely vista and panoramic view of Taal Volcano and Lake, a wholesome tourists and family destination, Conference Center of the Philippines, a meditation city, a seat of learning and play, a homing pigeon and a City of Character.

In Tagaytay, we have an OCRG Extension Offi ce — an off-line census serbilis sub-outlet where our offi ce receive and manage applications for certifi cations and copies of civil registry documents using BREQS.

Personally, I would say that I am blessed and lucky that the City Mayors I worked with from 1992 up to present respect and upheld marriage with sanctity and legality. Allow me to call our work together as “Herculean task.” Alone and separate, we will only fail, but together and with the participation of all, we produces result and succeed. I never experienced circumstances leading to void marriages like the following:

TYPES OF VOID MARRIAGES

1. ABSENCE OF FORMAL REQUISITES

A. Marriages Without a Marriage License

In this case, a ceremony is being held fi rst before securing a marriage license. A marriage license is a formal requirement and if the marriage license was issued after the marriage ceremony, the marriage is void (Sy vs. CA, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000).

B. Marriages Without a Marriage Ceremony

The law requires that a ceremony must be held to formalize the marriage. The substance of the ceremony is more important than the form. What the law requires is that the contracting


parties must appear personally before the solemnizing offi cer and declare that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of at least two witnesses.

So it is not proper and legal that the contracting parties and witnesses just sign in the presence of Mayor’s Secretary, Civil Registrar or other person authorized by the Solemnizing Offi cer on his behalf during the ceremony.

C. Marriage By Proxy

It is not allowed in the Philippines because personal appearance is mandatory as required by law under Article 6 of the Family Code. The parties are required to declare that they take each other as husband and wife, in the presence of the solemnizing offi cer and at least two witnesses.

There are practices that one of the contracting parties is in abroad when the marriage ceremony is held. It is not legally possible hence the marriage cannot be entered into through proxy or representative because the consent must be personally and solemnly manifested.

I think this practice is being tolerated because of the effect if one party is not asked. If the solemnizing offi cer after hearing the wife says she was willing to take the groom as her husband, forgot to ask the groom on the same matter, the marriage would be valid, just the same, so long as the groom also signed in the marriage certifi cate. (Kargonills vs. Familiar, C.A., 7175, 1 0.G. 345)

So it is presumed that the groom is present during the celebration of the marriage.

D. Marriages Offi ciated By A Person Without Any Legal Authority To Solemnize Marriages

The person who is offi ciating the marriage must possess the legal authority to solemnize marriage. So the Civil Registrar, Mayor’s Secretary, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Counselors and other person authorized by the Solemnizing Offi cer to act on his behalf are not legally authorized to perform marriages.

I think the reason why solemnizing offi cers delegated this matter is because the law provides an exception to this harsh rule. To validate the marriage, only one party is required to believe in good faith that the solemnizing offi cer had the legal


340

authority to perform marriage. This exception can be highly detrimental to anyone who falls prey to a scheme devise by philanders to set up unsuspecting females into thinking that they are entering into a valid marriage by getting a pretender to solemnize marriage without having any legal authority. Being stack in a marriage with someone who was just playing games at your expense by putting up a person who did not have the power to solemnize marriages is like falling into the abyss. The tragedy is that the law considers this marriage a perfectly valid one which cannot be annulled. Fraud cannot stand as a ground to nullify your marriage because this is not one of the frauds listed under the restrictive enumeration of Article 46 of the Family Code. The presence of the good faith ingredient may work against giving the parties a remedy to have the marriage declared void.

2. ABSENCE OF ESSENTIAL REQUISITES

Marriages in which the contracting parties lack the legal capacity to contract marriage (below 18 years of age)

Legal capacity to enter into a marriage refers to age of the parties at the time of the celebration of their marriages. For some individuals, “age does not matter as long as matter does not age.” Age does matter in law.

It does not matter if you are male or female anymore, the new rules is that you have to be at least 18 years old in the Philippines to enter into a valid marriage. If either the man or the woman is below 18 years old, the marriage is void. The marriage is still void even if the parents or the guardians of both parties gave their consent to the marriage.

There are practices that to circumvent the law party concerned declared his age older than his present age or a marriage ceremony is still held even there is no license to the effect.

3. MARRIAGES THAT ARE INCESTUOUS AND THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

The term “incest” refers to sexual relations with a close relative. Most cultures have established taboos — against it because it is considered an aberration of nature. Even if the


incest taboo is a “cultural universal”, it is widely known that different national cultures and legal systems defi ne “incest” in varying degrees, especially when it comes to the distinctions between two kinds of fi rst cousins: cross cousins and parallel cousins. The children of two brothers or two sisters are parallel cousins. The children of a brother or a sister are cross cousins. Your mother’s sister’s children and your father’s brother’s children are parallel cousins. Your father’s sister’s children and your mother’s brother’s children are your cross cousins. Thus, sex with cross cousins is proper but sex with parallel cousins is considered incestuous.

The law steps in what medicine has already confi rmed. The horror of inbreeding is depicted by the abnormal offspring from incestuous unions. Biological degeneration follows systematic inbreeding. It is not advisable to marry someone who is a close relative because the offspring that may be produced from that union will predictably have numerous birth defects and abnormalities. Philippine law safeguards the health and welfare of the population by prohibiting marriages between “close relatives”.

There are only two types of marriages that are expressly labeled as incestuous and therefore void from the beginning:

a) Marriage between ascendants and descendants of any degree

b) Marriage between brothers and sisters whether full or half blood.

In these two types of incestuous unions, the law prohibits marriages within the so-called “Levitical degrees.” Thus, a man should not marry his mother, daughter, sister, aunt or grandchild. (Aquino, Civil Code of the Philippines and Family Code, 1990) Legitimacy or illegitimacy of the relationship between the parties is immaterial. Either way the marriages are still void. The degree of relationship between ascendants and descendants is also immaterial. Incest is a form of a deviant behavior and is punishable under Philippine Law. Incestuous marriages are said to degrade social institutions, contradict human nature and offend decency, moral and family values.

Article 38 of the Family Code enumerates the marriages that are void from the very beginning “for reasons of public


342

policy.” Public policy is defi ned as community common sense and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health, safety, welfare and the like.

Marriages that are void from the beginning “for reasons of public policy” are as follows:

a.) Marriages between collateral blood relative within the fourth civil degree (fi rst cousins) whether legitimate or illegitimate

b.) Marriages between stepparents and stepchildren

c.) Marriages between parent-in law and children-in law

d.) Marriages between the adopting parent and the adopted child

e.) Marriages between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child

f.) Marriages between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter

g.) Marriages between the adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter

h.) Marriages between the adopted children of the same adopter

i.) Marriages between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse.

Filipino customs and traditions as well as universal standards of morality and decency were considered when these types of marriages were classifi ed as “void from the very beginning.” The ultra-conservative approach in the classifi cation of these nine marriages as void marriages has amplifi ed the “donts” in Philippine Civil law. There are simply too many marriages that are void under Philippine Law that you must take more than a cursory look at the level of your relationship with your future spouse before taking the dive.

Paradoxically, a stepbrother and stepsister can both enter into a valid marriage under Philippine Law. Marriages between a brother-in-law and a sister-in-law as well as


marriages between an adopted child and an illegitimate child of the adopter and marriages between an adopted child of the wife and the separate adopted child of the husband are valid under Philippine Law. Following the same reasoning use to invalidate other marriages “by reasons of public policy”, it is surprising to note that there are legal impediments to these last four types of marriages.

4. MARRIAGES THAT ARE BIGAMOUS AND POLYGAMOUS

Under Philippine Law, a bigamous marriage is void. Bigamy is a serious crime punishable under the law. It is committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage.

1.) before the marriage has been legally dissolved, either by death, annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or

2.) before the absent spouse has been judicially declared presumptively dead.

If you contract a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been met and the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment, you may have committed the public crime of bigamy.

Whether our City Mayor and Parish Priests in our City are in doubt of one of the contracting parties’ status because of age or of a hearsay, our offi ce is being called to assist them. Our offi ce assisted them by requiring the contracting parties to request to the National Statistics Offi ce a Certifi cate of No Marriage Record.

But behind this, it is a common reality that attempting to prove the existence and authenticity of marriage records to shed light on the legal status of a previous marriage can break the camel’s back. You must resolve at least two issues:

1. Was the prior marriage properly contracted?

2. Was it properly terminated or dissolved?

Lack of computerization and an obsolete (disorganized) fi ling system and mysterious calamities such as fi re, fl ood, termites and rat infestation tend to augment the chances that these marriage records are irretrievably lost.


344

5. MARRIAGES THAT HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH RECORD-ING REQUIREMENTS

Failure to record or register the judgment of annulment or judicial declaration nullifying the marriage, the petition and distribution of the spouses’ properties and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitime will spell down and gloom to the subsequent marriage. The law makes the subsequent marriage “null and void” of the recording requirements in the appropriate civil registry and registry of property are not met. The registration of the judgment of annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage with the proper civil registry will affect and bind third parties. Recording the partition and distribution of the spouses’ properties as well as the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimate with the proper registry of property will resolve the ownership interest of these items and will put to rest all further claims against properties from creditors and other third parties.

If you got married again with full knowledge of the fact that there was a failure to comply with the recording requirements of the law, you may incur criminal liability for bigamy.

6. MARRIAGE DESPITE IMPEDIMENT

The fi nding of the local civil registrar that an impediment exists is noted on the application for marriage license and not on the license itself. Since the application may not be attached to the license when it is issued (not required by law), it is possi-ble that the person solemnizing the marriage may not become aware of the impediment and solemnize the marriage to which there is an impediment. There will be no criminal liability of the solemnizing offi cer, but the marriage would be void.

7. EFFECT OF LAPSE PERIOD

The marriage license is automatically cancelled after the 120-day period following its date. A marriage solemnized after the period is marriage without a marriage license. The automatic cancellation of the license is not a mere irregularity or defect, the license is non-existent. The marriage is void ab initio.

I have encountered this case when I checked the date of the issuance of license to the date of the ceremony. I immediately called the attention of the solemnizing offi cer and another


ceremony was done and a different certifi cate was registered in my offi ce.

In Tagaytay City, residents who want to get or apply for a marriage license must comply with the following additional requirements before they secure their marriage license:

1. to plant two trees in the city’s parks or designated areas as planned by the City Planning and Development Offi ce and

2. to attend Character Seminar

This ordinance of the City may look absurd to the outsiders but you can see that this is anchored by a concerned environmentalist who is concerned with the future of the place. The City Mayor’s critics were howling fowl and they said what has a marriage to do with planting of trees in Tagaytay? In fact, there is a human right case involving this unusual requirement. But if you look closely, this ordinance will assure that Tagaytay will not deteriorate as a wasteland but as a nature and forest city many years from now and with good supply of potable water. Knowing that trees breathe life to the environment, the ordinance demands on us to be vigilant and innovative with the maintenance of ecological balance and regreening efforts in Tagaytay City.

Being the fi rst local government unit in the entire Philippines to adopt character development for the people and the second international city to be a member of the International Association of Character Cities all over the world, a Character Seminar was made an additional requirement for those applying for a marriage license.

The seminar aimed to promote and strengthen families which shall be the anchors of our nation towards spiritual, moral, economic and social growth. Being an invaluable institution, families can make, empower and break a nation.

A Certifi cate of Character Seminar is being given after attending the seminar.

In our acceptance of Certifi cate of Marriage for registra-tion, we ensure that the following reportings are observed:

1. Number of Copies


346

The certifi cate should be submitted in four copies to be distributed as follows: original to either of the contracting parties; duplicate and triplicate to be retained to the offi ce; quadruplicate, to the solemnizing offi cer.

2. Reglementary Period

Ordinary marriage has a reglementary period of 15 days while marriage except from a marriage license requirement has 30 days. This is the often mistakes of solemnizing offi cers thinking that the reglementary period for marriage registration is 30 days.

3. Form is Properly and Completely Filled Up and Entries are Correct

For marriage certifi cates, the solemnizing of-fi cer has the corresponding duty in making an ac-curate and systematic family civil register by seeing to it that all marriage certifi cates are correctly and properly fi lled up. All entries must be true and cor-rect prior to the submission of marriage certifi cates for registration.

Whenever I ask a solemnizing offi cer or person authorized to report event of marriage in the offi ce why the fi lling up of name of mother of the contracting parties is not the maiden name, the answer is because he just copy what is written in the license. So I advised him to fi ll up the maiden name of the mother of contracting parties. Before I accept the certifi cate, I obliged them to read properly the items typed in the document to avoid any clerical errors.

Common errors made in the fi lling up or typing of items in the Certifi cate of Marriage are:

1. “Jr, III or Sr” is mistyped on Last Name instead of First Name

2. Citizenship of Foreign Contracting Party

3. Discrepancy on age of bride/groom

When checked against date of marriage, the age is lower or higher than the present age.


4. No signatures of one contracting party and solemnizing offi cer

5. No entry on place of issue, date and number of license

6. Names are twice typed leaving a shadowy image and are diffi cult to read

7. Carbon Paper no longer imprints black prints but only shadow

8. Interchanged entry of bride and groom

9. Surname of the Mother

10. Birthdate is typed “4-9-2005” instead of 4 September 2005

11. Failure to Sign or Issue Certifi cate

4. Proper Attachments Are Submitted

1. Marriages Exempt From the License Require-ment

a. Article 27

Affi davit executed before the Local Civil Registrar, or any other person legally authorized to administer oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis.

b. Article 34

Affi davit of contracting parties before any person authorized by law to administer oaths that they are leaving together for at least fi ve years and without any legal impediment to marry each other and the solemnizing offi cer oath that he ascertained the qualifi cations of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.

c. Article 8

Affi davit of the Contracting Parties requesting the solemnizing offi cer in writing that they be allowed to hold their marriage at a house or place designated by them.


348

Article 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple or in the offi ce of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this code, or where both of the parties request the solemnizing offi cer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or a place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

5. Use of Black Ink In Filling Up and Affi xing Signa-tures in the Certifi cate of Marriage

To ensure better archiving system of quality documents, we see to it that black ink or ribbon shall be used in fi lling up the marriage certifi cate whether timely or late registered and also in the affi xing signatures of contracting parties, solemnizing offi cer and witnesses in the Certifi cate of Marriage.

This system is in consonance with NSO Memo dated March 4, 2004.

6. Authority of the Solemnizing Offi cer

A xeroxed copy of the Certifi cate of Authority to Solemnize Marriage is being required for submission. We ensure that the solemnizing offi cers have not expired their licenses and the indication of their license in the Certifi cate of Marriage.

The standing rule is that the solemnizing offi cer must indicate his name and title in the Certifi cate of Marriage, the expiry date and registry number of his authority to solemnize marriage.

We also ensure that the solemnizing offi cer acts within the limits of such authority. There are instances that the solemnizing offi cer offi ciated marriage even both or one of the parties to the marriage do not belong to his sect or church.

Another, the solemnizing offi cer performs marriage not in the aspect of his jurisdiction. There


are some churches, sects or religions that limit the jurisdiction of their solemnizing offi cers to a particular province or region and some anywhere in the Philippines. In such case, the concerned solemnizing offi cer must be reminded of such limitation because the validity of the marriage may be questioned.

7. Non Registration of Religious Ratifi cation of a Valid Marriage

The offi ce does not accept for registration religious ratifi cation of a valid marriage. The marriage begins with the civil ceremony before the Judge or Mayor. It is the marriage that is recorded in the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar. The certifi cates signed by the parties in the church wedding are kept only in the church fi les and by the parties for sentimental or religious not legal reason.

If the marriage was already solemnized for the fi rst time in a church, to which one party belongs, with all the requirements of law, including a marriage license, a subsequent wedding in another church of the other spouse will be merely a religious ceremony. This is so also with respect to so-called silver or golden weddings.

In application for marriage license, I had this experience with a Greek who wanted that he be married immediately for he never practiced waiting. In Greece, being the next highest military offi cial in rank, he can command his soldier to shoot himself in front of him and the soldier will oblige. When he secured and submitted a copy of his documents, attended seminars as required by our offi ce, he said that this is the fi rst time he did that and for that he will never forget me. When they got married, I was requested to attend and everytime they visited Tagaytay, he always drop by the offi ce to greet me. Later, he decided to buy a vacation house and lot in Tagaytay and considers Tagaytay City his second home.

Another unforgettable experience I had is that with an applicant, formerly a Filipino married to a Filipina in the Philippines. He later fi led for a divorce in U.S.A. Then he later applied for a marriage license in Tagaytay City to marry a Filipina residing in Tagaytay City. I did not accept the application and stick to the Supreme Court ruling that a foreign


350

divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the New Civil Code (R.A. 386) is not entitled to recognition as valid in the Philippines. It is clear that the valid marriage contracted to his Filipina wife remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce he obtained in U.S.A.

As a general rule, foreign divorce obtained by a Filipino citizen will be considered void and are not recognized under Philippine Law. This is in consequence of the absence of any law in the Philippine recognizing divorces. Under Article 15 of the Civil Code, all questions relating to marriage and divorce or legal separation and family relations are governed exclusively by the law of the Philippines when Filipinos are involved. Since a marriage contracted in the Philippines cannot be dissolved, except by death, there being no divorce in the Philippines, a divorce obtained by a Filipino abroad is void in the Philippines. If a subsequent marriage is then contracted with another person by the Filipino divorcee, that marriage is absolutely void because the fi rst marriage is still considered as subsisting under our law.

The second paragraph of Article 15 inserted by amendment by Executive Order 227 after the issuance of the Family Code creates an exception to the rules. In case the parties to the marriage are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, if the foreigner obtains a valid foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. But if it is the Filipino citizen who secures the divorce, the divorce will not be recognized in the Philippines, and he cannot remarry under our law.

This rule seems to place a Filipino citizen on a plane of inequality. There is reason for this however. Our law does not allow the Filipino to seek a foreign divorce hence, if he obtains one, it is not recognized in the Philippines. He is subject to the Philippine law on status, wherever he goes.

In the conduct of civil marriages, the offi ce assists the City Mayor on the following activities:

1. Applying of couple for a marriage license

We accept the application for marriage license of contracting parties if either or both habitually resides in Tagaytay City.


In cases where the marriage license was issued outside Tagaytay, there are times the requirement as to place of issuance is not complied with. We observed that an LCR issued a license to contracting parties not residing in his place of jurisdiction.

Since the solemnizing offi cer does not have to investigate whether or not the license had been properly issued, we accept the license provided all the other requisites are present. We cannot do something about it since the law dictates for its validity regardless of the place of issuance as long as there is a license before the ceremony. (People v. Janssen, 54 Phil. 176)

But the law does not impose upon solemnizing marriages the duty of investigating whether the license was issued by the local civil registrar of the domicile of either party. It is suffi cient to know that the license was issued by a competent offi cial and it may be presumed from the issuance of said license that said offi cial has complied with his duty of ascertaining whether the party who desires to get married resides habitually in his municipality. The marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained. The defect or irregularity affects only a formal requirement.

2. Scheduling of Character Seminar, Seminar on Family Planning and Marriage Counseling and Planting of Trees.

3. Verifying the authenticity and veracity of documents submitted by the couple.

If we are in doubt as to the status of either of the contracting parties, we requested them to submit Certifi cate of No Marriage Record issued by the National Statistics Offi ce.

Likewise, if we are in doubt of the certifi cate of birth submitted to the offi ce, we require them to secure an NSO copy. The parishes in Tagaytay City require the same because of the fake documents submitted by other contracting parties whether it is birth or baptismal certifi cates. I myself have seen a fake document allegedly signed by the undersigned which is quite similar with my signature specimen. I am just wondering how where these people secure LCRs signature specimen.

4. Typewriting of Certifi cate of Marriage of Couple.


352

Before the contracting parties affi x their signature in the Application for Marriage License and after the marriage ceremony where we give to them a copy of their marriage certifi cate we let them read all items fi lled up and double-checked information given. Our purpose is to avoid any clerical errors.

The offi ce sees to it that the certifi cate must be readable, complete and provide the right information. Any misspelling, misinformation, misalignment, missing information, common mistakes, blurred entries and the like is known to contribute to the quality of documents.

5. Preparation Marriage Rites of Couple

The couples to be married are given copy of the marriage rites to be used during the ceremony.

6. Documenting the Marriage Ceremony.

The offi ce is responsible for the documentation of the marriage ceremony. We advised the couple to come back to claim their pictures taken during ceremony.

In the marriage ceremony, the City Mayor let the couple recite Marriage Vows or Pangakuan sa Pag-iisang Dibdib in Tagaytay.

Here is the sample of Marriage Vows. We give this copy to married couple and we advise them to laminate or keep it as a remembrance of their lifetime commitment.

We also give the couple a Certifi cate of Character where the couple pledge to enlive as a family 24 character qualities imbibed by the citizens of Tagaytay.

7. Assistance in the Conduct of Civil and Church Weddings

Every Monday and other days that the City Mayor will solemnize marriage, the offi ce assists in the conduct of civil wedding.

The offi ce also assists two parishes in Tagaytay City in the conduct of church mass weddings. We assist them on the following activity:

1. Typewriting of Certifi cate of Marriage


2. Assistance in the conduct of marriage ceremony

3. Free registration of births of couples’ children

I hope that the issues, experiences and concerns I talk about today are of signifi cant enough interest and usefulness to all of you to warrant taking up some of this Convention’s valuable time. These experiences bring me to understand and adopt innovations and new procedures to improve marriage registration system.

Together in partnership, we should have the social and moral responsibility of fulfi lling the roles bestowed upon us by the State and by the church or religious sect in preserving the inviolability of marriage, promoting and strengthening families and in registering marriages.

The family which is the institution of marriage is the basic building block of society. It is within which our dreams and aspirations are conceived and love.

As Local Civil Registrars, we should strictly apply the laws and rules of application of marriage license, marriage and marriage registration procedures along with the solemnizing offi cers to strengthen the preparatory procedures leading to marriage rites and marriage registration.

The Solemnizing Offi cers should guard and promote Filipino family by ensuring that the founding and launching of families through marriage is carried on with utmost care and integrity. A family is what the solemnizing offi cers help from by binding together, the man and woman, through marriage.

We, in this endeavor of service are fully aware of the sensitiveness, the magnitude and the responsibility of this moral job. We need the heart, the soul and vigor of everyone to ensure hands in carrying and working for the stability of marriage, strengthening family life and promoting the rights and interests of the children. There is a saying, like an orchestra we need harmony to produce a pleasing symphony.

Coming together is a beginning, keeping together is progress, and working together is success. Together, let’s make things happen. Let us remember that each of us can make a difference in the life of every Filipino.


354

As William J. Bennet puts it, “most certifi cation today is pure credentialism. It must begin to refl ect our demand for professional excellence and better quality service, not our appreciation of parchment.”

May we enjoy the blessings of good health so that we can continue our work in leading our nation along the path of righteousness and justice.

Thank you for this honor of being with you and for listening to me so attentively. I hope I have shown you the social, moral and legal signifi cance of marriage and some innovative means in response to procedures and requirements which should go beyond our ministerial call of duty of solemnization and registration.

Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat.

“Life is no brief candle for me. It is sort of splendid torch to which I have got to hold on for a moment and I want to make it burn as brightly before handling it on the future generation.”

CENOMAR: AS A REQUIREMENT FOR LEGITIMATION AND MARRIAGE LICENSE

ByAtty. Maribeth C. Pilimpinas

What is CENOMAR

The CENOMAR is an abbreviation for Certifi cate of No Marriage Record. Aside from birth, marriage and death certifi cates, CENOMAR is one of the frequently requested documents from the National Statistics Offi ce – Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (NSO-OCRG). In securing the CENOMAR, the applicant will be able to fi nd out whether a man or a woman has an existing record of prior marriage which may establish that one is not capacitated to contract a valid marriage or that the man or a woman suffers legal impediment before or at the time of marriage.

Prior to computerization, the issuance of the CENOMAR is a tedious task as verifi cation is being done manually. The search is made from the years 1973 and onwards from the series of indices fi led in big folders. As NSO geared towards modernization, the


marriages were all entered in the database from the years 1945 and onwards. Computerization made the verifi cation and issuance of CENOMAR fast and accurate.

The early users and requesters of CENOMAR are the foreign embassies. The CENOMAR is one of the documents required to a Filipino who is to marry a foreigner. This is the reason why at that time the CENOMAR is sometimes referred to as a “Certifi cation of single status”. It is considered as “certifi cation of legal capacity” which is issued by embassies for purposes of marriage.

Foreign embassies needed assurance that there is no longer impediment to marriage when the foreigner will eventually petition the Filipino wife or husband. The US embassy in particular, relies so much on CENOMAR to determine the veracity of the status of a Filipino immigrant. There are cases of Filipinos who left the Philippines for US declaring that they are single only to fi nd out later that they are married. The CENOMAR will reveal the true status of the person who is married which may consequently lead to the denial of the petition.

Other users of CENOMAR are the women or the parents who wanted to be assured that the man who will marry their daughter has not contracted prior marriage. The Regional Trial Courts through subpoena also request NSO-OCRG for the verifi cation of records of one’s marriage. In one bigamy case, the court requested for a verifi cation of the marriage (CENOMAR) of a man, but to the surprise of the complainant and the court, there exist not only two but fi ve (5) marriages contracted by the Respondent with different women in different places and dates.

These are the early users of the CENOMAR and lately it has become a compulsory requisite for legitimation process. Some religious sectors also require contracting parties to secure CENOMAR prior to marriage rites. It is likewise encouraged that C/MCRs require CENOMAR prior to issuance of marriage license to make sure that there is no legal impediment to marriage.

How to avail the CENOMAR

The CENOMAR can be requested from the NSO Serbilis Center at East Avenue, Quezon City and at various NSO Serbilis Outlets all over Metro Manila and some provinces. The fee for a CENOMAR is P180 and it can be claimed after 10 working days. The Civil Registry


356

System (CRS) database has enrolled entries for marriages from the year 1945 up to the current month of 2005.

At NSO Serbilis Outlets, the CENOMAR can be applied by fi lling up the green application form. The following basic informations are needed:

a) First, middle and last name of the applicant has either no existing record of marriage or that the date of marriage is not known.

b) Complete name of the father and mother’s maiden name.

Note that the date of marriage is not needed in the application for CENOMAR as it is presumed that the applicant has either no existing record of marriage or that the date of marriage is not known.

In case of common names, the names of the father or the mother is important so that the verifi er can fi nally determine that which matches the information in the application form and that appearing in the database. The result of the verifi cation and requested for CENOMAR can be issued using CRS Form No. 4 stating the following:

To whom it may concern:

We certify that Corazon De Jesus Corpuz who is alleged to have been born on August 28, 1980 in Surigao City to Anacleto E. Corpuz and Leticia V. De Jesus, does not appear in our National Indices of Marriage.

This certifi cation is based on the records of 1945-2005 marriages enrolled as of June 2005.

Issued upon request of Corazon De Jesus Corpuz for marriage purposes.


National Statistics Offi ce

At times, it may happen that the verifi cation result of your request for CENOMAR will yield a positive result, meaning, that the applicant’s information reveals that there is an existing marriage record that most likely matches the data in the National Indices


of Marriage. In such case, the NSO-OCRG will issue a certifi cation using CRS Form No. 5 (Advisory on Marriage). The certifi cation states the following:

To whom it may concern:

Be advised that the search for the name Carmen Fuentes Roces alleged to have been born on May 15, 1968 in Davao City, Davao del Sur to Florendo T. Roces and Lolita P. Fuentes yielded One (1) most likely match(es) in our National Indices of Marriage.

1. Date of Marriage: April 5, 1994

Place of Bride: Digos, Davao del Sur Name of Bride/Groom: Carmen Fuentes Roces / Romeo Rodriguez Salcedo.

This certifi cation is based on the records of 1945-2005

Marriage enrolled in the database as of June 30, 2005.

Issued upon request of Romeo R. Salgado for general purposes.


National Statistics Offi ce

Under such situation the applicant may likewise request for the issuance of the marriage contract of the applicant by applying the record in the marriage application form.

CENOMAR AS A REQUIREMENT FOR LEGITIMATION

On April 8, 2005, the NSO-OCRG came up with a Memorandum Circular, which requires CENOMAR as one of the documents to be submitted in the legitimation of a child.

Legitimation is a remedy by means of which those who, in fact were not born in wedlock and should therefore be considered illegitimate are by fi ction of law considered legitimate, it being supposed that they were born when their parents were already married. (1 Manresa 550, as cited in p. 201, Civil Law Reviewer, by Desiderio P. Jurado)


358

Under the process of legitimation, the status of the child is converted by operation of law from illegitimate to legitimate such that the child can enjoy the rights and benefi ts of a legitimate child. Articles 177 and 178 of the Family Code of the Philippines cover the legitimation of illegitimate children and are below quoted as follows:

“Article 177. Only children conceived outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other may be solemnized.”

“Article 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between the parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.”

The foregoing provisions contain the two requisites for legitimation:

1. That the parents of an illegitimate child were not disqualifi ed by any impediment to marry each other at the time of conception of the illegitimate child;

2. That the parents of the illegitimate child contracted a subsequent valid marriage.

The foregoing requisites are compulsory and mandatory requirements for legitimation as they are in fact related requirements. The absence of one requisite will not make legitimation prosper.

In Legitimation process, the initial question that comes to mind is, “Is there legal impediment for the parents to marry?” One common impediment is the age of the parents. Those parents who are below 18 years of age at the time of the conception of the child cannot contract a valid marriage. And if the child was conceived by the mother under 18 years of age this becomes an impediment because the couple cannot contract valid marriage.

Another impediment is that of subsisting marriage of either of the parents that was contracted prior to the subsequent marriage of the parents of the illegitimate child. In case of divorce (abroad) or annulment of prior marriage, these should take place prior to the conception of the child, otherwise the impediment remains.

The parents of illegitimate children do not voluntarily reveal the signs or existence of any legal impediment on their part for fear that their illegitimate child cannot be legitimated. If impediments


are apparent, the parents of the child are advised to adopt the child. It is the remedy under the circumstances, although the parents feel that it is ridiculous to adopt their own child. Oftentimes, they would not want to adopt their own child for this may give wrong stigma to the child.

The legitimation process will not prosper and becomes a useless exercise of right, if it turned out later that one of the parents of the illegitimate child was previously married. The CENOMAR requirement will help to know the existence of impediment of the parents avoiding future inconsistency in records of birth of the child.

CENOMAR AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEISSUANCE OF MARRIAGE LICENSE

The marriage license is one of the formal requisites of a valid marriage. As provided under paragraph (2) Article 3 of the Family Code. Its absence will render the marriage null and void ab initio.

The marriage license can be applied at the Local Civil Registry Offi ce (LCRO), in the city or municipality where either party habitually resides. (Article 9, Family Code of the Philippines)

The consular offi cial at the Philippine Post shall issue marriage license for Filipino Citizens. A sworn application for such license has to be completely fi lled up with the following:

√ Full name of the contracting party

√ Place of Birth

√ Age and Date of Birth

√ Civil Status

√ If previously marriage, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or cancelled.

√ Present residence and citizenship

√ Degree of relationship of the contracting

√ Full name, residence and citizenship of the father

√ Full name, residence and citizenship of the mother

√ Full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian or person having charge, in case the contracting party has neither father or mother and is under age of twenty-one years.


360

The Local Civil Registrar (LCR) shall prepare a notice containing full names and residence of the applicants for a marriage license. It shall be posted for ten (10) consecutive days on a bulletin board outside the offi ce of the LCR. The notice shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to marriage to advise LCR.

The license can be used in any part of the Philippines for a period of 120 days from date of issue.

For citizens of foreign countries, it shall be necessary for the contracting parties to submit a “certifi cate of legal capacity” issued by the respective diplomatic or consular offi cials.

While parties may declare themselves single and legally free to contract marriage, the CENOMAR requirement gives an assurance that indeed there is no legal impediment to marriage. The CENOMAR will reveal if any one of the contracting parties had prior marriage. This situation is true in particular, when one of the applicants for marriage license is not very well known to the LCR or if he/she is not habitually residing in the city or municipality. The request for CENOMAR is made accessible through the Census Serbilis Center at all NSO Regional and Provincial Offi ces.

The submission of CENOMAR is likewise strongly required by some religious sectors.

The current practice of some religious sectors these days is to require the bride and groom to submit CENOMAR prior marriage; otherwise the church will not calendar the wedding ceremonies. This practice appears orderly in the sense that aside from wedding have no existing prior marriages.

The CENOMAR as a requirement for marriage has long been practiced by foreign Embassies as the CENOMAR is equated to legal capacity issued by some foreign embassies. This is one certifi cation recognized abroad such that before a marriage can take place between a Filipino and a Foreigner, the CENOMAR from NSO is required by the Embassy.

CENOMAR AND ITS EFFECTS

Consistency and correctness of civil register

In legitimation process, the Local Civil Registrar Offi ce (LCRO) has limited record to determine whether the parent/s of the child


has prior marriage. It may happen that the legitimation of the child was registered and subsequently annotated in the Certifi cate of Live Birth (COLB) of the child. However, upon submission at the OCRG, it was found that the father has prior marriage. There now appears a confl icting record of status in the COLB of the child where at the LCRO level the child is legitimated but at NSO-OCRG level the child remained illegitimate.

Under this situation, the CENOMAR requirement at the LCRO level will prevent the inconsistency in the civil registry record. The NSO-OCRG has to preserve the integrity and harmony of the civil registry documents. The confl ict in the status of the child is likewise avoided.

Stability of marriage and protection of child’s status

As family is the foundation of society, we must commit to the stability of a valid and subsisting marriage by helping each party to the marriage to start it right by knowing the true status of the person he/she is marrying. The truth will avoid future family problems, which may eventually cause separation of husband and wife, a broken marriage.

The CENOMAR requirement is not a tedious process if we are to consider that what is at stake in the future is stability of marriage.

We are aware that a civil marriage contracted between parties where one of the parties had subsisting prior marriage is a bigamous, hence null and void. Later, if same marriage is nullifi ed, children born after the nullifi cation are legitimate. There now arise a disparity in the status of the children.

These are just some of the effects of the CENOMAR as a requirements legitimation process and in the issuance of marriage license. Now, at stake is the status of the child and the family and the choice is left with you… take it and give them a better, brighter future.


362

ANSWERS TO MAIN ISSUES AND QUESTIONS DURING OPEN FORUM RE THE 4th NATIONAL CONVENTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS AT BACOLOD CONVENTION PLAZA HOTEL, BACOLOD CITY ON AUGUST 9-11, 2005 (As reprinted from the Daily Publication of Highlights during the Convention)

Day One (August 9, 2005 Open Forum)

• The Philippine government cannot impose to the USA our policies in the issuance since each state has its own laws to follow.

• Solemnizing offi cers can only offi ciate marriage within their area of jurisdiction. Acting mayor can offi ciate marriage in the absence of appointed mayors provided it is done only in the jurisdiction of the municipality.

• The CENOMAR requirement is encouraged but not compulsory for legitimation and the issuance of marriage license.

• Solemnizing offi cers can request for extension of his/her territorial jurisdiction in case the minister is assigned to other premises outside his jurisdiction. The OCRG will issue such certifi cate.

• Solemnizing offi cers can request NSO Regional Directors to conduct the required one-day orientation seminars for the issuance/renewal of license to solemnize marriage.

• There is no educational requirement for the issuance of the authority to solemnize marriage to any solemnizing offi cer i.e. pastors, ministers, as long as the solemnizing offi cer meets and complies with the other requisites of Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 2005.

• It is of primary importance that the name and legitimation of a child should be corrected in accordance with the law from the very beginning to avoid future legal problem.

• NSO-OCRG Memorandum Circular was issued due to the requests of MCRs to serve as the guideline on provisions of Article 177 of the Family Code.

• Only the fi rst marriage of a couple will be registered in the NSO archives despite succeeding marriages of the same couple.


• Couples who lived together for fi ve years can be married even without marriage license provided they are of legal age (18 years and above) when they started living in together.

• CENOMAR has no prescription period. It depends upon the purpose, usage and users.

Day two (August 10, 2005 Open Forum)

• P.D. 1083 is not against the provisions of the Family Code and is only applicable to Muslims Filipinos.

• Marriage certifi cate can be issued to a man with multiple marriages as long as it is part of the customs and practices of his tribe.

• Another CRASM is required if a solemnizing offi cer intends to solemnize marriage under tribal practices other than his previous jurisdiction.

• An IP marriage can be dissolved provided it is under customary laws but if married under AO 1 he cannot dissolve the marriage under AO 3.

• Unregistered marriage is valid even after a long period of time provided marriage contract is validly entered.

• A married Christian, converted to Islam and subsequently remarried is still liable for bigamy because previous marriage is not yet nullifi ed under the Family Code.

• There is a confl ict of interest when an MCR is also authorized by “wali” to solemnize marriage.

• Documents without registration numbers are presumed unregistered, however, if received by LCRO it is considered registered.

• Foreign nationals marrying Filipinos should obtain their legal capacity to get married from the consular offi ces in the Philippines.

• There is no distinction between a true-blooded Muslim and a convert.

• The registry number should be put in the marriage document at the same time of the occurrence of the event.


364

• Religious solemnizing offi cers can counsel contracting parties besides the DSWD.

• Place of occurrence should also be the place of registration.

• The solemnizing offi cer is liable if proven that he has knowledge that neither the contracting parties is a member of the sect. As a result, the authority to solemnize marriage will be revoked.

• Additional requirements to obtain marriage license like tree-planting and character seminar certifi cates are not grounds to suspend the application for the license.

• Only the fi rst marriage between the same contracting parties is valid despite subsequent marriages.

• Issuance of CRASM will be fully decentralized next year.

• Signing of unsigned marriage documents is allowed only if it happened recently.

• NSO is on the process of loading the solemnizing offi cers’ directory to the NSO offi cial website.

• Corrections in the certifi cation portion of the civil registry document (e.g. cause of death) are not resolved under R.A. 9048.

• A divorced decree is suffi cient evidence for the LCR to issue a marriage license to a Filipino and a foreign national who is a divorcee.

• In area where there is no Shari’a court, registration of a Muslim marriage can be done by a civil registrar provided required forms under P.D. 1083 are properly accomplished.

• Only one solemnizing offi cer should sign a marriage contract.

Day Three (August 11, 2005 Open Forum)

• R.A. 9048 is administrative in nature for limited entries because it doesn’t require court judgment.

• Judge should not entertain cases pertaining to R.A. 9048 unless there is a serious dispute on the matter.


• Our status married or otherwise is conferred by law.

• There are two grounds governing the marriage between Filipino and a foreigner, the Philippine laws and the laws of the foreigner’s country.

• In the advent of cyber law a virtual offi ce can be created.

PRIMARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS EXPERIENCED BY CONCERNED AGENCIES IN DEALING MARRIAGE DOCU-MENTS AS DISCUSSED BY DIFFERENT LECTURERS DUR-ING THE 14th NATIONAL CONVENTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS AT BACOLOD CITY ON AUGUST 9-11, 2005

A. Civil Registration Department Experience

* Marriage/s exempt from license requirement

* Wrong place of registration

* Double registration

* Wrong form used

* Entries in colored ink

* Incomplete/wrong entries

* Same registry number assigned to different marriages

* Signatures of solemnizing offi cers/contracting parties

* Date of signing/registration inconsistent with date of marriage

B. City/Municipal Civil Registrar Experience

• Marriages with absence of formal requisites — those without marriage ceremony, marriages by proxy and those offi ciated by a person without any legal authority to solemnize marriage.

• Marriages with absence of essential requisites-those which have contracting parties below 18 years of age.

• Marriages that are incestuous and those that are against public policy.

• Marriages that are bigamous and polygamous.

• Marriages that have not complied with recording requirements.


366

• Marriages despite impediment.

• Effect of lapse period — a marriage solemnized after the 120-day period following the issuance of the license is marriage without a, thus it is considered void ab initio.

C. Solemnizing Offi cer Experience

• The need for educational and information campaigns on the importance of marriage.

• Avoidance of having two solemnizing offi cers offi ciating the marriage ceremony and both signing in the marriage certifi cate.

• Women marrying foreign nationals should not opt for quick marriages as these will lead to future problems.

• Ministers should also be given the privilege to offi ciate mixed marriages like the mayors and judges.

• Attend seminars to be updated with the latest develop-ments as well as share experiences to other solemnizing offi cers.

PAPERS PRESENTED DURING THE 3rd NATIONAL CON-VENTION OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS HELD AT TAGAY-TAY CITY ON AUGUST 5-7, 2003

ISSUES AND CONCERNS ON MARRIAGE REGISTRATION

by US Consul Barry Simmons

Magandang hapon to everyone. Let me add maraming salamat for this invitation. I consider this a distinct honor and privilege to be here with you. I know this is a very important professional event for you every year and so I’d like to do what I can to provide some remarks that may be of interest to you and may be of help. As our host said this is not my fi rst assignment in the Philippines and in fact, I’ve been coming to the Philip-pines for many, many years. The fi rst year being 1964, before any of you were born I suspect my father was in the military and was assigned in Taipei, Taiwan. And to get to Taipei, Tai-wan in 1964 you had to go to Clark Airbase and wait for a week for the next fl ight so I’ve been coming to this country for many


years. It seems good reason to come more often now for I’m married to a Filipina. And for those of you who are from Cebu, where my wife is from, I like to say jealousy as the province of the most beautiful Filipinas come from. And everyone else would hate me.

I have very brief remarks. One of the reasons is only two people are authorized to speak in behalf of the Embassy. The Ambassador, which I’m not, and the Public Affairs Spokesman, which I’m not. And for me, I need to get remarks cleared in advance. Anyone else who wants to speak and have their remarks offi cial, they have to have their remarks cleared “verbatim” in advance, which is very diffi cult to do sometimes.

And so I’m actually glad that this has been changed to a Question and Answer format for a panel. With just very brief remarks in advance so to the extent it deviates from that is my personal opinion.

I have two roles in the Embassy, one since I took over the Fraud Prevention Unit is to investigate on allegations of fraud with respect to visas, passports, consular reports of birth abroad, things of nature. I also have the function as a consular offi cer. I was in the immigrant visa section before I came to the Fraud Unit and so I have two…. basically two views of the issues you’re talking about today. Specifi cally registration of marriage is just one of the registrations we’re concerned with as Consular Offi cer in the Fraud Unit, not just marriage documents but birth certifi cates, death certifi cates and adoption decrees.

All the various legal documents you have that govern family relationship and birth and death are of interest to us, because of course, those documents are submitted in support of visa applications and to the extent that we examine them for legitimacy. We are relying very, very heavily, on you ladies and gentlemen, to do your jobs very well.

I’m part of a multilateral committee at the Department of Foreign Affairs, that is tasked with protecting the integrity of the Philippine passport. I’m sure as you all know, as my wife and I know, it hurts many Filipinos when they are traveling internationally. They hold out their passport and various immigration offi cers look at it with some doubt in their eyes. And that’s where our committee is tasked at the DFA and I


368

hope we are able to really put some vitality into the integrity of the Philippine passport. Because it has been under assault for many years as you know. Certainly I think that’s one of the important things you do as solemnizing offi cers by demanding very high standards when people apply for various documents that in turn are used to get passports and visas.

By demanding such high standards you also help us to protect the integrity of the Philippine passport. The two areas that we really focus on with respect to marriage registration here are: one, we conduct a lot of marriage indexing. Depending on the circumstances of the applicant, we may send a request that the NSO conduct a marriage index to determine whether an applicant is married to someone else or to the same per-son. Our latest statistics show us that about seven percent of those marriage index come back as positive. They are married to those who said they are not married or who have not been married, or said that they had a prior terminated marriage. And so I think that the glass is 93 percent full that 7 percent empty.

Now, another issue about marriage registration documents. It is carryover the birth certifi cates, death certifi cates and petitions for adoptions, is we rely primarily on the Philippine judicial system to make decisions about the legality of when a marriage is a marriage and when an annulment is an annulment. We don’t try to substitute our judgment.

As an attorney in the U.S., I’m not about to suggest I know how much about Philippine law as Philippine attorneys and Philippine judges. Our task is to make these decisions so we rely on the decisions of our own offi cials and we follow those in almost any case. And it’s a rare exception that we would not accept.

If I am invited on a session on birth certifi cates, I really have a whole lot more to say because that’s where the really tough issues are with consul offi cers because so many birth certifi cates in this country are late-registered. My personal record for an applicant is 80 years late but usually that’s not the one I’m concerned about. In many times, when an elderly person being petitioned and the petition was fi led many years ago, there’s a nice paper trail showing that this person is who this person claims to be.


It’s the most recent petitions with late registrations that do not make sense. You know somebody born in the 1980’s or early 1990s and it is 10, 20 years late-registered, that does not make sense. Somebody born in the 1930s obviously it does. Either it wasn’t registered in many cases or that it was burned in World War II. Sometimes the longer late registration documents are easier to deal with as to consul offi cers but I just mentioned those issues to give you an idea of the issues were concerned with as consular offi cers at the US embassy and if you have any specifi c questions, I’ll be glad to try and address them in the question and answer session. Thank you very much for your time.


by MCR Cynthia B. Soriano

A pleasant afternoon to everyone.

There’s a big concern nowadays because of same-sex marriage. It was shown on television lately — siguro may mga nakapanood sa inyo — that a ‘priest’ of a certain religious denomination was solemnizing this sort of marriage. But we all know that this is against public policy, against morals and against the very purpose of marriage, which is procreation. However, if the registration of such marriage was presented to the civil registrar, we will register that marriage because our duty is ministerial. Besides, registration, as we recall, does not, in any way, affect the validity or the legality of the marriage. It’s just documentation and recording. Registration is the best evidence that such marriage was solemnized.

Pertaining to age, my fellow delegates, they must be 18 years old at that time of marriage. This is in the Family Code. You know in the course in my research for the paper I presented this afternoon, I came across a very interesting article presented by the honorable Jaina Rasul during the First National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers. He made a comparative analysis of the Family Code and the Muslim Code of the Philippines. With regard to age, sabi n’ya sa Family Code, 18 years old. Pero sa Muslim Code 15 for male and 12 years old for female, or even younger, basta nasa age of puberty na iyong female.


370

And so, sabi nya, in a case when a 15-year-old boy raped a 13-year-old girl. The boy wanted to extinguish his criminal liability by marrying the girl, which was allowed. But in that case, he wanted to, but because of the age impediment, hindi sila pwedeng pakasal legally, so nagpa-convert sa Islam and then because nasa tamang edad na sila, they can now legally get married. Ma-e-extinguish na rin iyong criminal liability noong rapist, noong lalaki. Ang sabi ni Justice Rasul, the provisions of Muslim Code provide a socio-legal remedy to some problems. Iyon po ang opinion niya with regard sa situation na iyon.

Well, the issue with regard to the reckoning of the record minimum age of 18 years, whether it is the date of marriage or the date when the application for marriage license was fi led resolved in a 1991 opinion of the Secretary of Justice, to wit:

Sabi niya, “Certainly, it is the duty of the civil register to determine from the applicant the record minimum age. However, it is believed that the local civil registrar should not refuse to issue a license for the reason alone that either or both parties do not meet the requisite age at that date of fi ling of the application for marriage license. As long as they will become of age within the 120-day period of validity of the license, and subject to the condition which should be advisedly be noted on the license that the marriage shall not be celebrated until after the party or parties shall have become of age.”

Simply put, my fellow delegates, ibig sabihin kami na licensing offi cers (civil registrars) may accept application for marriage license even when one or both of contracting parties are 17 years old and 9 months for as long as within the validity of the license magiging 18 years old na iyong one or both the applicants, no problem about that.

But the issue now is, in preparing the marriage certifi cate, the solemnizing offi cers must remember that the age of the contracting parties to be indicated in the certifi cate of marriage should be at the time of the marriage, and not at that time of the fi ling of application for marriage license. For when the solemnizing offi cers just copy the entries in the application for marriage license in that particular case I cited, 17 years old and 9 months, pagkinopya iyon ng solemnizing offi cers, it would then appear in the certifi cate of marriage that the contracting party was still under aged at the time of marriage.


Kaya ang caution ko sa mga solemnizing offi cers, pagkokopyahin n’yo po ang ibang entries, we furnish also a copy of the application of a marriage license. Pagkokopyahin n’yo po ang ibang entries, okey po. Pero doon po sa age remember it should be at that time of marriage, not at the time of fi ling the application of marriage license.

With regard to relationship, I will confi ne my discussion to legal capacity regarding confusion as to what is within the fourth degree and what is not within. Kasi ang prohibition is up to the forth civil degree, sa marriage.

I prepared here a diagram to educate you in determining the degree of relationship. For example, A is the father of B and C are the children, and so on. Ang pagbilang po ng degree n’yan is start with A. This is the nephew or the niece. Bilang hanggang C, balik sa A-1, balik sa A-2, baba sa B-3, so B’s relationship is third degree.

I remember there was a question about this. I think this morning or yesterday on the degree on relationship so iyong B and A relationship is an uncle-nephew or auntie-nephew relationship. That’s 3rd degree. Ang prohibition is remember for the MCR’s siguro walang masyadong problema kasi we were taught D and A 1st cousins hanggang d’yan ang legal prohibition. That’s the 4th degree yan, kasi akala nong iba hanggang fourth cousins. Kawawa naman iyong 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins. Hindi nila issue-han ng lisensya, under the law they can legally get married. So, okay, D and G pamangkin mo sa 1st cousin mo. Pwede na iyan. That’s already 5th degree na yan kasi G to E is 1, to C is 2A, 3 to B, 4D. That’s 5th degree na yan kasi G to E is 1, to C is 2A, 3 to B, 4 D. That’s 5th degree.

I hope this will aid you, the reason I included this is because kahit yong mga solemnizing offi cers, there are instances when the couple will go to you directly to get married, even yong ang mga marriages with exceptional character, you will have to determine the capacity of the contracting party. So you should be able to know the degree, ‘yong legal capacity nila. I hope this will help you.

The formal requisites of marriage na-discuss na rin natin ito. On authority of solemnizing offi cers, some solemnizing offi cers have expired licenses or have no license at all are indicated in the certifi cate of marriage. Iyon ang mga natatanggap naming


372

nire-rehistro. Also, the solemnizing offi cers should indicate below their name and title, the expiry date and registry number of their authority to solemnize marriage. Of course, ‘yong mga judges and mayors just their title and their name are suffi cient.

On valid marriage license, the effects of marriage solemnized without a valid marriage license or before the issuance of a valid marriage license. This issue, you know, have far reaching repercussions which may be felt immediately later. Let me underscore what I mean by way of this example.

Halimbawa, the husband and wife applied for marriage license on August 1. All requirements were complied with except the posting period. They were married, nangyayari ito August 4 before the posting period was over. Pinabayaan na ang marriage contract nila. They did not check their certifi cate of marriage. After a couple of years or two, the wife gives birth and placed in the child’s certifi cate of live birth that their date of marriage is August 1, iyon ang alam nila. Only to fi nd out later that their date of marriage in their certifi cate of marriage, siyempre ang inilagay nong nagkasal inadjust after the posting, nilagay August 12 or at a later date, maraming problema na po yon.

There are many repercussions already. In a case where the husband is the foreigner and the wife applied for a marriage license on August 1, all requirements were complied with except the 10 days posting period. They were married August 5 before the posting was over. Husband, who is a foreigner, left the country on August 7. In their certifi cate of marriage, the couple was already out of the country. How can one get married when he is not physically present?

So these are the concerns. Ito yong mga ginagawa ng solemnizing offi cers na hindi nila unintended ang maraming repercussions. In one Supreme Court decision, I cannot exactly quote ‘yong decision na yon, a marriage which was declared void for lack of marriage license at the time of marriage. Ito po yong kaso, ang marriage certifi cate nila iyong original iyong copy ng contracting parties, ang bakat ng makinilya noong date of marriage at noong time of marriage, ang marriage license at ang license number were different from the rest of the entries. Iba po, bakat lang po nang makinilya ang pinag-uusapan


natin pero seemingly walang problema. Hindi tama ‘yong mga dates doon but pina-declare ‘yong marriage void from the very beginning kasi ang contention ng interested party iyong nag-fi le ng petition for declaration of nullity, if at that time of the marriage there was already a valid marriage license issued.

There was no reason for whoever prepared the certifi cate of marriage not to type entirely. Bakit iba-blanko pa nya iyon kung meron nang license and it held water declared void from the very beginning. Kaya iyong mga practice dyan bina-blanko nila, kung wala pang lisensya saka na lang fi -fi ll up an. Ito magkaiba-iba lang ang imprint ng typewriter napa-declared void na from the very beginning because of the absence of a valid marriage license at the time of solemnization of the marriage.

Ordinary marriage, this was already discussed. The reglementary period within 15 days following. Let me zero in on the following solemnization of marriage. Some believe it is 30 days but as I’d said following the solemnization of marriage. For marriage of exceptional character, it is 30 days following the solemnization of marriage. Meaning, pagsinolemnize ng August 1, the reglementary period starts on August 2 up to 16 for ordinary marriage, for August 2 up to August 31 for marriage of exceptional character. Hindi nagsisimula doon sa August 1 because of the word following, para malaman nyo na within the reglementary period pa rin yong pagpaparehistro nyo.

Now, I go to the number of copies to be accomplished kasi ito ang mga nakikita naming sa mga documents sa nirehistro namin. Sa distribution, 1st copy to the contracting parties, 2nd copy to the OCRG, 3rd copy to their LCRO fi le, 4th copy to the solemnizing offi cers. We refer to the 4th copy of the certifi cate of marriage as original-original. Original-duplicate, original-triplicate, original-quadruplicate. But you know, ang concern natin in preparing the certifi cate of marriage, the OCRG copy should always be the 2nd copy, pagpini-prepare natin yan, 2nd copy palagi. Because there are certifi cates submitted to us for registration where the OCRG copy made as the original-original, so in this particular case, hindi naming binibigay sa contracting ties, nire-retain namin for submission to OCRG at saka pag nagprepare kayo ng certifi cate of marriage minsan ang saksakan ho yan, hindi pwedeng isa-isa. Minsan ang saksakan


374

kasi risky ho ‘yan, mamaya tama yong 1st copy, yong 2nd copy may error, kaya it should be may carbon. But minsanang saksakan ho iyon pag-prepare ng certifi cate of marriage but and also there are even instances where all copies are OCRG, lahat ng kopya na sina-submit for registration OCRG lahat, ito yong mga na no-note namin.

Marriage exempt from license requirements and I only deal on Article 27, ito yong “articulo mortis” pero sometimes “articulo rigor mortis” na e, patay na at saka kinakasal pa ‘di ba?

Okay, there was one case under this article presented to me for late registration and I’m certain there. There are others all over which are similarly situated, the alleged husband died January 3, 2003 na-register ‘yong death certifi cate n’ya timely registered. The marriage in articulo mortis was allegedly solemnized on January 3, 2003 and it was presented to me for late registration by the solemnizing offi cer on May 22, 2003. All requirements were complied with, but my attention was caught by the fact that the affi davit of the solemnizing offi cer was also subscribed on May 22, 2003. I’m not referring to the affi davit of marriage for late registration. I’m referring to the affi davit ‘supposed to be executed by the solemnizing offi cer when he offi ciated the marriage in “articulo mortis”. Biro n’yo kasabay noong affi davit for late registration e, but I registered the marriage anyway. Ministerial tayo ika nga and we have no investigative powers.

Sa Article 28, I need not deal on this, ito iyong remote place. Ten years na akong civil registrar wala pa akong na-rehistro kahit isa nito and I haven’t seen one in my record. Sa Article 33 naman, let me quote a case which — ito ‘yong tungkol sa ethnic marriage — which was raised by one of the civil registrars during one of our conferences.

Husband and wife were married under Catholic rites. Each one wanted an annulment but it was diffi cult, money-wise. Hindi pa sigurado kung ia-approve, although it is granted by the Court and what about Solicitor General. So they had themselves converted into Islam. After which brings me back to the paper presented by Justice Razul. Sabi niya in a live-in partnership, in a non-Islamic society where the children are born out of union, hindi equal sa sharing of inheritance but


there is provision in the Muslim Law. The Muslim Code of the Philippines provides a socio-legal remedy, sabi na naman n’ya.

In an instance where the woman is sadly indulging in moonlighting or extra-marital activities causing social embarrassment and humiliation to the husband, the Civil Law does not permit divorce in the Philippines. Here the government is rendered helpless. The husband may further or just remain quietly in a nonchalant attitude and pretend as if nothing happened. So the Islamic and divorce comes in. it must be remembered, however, that the plurality of marriage and divorce in Islam is not common and widespread, but they provide a socio-legal remedy.

In Article 34, yesterday it was discussed by Atty. Danny Concepcion, if you were listening very well, it was not in the paper I presented. I said in a circular issued by then CRG Tomas Africa, even if, sa Article 34 ito ha, even if at the start of the cohabitation of the contracting parties, there was legal impediment as long as at the time of marriage the impediment no longer exists, then the parties can get married under Article 34.

Well I said, to me, this, in essence, tolerates illicit relationships at the start of cohabitation ideally, the date of reckoning the start of the fi ve-year cohabitation should be at the time when impediment or impediments no longer exist. The provision of the law was construed leniently on this matter and so, but we’re glad because there’s now jurisprudence from the Supreme Court that the counting of the fi ve-year cohabitation should start at a time when the impediment was no longer existing and we are just waiting for the circular as promised by Director Hufana.

Hinahanap na lang nila yong legal basis ng ating circular. Let me point out, with what we are doing before in contrast to this, it is interesting to point out that children who were born to under aged parents cannot be legitimated because of the presence of the impediments of age at the time of the conception and the birth of the child so, in this instance, the law is non-compassionate on the predicament of illegitimate children but this is being remedied. There is bill now pending in Congress. Well, forgive me for being frank or even blunt because I may


376

not have statistics on its prevalence but I believe Article 34 is an abused provision of marriage.

For convenience and facilitation, this is being availed of without being mindful of the repercussions legal or otherwise. As civil registrar and I’m sure others too, I receive subpoena and subpoenas duces tecum in declaration of nullity of marriage, bigamy and perjury cases for marriages under Article 34. Minsan nga pupunta sa ’yo ngayon, sabi nila pakakasal na sila, after two days sasabihin mo hindi pwede, mabibigla ka na lang magre-present na lang ng certifi cate of marriage for registration under Article 34. So, this is really an abused Article in marriage.

As to the form, ito ang ating mga observations. In preparing the certifi cate of marriage, you should avoid erasures and changing of entries. Even this done prior to recording in the civil registry. Kahit gagawin n’yo ito bago n’yo irehistro sa amin because it stands to suffer, being dishonored by the end-user anyway. May certifi cate of marriage pini-present sa amin na may super-imposition, hindi namin alam kung saan nakuha so, baka ma-dishonor din ng end-user so it’s a caution to solemnizing offi cers to please try to avoid erasures and changing of entries.

Well, in fi lling up the certifi cate of marriage, it should be complete, consistent and correct. Na-discuss na rin ito ni Ms. Espinoza, complete kasi pag may naiwanan kayo d’yan na blanko papa-subject n’yo pa kung kailangan ng may-ari iyung document. Ipa-subject n’yo pa sa supplemental report abala, or if it is not consistent baka pagpepetitionin n’yo pa or it is not correct. So you should fi ll it up completely, consistently and correctly. Remember, doon po sa paglagay sa pangalan ng nanay ng both parties, it should be maiden name of the mother for the male and female. Gamitin n’yo po yong maiden name kasi alam n’yo minsan iniiwasang ma-detect ‘yung degree of relationship hindi na nilalagay ‘yong middle name ‘di ba, so, pakilagay ‘yong maiden names of the mothers in the certifi cate of marriage.

Also, avoid off-line entries and all copies should be legible. Alam n’yo po pag off-line yong entries dinagdagan n’yo po ang trabaho naming especially ‘yong sa OCRG copy ang ginagawa namin, gumagawa kami uli ng certifi ed true copy


for submission to the OCRG kasi ‘yong mga may-ari rin ang magsa-suffer kung hindi mabasa yon mga encoder or if na submit ‘yon ng hindi legible, off-line ‘yong mga entries, pag pagnag-request kayo direct to NSO pakukuhanin pa rin kayo, papa-endorse pa uli kayo so avoid off-line entries and all copies should be legible. For Ordinary Marriage, ang license number ilagay n’yo po, date and place of its issue shall be indicated in the appropriate space in the marriage contract. For marriages exempt from license requirement, indicated ang basis whether Articles 34, 33, 27 or 28. Mark the appropriate box as to whether the contracting parties have or have not entered into a married settlement prior to the marriage, kung may marriage settlement sila enclose four copies of the marriage settlement when registering. The married settlement we’re talking about are the property relations, attached four copies of the married settlement if they had entered.

Other issues and concerns ‘yong ibang sekta po nire-require yong CENOMAR. Alam n’yo napakahirap po kung nire-require natin ‘tong CENOMAR. But us, we cannot dictate or different sects ‘yong mga requirement nila but we should remember each religious sect has its own set of rules pertaining to marriage, however, when they voluntarily register with the OCRG they have impliedly and presumably admitted the duty to carry out and observed strictly the provisions of the Family Code pertaining to marriage. This is according to an excerpt from the paper presented by Lt. Colonel Lalicon during the 1st National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers in his paper The Linkages Between the Solemnizing Offi cers and the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General.

Also there are religious sects that fi rst ask for the marriage license before they issue the marriage counseling certifi cate. Caution ho, they should remember that the marriage counseling certifi cate is a requirement in the application for marriage license, hindi po ito requirement in the solemnization of marriage. There are some solemnizing offi cers who offi ciate marriage where the contracting members are not members of their church. A priest who offi ciated a marriage without authority to do so may be held liable under Article 352 for performing an illegal ceremony and Article 177 of the Revised Final Code for usurpation of authority but any irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage


378

but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally or even administratively liable.

Last point, there are solemnizing offi cers who solemnized marriage outside of their sala offi ce for mayors, judge and outside the church. In this instance there should be a letter request from the contracting party also attached four copies of the sworn letter request when you register the certifi cate of marriage.


byAtty. Antonio Morales

Representative from Department of Foreign Affairs

Magandang hapon po sa inyong lahat. Thank you very much for that kind introduction. I have a little correction to make I am also currently the Director of the Authentication Division.

First of all, I’m honored to represent the Department of Foreign Affairs in this important convention. As you may know the DFA has manifold functions. It is refl ected by the positions that I occupy. We do foreign policy but we don’t just do foreign policy. Perhaps you may know we the DFA, what comes to your mind. Ano ho ba ang unang bagay na pumupunta sa isipan natin? Kapag narinig ang DFA pasaporte po ho, pero passport is one aspect of the work we do. Passporting is one aspect of the work we do.

We also do other consular matters apart from foreign policy. And one of these matters is a matter similar to what local registrars have been doing, which is registration. But our tasks is not only limited to registration only. Now we also solemnize marriages. So the function is two-fold.

I have a short presentation, if marriage is solemnized abroad we are interested only to particular to marriages between Filipino citizens and in a marriage wherein one of the contracting parties is a citizen of the Philippines.

And what is the function of the Foreign Service of the DFA, the Foreign Service post relative to marriages? As I mentioned in the Philippines one of the tasks of the local civil registrar is separate from the task of a solemnizing offi cer. It is not correct.


In the past, in our embassies abroad, in the consulates and the consular section of the Philippine Embassy abroad, the solemnization of marriages, as well as the registration, is done by the same authority. So we issue marriage licenses and we also solemnize marriages. So it’s very clear these two functions are not just linked, they are merged in the authority of the consular offi cial.

Another task we do is to issue a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage. In certain countries this is required. This is required in certain countries. So when they come to us, we issue them subject to compliance with requirements. A Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage. Now, what are the pertinent department rules and regulations that we follow in discharging this task? We have the 1995 reviewed regulations of the Department of Foreign Affairs, particularly section 660 to 666, which more or less reiterates the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Code. Briefl y because you might have questions. I will discuss very briefl y what has been discussed by previous speakers. So if you have questions we can go to the questions later.

According to the Family Code who can solemnize marriages? Civil weddings? Those previously not covered in the previous discussions but Consuls, Consul Generals and Vice Consuls authorized under the law to solemnize marriages.

In my capacity, I serve as a Vice-Consul in the Philippine Embassy in Ankara, Turkey. I solemnize marriages in Turkey. In my term then in two years. But when I was assigned in the Philippine Embassy in Rome, I solemnized two hundred weddings because Italy is host to the largest concentration of Filipinos in the whole of Europe. Malaki ho ang ating kumonidad sa Europa. In fact what I cover is only the Consular section of the Philippine Embassy in Southern and Central Italy. We also have a Consulate General in Milan, which covers the Filipinos in Northern Italy.

So if you will see it’s really an important task of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Before I came in, I had a talk with people from NSO and we were talking of the additional function of the DFA. As you may have read in the papers, the overseas Filipinos are not entitled to vote, now they have the right to vote.

Starting August 1, all our embassies abroad are also doing work as deputized agents of the Commission on Elections. And they are now in the process of registering our countrymen abroad. Going back to those who have the capacity to solemnize marriages. These consular


380

offi cials under the Constitution are appointed by the President. This is the Constitutional provision which states the President to nominate, with the consent of the Commission of Appointments, and to appoint the members of the Cabinet, Offi cers of the Armed Forces from the rank of Colonel and up, etc. and consuls.

This is the provision that answers the question, can an Ambassador solemnize a marriage? Because the Ambassador is the head of the Embassy, the Embassy covers the consular section. According to the DOJ opinion, the Ambassador may not solemnize a marriage. Now apart from the appointment of the President, consular offi cials are granted consular commission. This consular commission is a piece of paper, which states that the President gives you the authority to do consular work in a particular country with your consular jurisdiction. And then in some case host government issues an “exequator”. It is a recognition and acceptance of your appointment by your government. Some countries don’t issue this anymore. Suffi ce it to say no, these are the offi cers who are authorized under the law to solemnize marriages similar to judges and mayors. They do not require prior authority from the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General.

Another interesting question is, can a consular offi cial solemnize a marriage? They can only solemnize marriages between Filipino citizens. Can they solemnize marriages outside the Embassy or Chancery or the Consulate? You have relatives abroad perhaps that would be an interesting question. There is still no decided case to my knowledge but we are solemnizing marriages on the principle that laws relating to family rights, duties, status, conditions, shall be binding on Filipino citizens living abroad for one and for another, based on principle of extraterritoriality.

When you are within the Philippine embassy or the Filipino Consulate General, it is as if you were in Philippine Territory. So this act of marriage is like having marriage in the Philippines by legal fi ction.

Very briefl y legal capacity of the contracting parties, the consent……We have also the main requisites of marriages. This marriage ceremony should place with the appearance of the contracting parties. Ibig sabihin noon even if you’re in a country abroad where proxy is allowed, but if you are there in the Philippine Embassy and you are having your marriage solemnized, there the proxy may not be allowed.


Iyong question kanina, how many witnesses are allowed to sign? Even abroad there are so many who want to put their names as witnesses and sponsors but it was answered a while ago and we put them in the back. In practice, the marriages I solemnized in Rome, we let the witnesses sign at the back of the marriage contract and I was happy to note that it is acceptable at this time.

And then going to the other aspect, some Filipinos abroad would not want to marry in the Embassy or the Consulate, that is their prerogative. So if they wish to marry before the authority of the host country, we issue them what is required by law, which is Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage. This is very similar to you here at Civil Registrar’s if there’s a foreigner who wishes to contract marriage here, he has to present a certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage.

Very briefl y, what are the documents we require in the solemnization of marriage or in the issuance of the Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage? Who issues? It’s the Foreign Service establishment, whether the consular section of the Embassy or the Consulate General.

And what are the requirements? As I mentioned the Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage, we require an authenticated birth certifi cate. Authenticated, meaning, it should go through the process. From the NSO to the authentication Offi ce of Malacañang and the Department of Foreign Affairs, we also have the authenticated Certifi cate of No Marriage Record, which was discussed earlier. Parental consent or advice when applicable. This is not a publication notice. We post the notice on the Bulletin Board of the Embassy or Consulate and since this Authenticated No Record of Marriage is no assurance that the person has not contracted marriage.

We also require the person to execute an affi davit stating all the qualifi cations and not the disqualifi cations in marriage. Kapag nagsinungaling siya, doon syempre perjury iyon. That is a sworn statement. And then after this requirement is met, we can issue, either a Marriage License or a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage, which we abbreviated as LCCM. That is for single applicants.

For widows or widowers, syempre nag-a-apply rin minsan more or less the same requirements. We require birth certifi cate with the copy of the marriage contract with the deceased spouse and the


382

authenticated death certifi cate of the deceased spouse. And there’s also the publication of notice of marriage, as well as of the affi davit, which is a standard requirement.

And those for divorced applicants under the Family Code, even those Filipinos married to foreigners and whose marriages were subsequently nullifi ed, a subsequent decree of divorce is issued by a foreign court. They can marry again if it is proven that the divorce is obtained by the foreign spouse under the Family Code. The authenticated divorce decree, alam niyo sa abroad, this is how we get the authenticated divorce decree or decree or documents from the local authorities.

The local authorities give the ministry of Foreign Affairs or other central authority specimen signatures of their offi cials. And these specimen signatures are kept in the Embassy. Only those specimen signatures in the offi cial transmission or those documents are accepted by our Embassies or Consulates, and more or less similar requirements for those. It is important to note under the Family Code that only divorces of marriages between Filipino and foreign spouse, that is obtained by the foreign spouse, that is only divorce that is recognized under the Philippine Law. Alam niyo naman ang reason because in fairness to the Filipino spouse. If a foreign spouse obtains a divorce and can remarry it would not be fair if the Filipino cannot remarry, its basically one of the innovations under the Family Code.

Going on to the marriages solemnized by the Philippine consular offi cial, we have on a marriage contract. I don’t know if this acceptable to the NSO, to the Civil Registrar General. We issue marriage license thereafter we solemnize the marriage. And thereafter we register the marriage immediately upon solemnization. Hindi ho katulad dito iba-ibang opisina, iba-ibang tao, sa amin isa na lang ang opisina. You give the marriage license, we solemnize the marriage, we register the marriage.

So after we register the marriage we send copies… we give copies to contracting parties, a copy for the solemnizing offi cer, a copy on fi le in the embassy or consulate and copy which we transmit with the attachments to the NSO, the offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. It goes directly via pouch to our offi ce of Consular Affairs. The consular offi ce division who transmits all these documents to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. When they transmit it, they put in NSO security paper. So, hopefully if they are married abroad,


they can no longer get a certifi cate of “No record” kasi kinasal na ho.

As to marriages solemnized outside the Embassy, if we give them a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage and they marry before the appropriate authority in the host country under the Family Code, these marriages are also valid. Marriages solemnized outside the Philippines and valid there as such, shall also be valid in the Philippines. The Family Code states the exceptions, of course, for marriages which are bigamous, polygamous, incestuous wherein the parties are less than 18 years of age, etc. so we try to verify also the circumstances of the marriage, usually before they marry outside the Embassy, they get the Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage.

And when we give this document, it’s only a matter of time when we get their request of marriage if they married outside the Embassy. Also as an added protection for our countrymen abroad, we also request the spouse to send certifi cates that they are eligible to marry from the local civil authority. Certain countries especially in Italy the civil registrar will provide you with certifi cate of status, civil status of the person, whether divorced, separated, widowed, or never been married. When we get this report of marriage there is a particular form because in some countries they only give us a form which states that A was born on, and married B, who was born on such and such, in such place, in such date.

So we have a particular form which they fi ll up and the marriage contract or certifi cate issued by local authorities attached and this be sent to the consular section of the Philippine Embassy or the Consulate General, which transmits to the Consular Records Division, Offi ce of Consular Affairs, later transmits them to the Civil Registrar General. This is more or less the fl ow of the documents, the civil registry documents.

What are the documents we transmit, aside from those I have mentioned earlier we have this dual function registration and solemnization apart from other functions that we do. Like the absentee voting that we are doing. We also transmit the report of birth, the report of death, the report of divorce, reports of adoption, to the Consular Records Division.

In Italy where I was assigned every week there are fi ve reports of birth being issued only in the Consular Section of the Philippine Embassy in Rome. So kahit na hindi magpapasok ang Italian


384

Embassy ng kababayan natin dadaming dadami kasi every week may lima. If you will read ho an Italian newspaper, there’s this Italian newspaper called “II Messagero”. There’s a portion on how many persons are born and how many people died on the particular day and you can see that births are three, deaths are 10 and luckily there are Filipinos. Otherwise, iyong births siguro will even be less or zero, the Filipinos in Italy are among the largest communities but in terms of their fertility rates they are also among the highest. We are giving the Italians a service addressing their demographic problems.

In the Offi ce of Consular Affairs Division, the Consular Records Division, we have an assistance to the National Section and this section fi les civil registry documents based on the date of fi ling at the post, post meaning consulates or embassies. The Consular Records Division transmits the documents to the NSO as I mentioned earlier but this is another important thing, that the Consular Records Division accepts late registration of births, marriage and deaths, etc.

As mentioned earlier, the place of occurrence of the event should be the place of registration. In certain cases some people don’t register their marriages with the Embassy or Consulate and then they go back to the Philippines or they don’t. When a Filipino national dies abroad and they don’t repatriate the remains anymore, they don’t have to deal with the Embassy. Sometimes they also fail to fi le the report of death, which is the equivalent of a death certifi cate. In such cases or when we issue a travel document to a Filipino because they can go home to the Philippines.

With the travel document and then later on they did not fi le the report of birth, when the child is already here he cannot go as mentioned here to the local civil registrar and fi le a late registration of birth. Baka may nangyari sa inyo, meron kayong kakilalang ipinanganak sa ibang bansa by some chance nakauwi dito pero hindi pala rehistrado, maaari ba siyang magrehistro sa inyo, alam niyo naman ang kasagutan na di maari. In which case what should the person do? If it is a marriage, he should fi le it with the Embassy or Consulate having consular jurisdiction.

Alam n’yo there are only 81 foreign service posts throughout the world. There are about 200 countries more or less and the members of the United Nations are 191. But we have only 80 consulates and embassies. We have presence only in 62 countries kasi iyong 81 na


‘yan, 62 are embassies and the rest are consulates. But be that as it may, we cover the whole world even Liberia and Borkina Paso in Africa. Ang Embassy natin either in Nigeria or Pretoria, they cover all these countries.

If anything happens to a Filipino there, it’s this Embassy or that with responsibility that have the jurisdiction. And the same goes with the registration, kung may nangyari sa Filipino may namatay na Filipino sa Liberia, pwede hong I-report sa… I think its covered by Abudia in Nigeria in West Africa.

And when we get the requirements for late registration or report of marriage we have the photocopies of the passport. We also require those to make sure they are Filipinos. As I mentioned that earlier, the fl ow of documents you...If it’s late registration what the post does hindi na kayo babalik sa Embassy you can go to the DFA submit all the documents including the foreign civil registry documents, consular records division and sent via pouch to the Embassy or Consulate concerned. The embassy or consulate concerned verifi es with the local authority, and sends back to the DFA and then back to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar.

Medyo circuitous because of the principle that the place of registration is the place of occurrence of the event. And the processing period takes quite some time because of the circuitous process but that’s the process. Registry is fi led in Manila.

On the processing period, the registry is fi led in Manila. It normally takes two to four months depending on the circumstances, how fast the consulate verifi es the civil registry records. To shorten processing period, what the person can do is ask a relative who is still abroad to fi le through the embassy or Consulates, this shortens the period. And then when it is sent to the DFA, we send it to the NSO to assist in getting the documents as quick as possible. There’s a record locator they can present to the NSO for easy retrieval and release of the document.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.


386

RADIO-STYLE DISCUSSION WITH BROADCASTERS DAN-IEL RAZON AND ATTY. DANNY CONCEPCION

Atty. Concepcion: Good afternoon, I understand that you are all solemnizing offi cers. We shall focus on your duties and obligations as solemnizing offi cers and the consequence for failure to comply with those duties and obligations. Now, we shall be limiting our discussion to a very brief exposition of what the law provides and we shall entertain problems, which you may have encountered solemnizing offi cers. Daniel Razon will be conducting it in the way that we conducted it on our former radio program Usapang De Campanilla on DZMM.

Mr. Razon: Good afternoon, everyone. Since we do not want our seminar to be classroom-type of lecture, our Administrator decided to make it as if you are listening to radio or watching on TV. I am no longer connected with ABS-CBN but now a host on Unang Hirit at GMA-7. Atty. Danny Concepcion continues the radio program Usapang de Campanilla, every night from Mondays to Fridays, from 7:00 to 8:00 in the evening. My program starts early in the morning. You will be our listeners and callers, and you can ask legal opinion on legal matters. As I understand most of you are solemnizing offi cers and you may be encountering problems in solemnization or registration. So cambio todo na ho ako, isipin ninyo na lang ho na nasa radyo kayo, at tayo’y mag-uumpisa na ng ating talakayan… Atty. Danny Concepcion, ano ho ba ang mga obligasyon ng solemnizing offi cer at ano ang pwede nilang kaharapin sa batas kung hindi ito isasakatuparan?

Atty. Concepcion: Well, and unang-una niyo hong obligasyon as solemnizing offi cer ay magreghistro sa Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General kung kayo ho ay pari, ministro o hepe ng inyong religious organization. Pero kung kayo naman ay juez


o mayor, hindi niyo na po kinakailangan mag-rehistro para magkaroon ng kapangyarihan magkasal sapagkat ang inyong kapangyarihan ay nakalagay na po sa batas.

Mr. Razon: ‘Yung vice-mayor po ba ay may kapangyarihan magkasal?’

Atty. Concepcion: ‘Yung vice-mayor po ay walang kapangyarihan magkasal maliban na lamang kung siya dinesignate na acting mayor under Local Government Code. Napagpasihayan na po ito ng Korte Suprema, nakarating po sa Korte Supreme ang isang usapin kung ang acting mayor ba ay may kapangyarihan magkasal, sapagkat ang acting mayor ho ay nagtataglay ng lahat ng kapangyarihan ng isang mayor.

Mr. Razon: Baka may konsehal dito?

Atty. Concepcion: Ang konsehal ho ay walang kapangyarihan magkasal. Kaya lang, in the City of Manila, I was informed that many councilors solemnize marriage. Pero noong kami ho ay nagtanong kung bakit sila nagsosolemnize ng kasal, lumalabas sa aming imbestigasyon na sila pala ay rehistrado sa NSO bilang mga hepe ng kanilang simbahan. ‘Yun naman pala.

Mr. Razon: Legal ba ‘yon?

Atty. Concepcion: Pero sila ay may kapangyarihan magkasal, hindi dahil sila ay konsehal, sila ay may kapangyarihan dahil sila ay authorized ng kanilang simbahan at rehistrado ng Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General. ‘Yung juez at ang mayor, saan pwede magkasal ito? Halimbawa, mayor ako sa Calumpit, Bulacan, ako ba’y pwedeng pumunta dito sa Tagaytay at mag-offi ciate ng kasal?

Mr. Razon: Kung ang ating pong pagba-basehan ay ang Local Government Code, hindi po nakalagay doon sa Local Government Code ang Kapangyarihan ng mayor na magkasal ay limited lamang doon sa kanyang territorial


388

jurisdiction. Hindi po maliwanag iyon sa Local Government Code. Pero kung titigan po natin yung kapangyarihan ng mayor ay mahahantong lamang sa kanyang territorial jurisdiction, pero ang magandang tanong dito Ka Daniel. Halimbawa, nagkasal ang mayor ng Tagaytay City ay nagkasal sa Maynila ng mga taga-Tagaytay City, ang Kasal ba ay valid?

Atty. Concepcion: Ano ho ang sagot diyan?

Mr. Razon: Aba e, malaking usapin iyan. Sa kaso ng judge kung ang ating pag-uusapan ay judge, meron kaso nilabas ang Korte Suprema. Ito ay ang kaso ng Lumagtoy versus Navarro. Meron isang judge sa Surigao na nagkasal sa munisipyo outside the jurisdiction of his sala. Ang sabi ng report, “The judge committed a violation of the Family Code’’ kasi ang nakalagay po sa Family Code ay “The authority of the judge is within the jurisdiction of his court.” Kaya the judge was penalized.

Kaya lang sinabi naman ng Korte Suprema ni Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, na maski pag nagkaroon ng kasalanan ‘yung judge, iyon namang kasal na kanyang ginawa ay may bias. Kasi iyon daw po ay isang iregularidad lamang. Doon po sa kaso ng judge ay sinabi na ang kanyang kapangyarihan, under Article 7 number 1, in the Family Code ay ‘within the court’s jurisdiction’, and yet ang sinabi ng Korte Suprema, pagnagkasal siya outside the court’s jurisdiction ay valid din ang kasal. E siguro, we can apply the same principle to the mayor, kasi sa kaso ng mayor ay wala namang nakalagay sa Local Government Code ay ‘within the territory of his municipality.’ By valid reasoning, we can apply ‘yung the same principle of Lumagtoy versus Navarro to the mayor. The marriage is still valid, pero po ‘yung mayor ay pwede pong kasuhan.


Atty. Concepcion: Bakit po siyang pwedeng kasuhan, Atty. Danny Concepcion, considering the fact that it is stated in the law na pwede lang siyang magkasal within the area of jurisdiction? Ano ang ikakaso sa kanya?

Mr. Razon: Sa Local Government Code. Pero sa Act 3613, may nakalagay naman sa kanya na hindi siya pwede magkasal outside his jurisdiction at pag-ginawa mo ‘yun, you are violating the old marriage law at maari kang kasuhan.

Atty. Concepcion: Pero siguro puntahan na natin ang mga detalye lalo na iyung mga tungkol sa pastors, sa ministers, sa mga pari at sa iba-iba pang religious denominations na binibigay ng karapatang magkasal iyung kanilang mga miyembro at mga ministro nila, ano ba ang requirements dito, Atty. Danny Concepcion? Kinakailangan ba na halimbawa na ang religious sect o religious organization ay rehistrado sa Securities and Exchange Commission before mabigyan sila ng karapatan to solemnize marriage?

Mr. Razon: Kung ang ating pagbabasehan ay iyong Family Code, wala pong nakalagay doon sa Family Code na isang sekta ay kinakailangang rehistrado na sect — walang nakalagay sa batas. Pero maiintidihan ko kung ito ay ire-require ng NSO sapagkat mahirap po nating malaman kung ang isang sekta ay talaga ngang existing. Baka mamaya, may magsabi, Kaka, mukhang malaki ang pera dito sa kasalan, sisingil tayo ng P 15,000 sa kasal o tara magrehistro tayo ng dalawang- daang miyembro at tayo ang magkakasal. So kinakailangan naman po na may duty ang NSO na siyasatin kung ito bang sektang ito ay existing, kung ito ba talaga ay functioning as a religious sect. Kasi kung hindi, iaa-allow natin na ang unscrupulous individuals na magkaroon ng authority para sila ay kumita, which is not sound policy.


390

Atty. Concepcion: Ano ang basic na kailangan para ikaw ay makapag-apply bilang isang solemnizing offi cer?

Mr. Razon: Ang sasagot niyan ay si Maq. Maq, ano ba daw ang kailangan para sila ay marehistro?

RD Manulon: ‘Yun pong puntos na ‘yan, Idi-discuss ng ating pong Director ng CRD mamaya. ‘Yung mga requirements of registration, sino ang qualifi ed at kung anu-ano pa mamaya. Antayin po natin ang portion na iyon. We’ll just concentrate on the Family Code.

Mr. Razon: Kung halimbawa, ang isang priest o ministro ay walang authority to solemnize marriage, ano ang maari niyang haharaping kaso o problema? Halimbawa, lumapit lang ako sa isang pari o ministro dahil sa paniniwala kong siya ay rehistrado bilang solemnizing offi cer at tapos ikinasal niya ako. Tapos, ayun pala hindi siya rehistrado. E, ‘di lumalabas din na walang bisa ang pagkakasal niya sa akin at ano ang pwedeng maging problema noong solemnizing offi cer?

Atty. Concepcion: ‘Yung taong magkakasal na wala naman siyang kapangyarihan, sapagkat siya ay hindi rehistrado with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, siya po ay may kasong criminal. Iyan po ay pinarurusahan under the Old Marriage Law o ‘yung Act 3613, criminal po ‘yan.

Papaano naman po ‘yung ikinasal niya, may bisa ba ‘yung kasal? Nakalagay sa bagong batas ngayon. Ang Family Code, nakalagay sa Article 35 No. 2, kapag po ang isa o dalawang ikinasal ay naniwalang ‘in good faith’ na may kapangyarihan ang nagkasal sa kanila, hindi po magiging invalid ang kasal nila. Kailan po ba sila in good faith na maniwala na may kapangyarihan nga magkasal?

Mr. Razon: Yes, kasi baka mamaya, halimbawa ang pinuntahan ko ‘yung kabo sa kanto at ang


paniwala ko ‘yung traffi c offi cer na nandoon ay may kapangyarihang magkasal. Dahil ignorante ako sa batas, e akala ko ‘yung konsehal ay pwedeng magkasal o kaya naman pwede kong sabihin akala ko pwedeng magkasal ito.

Atty. Concepcion: Halimbawa ay nagpakasal ka sa barangay tanod. Kinasal ka noong barangay tanod. Ang unang tanong, pwede bang kasuhan ‘yung barangay tanod? Pwede. Illegal marriage po ang classifi cation niyan at kasong criminal iyan. E, ‘yung kasal po ginanap ng barangay tanod ay mabisa po ba ‘yan. Wala po.

Mr. Razon: Pero ‘in good faith’ naman po ako lumapit. Akala ko ‘yung baragay tanod ay pwedeng magkasal.

Atty. Concepcion: Kaya nga ang tanong ko sa iyo kanina, when is somebody in ‘good faith’. Pero huwag po nating kalilimutan na ‘yung Article 3 ng Civil Code. Ang nakalagay sa Article 3 ng Civil Code, ‘Ignorance of the law excuse no-one from compliance therewith. Ngayon, hindi mo maaring sabihin na hindi mo alam na walang kapangyarihang (magkasal) ang barangay tanod, sapagkat hindi nakalagay ang barangay tanod bilang isa doon sa mga may authority to solemnize marriage sa batas.

Mr. Razon: Sa madaling sabi, you cannot claim good faith if you are violating a law. Pero kung halimbawa, ang pinuntahan mo ay pari ng iyong parokya. Ikinasal kayo ng pari at the time na kinasal kayo noong pari. At noong time na kayo’y kinasal, expired na pala ‘yung kanyang permiso. Expired na pala ‘yung komisyon. Is the priest liable for the crime? Yes. E, halimbawa ‘yung marriage na kanyang sinolimnize, is that valid? Yes, that is valid because mistake of fact ang nangyari at hindi mistake sa batas, dahil nakalagay naman sa batas na yung pari isa sa authorized to


392

solemnize marriage. Wala naman kayong duty na tanungin ‘yung pari na kayo ba ay may komisyon pakita niyo nga yung registration niyo bago kayo magkasal. Wala naman ganoon, e. That is a ‘mistake of fact’, and a ‘mistake of fact’ can excuse somebody from compliance with law. Kayo po ‘yung Article 35 No. 2, doon lamang natin magagamit ‘yun sa mga kasong iyong, magagamit ang Article 35 No. 5. Kasi kung hindi po ganoon ang ating magiging interpretasyon, pwe-pwede na ang mga magnobyo ay magpakasal sa barangay tanod o sa piskal o sa principal ng eskwelahan o kaya sa kani-kaninong tao o sa barangay captain, we cannot believe that they were authorized kasi wala sila sa batas.

Mr. Razon: All right, Atty. Danny Concepcion, tayo’y may naka-stambay na katanungan. Go ahead po.

Question #1: Magandang hapon po, ako po ay galing ng Antique. Ang aking pong katanungan ay base sa isang kaalaman na ang solemnizing offi cer na isang religious minister ay nangangailangan na one of the parties na ikakasal ay member ng kanyang simbahan. Kung ito pong religious minister ay diniputize ng isang mayor o ng City Hall at doon siya nagso-solemnize ng marriages na ni isa doon ay miembro ng kanyang simbahan, pero ni isa doon sa kanyang ikinasal ay hindi miembro ng kanyang simbahan at nandoon siya sa munisipyo at hindi sa kanyang simbahan kasi deputize na siya ng mayor o ninuman? ‘Yung kasal po ba iyon ay valid po ba?

Atty. Concepcion: Ganito po ‘yan, ‘yung unang part ng kanyang katanungan ay kung ‘yung daw pari ay nagkasal outside sa kanyang parish o kaya none of the contacting parties is a member of the religious sect. Kasi po ang nakalagay sa batas ‘yung solemnizing offi cer kapag siya po ay pari, ministro o head ng kanyang religious sect authorized to solemnize marriage, may


kapangyarihan po siyang magkasal kapag ang isa o pareho na magpapakasal ay miembro ng kanyang sekta, nakalagay po ‘yan sa Article 7 no. 2. Kung alam ng pari na nagkasal na ‘yung dalawa kinasal niya ay hindi miyembro ng kanyang sekta, siya po ay pwedeng usigin ng criminal offense under Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code. Knowing that requirements of the law have not been complied with. Iyong kasal ba na kanyang ginawa, iyon ba ay valid, sang-ayon sa ating Family Code ang isang formal requisite ay absent, ang marriage ay invalid.

Ngayon, ito ba ay absence of authority of the solemnizing offi cer o ito ba’y iregu-laridad lamang, kasi po kung ito ay isang iregularidad lamang, hindi po mawawalan ng bisa ang kasal. Assuming ito ay absence of authority, pwede bang sabihin ng kasal that they believed in good faith na may authority ‘yung nagkasal. Sa aking pong palagay, dahil ang nagkasal ay pari, pwede pong isipin ng dalawang nagpakasal na ang pari ay may authority to solemnize the marriage. Applying the Navarro vs. Lumagtoy case by analogy, magiging iregularidad lamang ito, kaya po ‘yung kasal ay magiging valid. Madaming mga teachers ng batas ang nagsasabi ng ibang opinion, ngunit maliwanag naman ang nakalagay sa batas na ‘yung authority ng pari ay kung isa o ‘yung pareho na magpakasal ay miyembro ng kanyang sekta. Sa madaling sabi, kung wala siyang authority at ito ay “matter of law”, kapag hindi talaga nasunod iyon, sila ay ignorant of the law and they are not excused then. They could not claim it to be in good faith, kasi nakalagay naman sa batas.

Bakit naman ‘yung sa judge, nakalagay naman din naman sa authority ng judge is ‘within the court’s jurisdiction’ ‘yung authority


394

ng judge. Bakit naman sinabi ng Korte Suprema na ang kasal na isinagawa ng judge sa labas na outside the territory of his court is valid? By analogy, magagamit din natin ang Navarro versus Lumagtoy and magiging valid po ‘yung kasal. Pero may isa pa hong isang susunod na principle sa batas. “In case of doubt, we resolved all doubts in favor of the validity of marriage.”

Mr. Razon: Bigyan ko lang po ng context ‘yung tinatanong nating kasama, yung ministro nandoon daw po sa opisina ng mayor at ‘yung mayor nag-deputize sa ministro na magkasal, kaya papaano ko sasabihin na naniwala ako e na hindi naman siya ‘yung mayor at papaano ko naman sasabihin na in good faith ako na ang akala na mayroon siyang karapatan magkasal, hindi naman siya ‘yung mayor at sya ay dinesignate lang ng mayor na magkasal?

Atty. Concepcion: Sa madaling sabi, magpapakasal sana sa mayor, pero ‘yung mayor ay tumangging ikasal sila at nagkasal sa kanila nay isang ministro na i-dineputize ng mayor? Ganoon din ang magiging sagot ko, sapagkat ang nagkasal talaga sa kanila ay ministro. Kung alam ng ministro na hindi niya miyembro ang isa sa kinasal niya ay may krimen siyang ginawa. Kung hindi niya alam na pareho pala miyembro ng sekta niya nag kanyang kinasal, pwede itong dipensa niya. Pero ‘yung kasal, sa aking palagay, magiging valid ito.

Hindi po kasi kayo dapat nagkakasal kung saan-saan lang. Nakalagay po sa batas iyan, sa Act 3613 na kayo ay maari lang magkasal doon sa lugar na dapat kayo magkasal halimbawa sa kaso ng judge, doon po sa inyong chambers in open session, doon sa pari doon naman po sa simbahan na doon po kayo naka-assign. Ngayon, para po kayo makapagkasal sa ibang lugar, kinakailangan


po kayong mag-comply sa tinatadhana ng Family Code, mag-request kayo na ang kasal ay ganapin sa ibang lugar.

Question #2: Ito po ay matagal ng katanungan, pero mas maniwala po ako sa inyong kasagutan. About Article 34, ‘yun po ang naging problema ng isang minister, may baragay certifi cate na, living as husband and wife without the blessing of marriage, nagkataon baog iyung isang party, hindi namin pwedeng irehistro?

Wala po nakalagay sa batas na kinakai-langang magka-anak, wala pong nakalagay doon sa Article 34. Tatandaan po ninyo para ang kasal ay maging mabisa, kailangan ang kasal ay mayroong valid marriage license. Kayo pong nagkakasal, hindi po kayo inuubliga ng batas na siyasatin kung ang lisensiya ay valid o hindi. Wala po kayong obligasyon diyan. Basta po may pinakita po sa inyong lisensiya and on the basis of the license ay mukhang genuine po ang lisensiya, mayroon po kayong karapatan magkasal. Ngayon, whether or not, the license, is in fact, not a valid license, hindi niyo po iyun problema. Problema po iyon ng mga ikinasal. Ngayon para po maging valid ang kasal, kailangan may ebidensiya. Ngayon, meron mga situations doon sa pagpapakasal ng walang lisensiya — alam na, alam niyo ‘yan – ang articulo mortis kung saan nasa bingit ng kamatayan ang isa sa magpapakasal; pangalawa, ang isa sa mga partido ay nasa remote place na wala siyang means of transportation para magpunta doon sa civil registrar kung saan pwede siyang mag-apply ng lisensiya; pangatlo, ‘yung mga cultural communities, ano po; pang-apat, itong marriage as a confi rmation of a common-law relationship. Ang kinakailangan lang pong hanapin ng solemnizing offi cer, under Article 34, ay ‘yung kanilang affi davit — hindi po kayo maghahanap ng anak!


396

Wala pong nakalagay sa batas na dapat hahanapan ng anak! Kaya lang, mayroon din po kayong obligasyon na siyasatin kung sila ba ay magkapatid. Tatanungin din ninyo kung sila ba ay magkapatid, nagpapakasal kayo dito? Pangalawa, tanungin ninyo kung sila ay nasa tamang gulang. Baka naman nag-papakasal sa inyo isang bente anyos at isang kinse anyos? Magkakaroon po kayo ng liabil-ity diyan. So, kinakailangan niyong tiyakin na sila ay nasa edad at sila naman ay hindi magkapatid? Magtatanong po kayo kung sila ay pwede pang magkasal.

Affi davit lang ang kinakailangan nin-yong hingiin. Ngayon sa affi davit, ano ang inyong hahanapin? Una, na sila ay nagsa-sama ng hindi bababa sa limang taon. Pero meron pong desisyon ang Korte Suprema ito pong nakaraang taon. Ang sabi ng Korte Su-prema, ‘yung limang taon na pagsasama ay kinakailangang ‘continuous’. Hindi pwedeng nagsama ng dalawang taon, tapos nagsama uli ng dalawang taon. Sabi po ng Korte Su-prema, kailangan po na ‘yung limang taong pagsasama ay ‘continuous’ o walang patid. At pangalawa, doon po sa lima din pong taon na sila’y nagsasama, dapat po wala ring impedi-ment para sila ay magpakasal. Ano po ba ang nangyari sa kaso? Meron pong isang lalaki na mayroong asawang iba, naghiwalay sila. So itong lalaki nakisama sa kanyang mis-tress. Nagsama sila ng mistress ng labing-limang taon. Noong ika-labing-pitong taon na namatay ang kanyang asawa. After ang kan-yang asawa, nagpakasal itong nagsasama na walang lisensiya. But sila ay gumawa ng affi -davit na sila ay nagsasama na higit sa limang taon. Okay, because of the affi davit, ikinasal sila ng solemnizing offi cer. Ang tanong: May bisa po ba iyong kasal? Ang sabi ng Korte Su-prema, walang bisa ang kasal, sapagkat sila ay nagsama lang sila ng walang impediment


to marry ng isang taon. Dapat limang taon na wala silang impediment to marry.

Ay gayun din po, doon sa articulo mortis, kapag po ang isa sa nagpakasal ay nagpanggap lamang, hindi naman talaga siya nasa bingit ng kamatayan, wala ring bisa ang kasal.

Question #3: Pari po ako ng Philippine Independent Church sa Bacoor. Ang tanong ko lang ho ay follow-up sa tanong tungkol sa jurisdiction ng license namin. Since 1977, ang area ng license ko po to solemnize marriage ay sa buong Philippines. Napapansin ko po na sa ibang kasamahang pari ang area sa kanilang license ay nalilimitahan lang sa isang province. Say, Ilonggo ako, iyung mga kasamahan kong pari, ‘yung kanilang mga licenses limited lang po sa isang province. Ngayong nandito ako sa Bacoor, Cavite, ganoon pa rin ang license ko, whole Philippines pa rin, pero iyong ibang mga pari naman na specifi c pa rin ang kanilang license. Bakit po nagkaganoon lumalabas ang discrepancies doon sa areas of jurisdiction?

Atty. Concepcion: Ang ibig niyo po bang sabihin binago na po ng NSO ‘yung lisensiya na ibinibigay sa inyo? Kasi ganito po ang aking pagkakaalam, ang inyo pong authority ay nakatali sa regulasyon ng inyong sekta. Kaya po kapag kayo’y nag-aapply hinihingan po kayo ng authorization mula sa hepe ng inyong sekta. Baka po kasi nakalagay sa inyong simbahan ay nandoon po lamang sa isang probinsiya. Kaya po doon lamang ibabagay ng NSO ang lisensiyang ibibigay sa inyo. Hindi naman kayang palawakin ng NSO ang inyong kapangyarihan kung sang-ayon sa regulasyon ng inyong simbahan na doon lamang sa probinsiya kayo may kapangyarihan.

Mr. Razon: Sundan ko lang po ng kapiraso, medyo interesante po ‘yung tanong nila. Ang NSO po ay nagbigay sa kanila ng lisensiya para


398

sa buong Pilipinas ay pwede po silang magkasal. Pero ang sinasabi niyo po Atty. Danny Concepcion, ang sabi ng batas, ang nagbibigay ng limit doon sa mga priests o sa mga ministers ay kung saan lamang ang nasasakupan nila ay pwede silang magkasal. Will that mean na kapag nagkasal sila outside of their jurisdiction because ‘yung jurisdiction na iyun lamang ang binigay ng simbahan nila? Ibig sabihin ba noon imbalido ‘yung kasal nagagawin nila kasi outside their jurisdiction? At pwede ba silang kasuhan doon sa ganoong punto dahil meron silang lisensiya from NSO sa buong Pilipinas, while it contradicts ‘yung authority.

Atty. Concepcion: Ang pagkakaintindi ko nagtatanong siya bakit ang iba, buong Pilipinas ang lisensiya, ang iba probinsiya lamang. Ang sabi nagkaroon ng ganoong diperensiya dahil lang doon sa authority ng simbahan. Sa madaling sabi ang authority ng pari o ministro ay sang-ayon doon sa regulasyon ng kanyang simbahan. Kung ang regulasyon ng kanyang simbahan, ang authority niya ay Cavite lamang, hindi mag-iisyu ang NSO sa buong Pilipinas pero kung ano lamang ang pinahihintulan.

Mr. Razon: Pero ang nangyari sa kanya, after na-isyuhan ng NSO sa buong Pilipinas, inilagay lang siya ng kanyang sekta sa parokya na kanyang sinasakupan. So ano ang epekto sa kinasal?

Atty. Concepcion: Wala siyang liability kasi ay may license magkasal sa buong Pilipinas. Pero internally, maari siyang may liability kasi lumabag siya sa regulasyon ng kanyang simbahan. Pero kapag po ang ibinigay na authority ng NSO ay sa inyong parokya, at kayo po ay nagkasal labas sa inyong parokya, magkakaroon po kayo ng liability under the law.

Mr. Razon: Ang mayor o judge ba ay kailangan pang kumuha ng authority sa NSO to solemnize marriage?


Atty. Concepcion: Ang mga judge o mayor ay hindi na kailangang kumuha ng authority pagkat ang kanila hong authority ay nakatitik na sa batas.

Mr. Razon: Ito po ang isa, I have a friend. They got married at the age of 15 (for the girl) and 16 (for the guy). Is the marriage valid especially that the solemnizing offi cer did not sign the marriage contract? And they want to annul the marriage.

Atty. Concepcion: Ang marriage po na ito ay walang bisa sapagkat ang nagpakasal ay wala sa edad. Ang pagpapakasal po na ngayon ay labing-walong taong gulang, maliban na lamang na sila ay kinasal before the New Family Code. Because the marrying age then for a woman was 14 and the marrying age for a man was 16. Pero kung sila ay kinasal after the Family Code, wala pong bisa ang kasal because one of the parties was not of age.

Ngayon, kung ang marriage contract po ba ay hindi napirmahan ng solemnizing offi cer at ito ay hindi naitala sa civil registrar, para mai-record, mayroong po bisa ang kasal? May bisa po ang kasal provided sila ay may marriage license. Kasi kung titigan niyo po ang Family Code, the execution of the marriage contract is not one of the requisites for a valid marriage neither is the registration with a civil registrar. Kasi the registration of marriage may be done later, kaya po tayo ay may tinatawag na delayed registration. ‘Yung pong marriage contract pwede pong ma-execute later on. Ang importante po dito nagkaroon sila ng valid marriage license at the time they got married, they have the capacity to contract the marriage at the time it was solemnized. Lastly, wala po silang impediment to marry each other. Pagka po ‘yung tatlong ‘yun ay naandun na: may authority ang solemnizing offi cer, mayroon silang legal capacity at voluntary


400

silang nagpapakasal, then the marriage is valid, maski po walang marriage contract at maski po walang registration with the civil registrar.

Mr. Razon: Halimbawa po, papaano po naman na nauna ang seremonya ng kasal tapos sumunod ang lisensiya?

Atty. Concepcion: Para bang ang sinabi ay ganito… “Judge, ‘yung lisensiya pino-process na ho sa civil registrar, ay aaprubahan naman daw po iyon, pero gusto na po naming makasal?” Ang marriage ba daw ho ay may bisa. “Yung pong kasal ay walang bisa, nagkaroon na po ng desisyon ang Korte Suprema dito, na ang authority po ng solemnizing offi cer ay nakatali po sa marriage license. Kung wala pong iniharap sa inyo na marriage license, wala rin po kayong authority to solemnize the marriage. Hindi po uubra ang ikakasal ninyo tapos isusunod na lang ang marriage license. Invalid ho ang kasal. At ang solemnizing offi cer nagagawa po nito ay may kasong criminal. Violation po iyan ng Revised Penal Code, Article 352.

Mr. Razon: Papaano naman po kung ang solemnizing offi cer hindi pinipirmahan ang certifi cate, pero kinonduct ko na ‘yung seremonya. Ngayon lumabas na ‘yung marriage license, pero ang niligay na date sa marriage contract ay ‘yung date na after na ma-issue ang marriage license.

Atty. Concepcion: So ang nilagay niyang date of marriage ay noong meron ng lisensiya? Well, wala rin hong bisa ang kasal sapagkat the time na ang ceremony ay naganap, wala pong marriage license. Kaya lang lahat naman ng ginawa ng judge at nai-record sa civil registrar’s offi ce ay lahat ay may presumption of regularity. Sa madaling sabi, may presumption na valid ‘yung kasal. He who alleges that the marriage was invalid has to prove it. Kinakailangan


niyang mag-fi le ng kaso na patunayan na despite nai-conduct ang kasal, hindi po naganap ang kasalan na may valid marriage license.

Mr. Razon: Halimbawa po 121 days na ang kanyang marriage license, at doon sa ika-121 days kinasal at inante-date para palabasin na within 120 days?

Atty. Concepcion: Invalid pa rin ho ang kasal. Kaya lang may presumption pa rin ho of regularity. Ngayon, mapapatunayan natin na at that time of the marriage ceremony took place na expired na ‘yung lisensiya, wala pong bisa ang kasal. Nagkakaroon ho tayo ng presumption of regularity the moment na ang lahat ng dokumento appears to be in order ay na-rehistro sa civil registrar’s offi ce.

Mr. Razon: So Atty. Danny, hanggang walang kume-kwestiyon diyan na ‘yan ay valid?

Atty. Conception: Oho.

Question #4: Gusto ko lang po ibalik ang question ko sa Article 34, kasi sabi ninyo kanina within the fi ve years na nagli-live in ‘yung couple, dapat wala pong impediment? Meron din pong minimum requirement of age siguro doon, Sir?

Atty. Concepcion: Tama po ‘yon sa madaling sabi, kung halim-bawa, sila po ay nagsama noon ang babae ay 15 anyos, tapos nagsama sila ng limang taon at noong bente anyos na ‘yung babae, nagpakasal sila ng walang marriage license. ‘Yung kasal po ay hindi valid kasi sila po ay nagsama na kulang sa limang taon na walang impediment for getting married.

Question # 5: Sir, kasi po dati, nagba-base po kami sa opinion ng isang author, kasi sabi doon, ang importanteng nakalagay doon ay walang legal impediment at the time of marriage.


402

Atty. Concepcion: Ay hindi po, na-overturn na po iyan. Ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema siguro noong taon na nakalipas (Consuelo, Ynares, Santiago)…

Question #6: Paano po ‘yung mga nauna na?

Atty. Concepcion: Wala na po ‘yun kasi po ‘yung kaso ay prospective in nature.

Question #7: Before that Supreme Court decision na sinabi ninyo, kinasal sila under Article 34, kunwari 20 years old lang. Valid po ba ‘yon?

Atty. Concepcion: Ay hindi po valid ‘yun basta wala pong lima. Kasi po ‘yung desisyon ng Korte Suprema lumabas po last year. Sa madaling sabi, lahat ng kasal na ganoon ang sitwasyon ay invalid.

Question # 8: E, kawawa naman po ‘yung mga kinasal noon?

Atty. Concepcion: Ay, napaka-simple lang po ang gagawin nila kung hindi magpakasal uli.

Question # 9: Doon po sa presumption of regularity, ‘yung kinasal na at prinesent na for Registration after the marriage license has been issued. Ngayon, if you’re the City Civil Registrar and you personally know that there was an ir-regularity, kasi hawak mo pa ‘yung lisensiya at hindi pa nare-release sa iyo ‘yung lisensiya ay kino-conduct na ‘yung wedding. And after the marriage license was issued, ito ay prine-present sa’yo ang marriage contract for regis-tration.

Atty. Concepcion: Hindi po ako sigurado sa regulasyon ngayon ng NSO, pero po sa aking pagkakaalam noong araw, the moment na may nai-present sa inyo na mga dokumento, ministerial po ang duty ninyo. Hindi po kayong makatutol. At bahala na po ang mga partido, na-interesado dito na mag-present sa husgado. Pero kung lahat ng documentary requirements nahinihingi ng regulasyon, nai-submit, ministerial na lang po ang duty ninyo na i-rehistro ang kasal.


RD Manulon: Is a minister liable for crime if he lends to another minister?

Atty. Concepcion: Liable po sila. Sila ay co-principals to the crime of performance of marriage without authority.

RD Manulon: Kung dalawa po ang magkasal, ‘yung isa walang license, okey po ‘ba ‘yon?

Atty. Concepcion: Basta po ‘yung isa ay may license, okay pa rin ‘yon. Kasi kung lima po ‘yung kasal, isa lamang talaga solemnizing offi cer diyan napi-pirma sa report sa civil registrar.

RD Manulon: Expired na ‘yung license to solemnize marriage ng isang priest pero siya ay nagkasal pa rin subalit hindi pa rin siya ang pumipirma sa marriage contract, ibang pari ang nag-sign ng certifi cate of marriage, anong parusa ang ipapataw sa dalawang paring ito?

Atty. Concepcion: Pareho po sila ng criminal liability. Yung isa po ay ‘falsifi cation of documents’, pinipirmahan ‘yung kasal na hindi naman niya kinasal, at ‘yung isa naman ay nagkakasal na walang authority. Kaya po parehas silang may criminal liability. Pero ‘yung kasal po ay valid, kasi may karapatang maniwala in good faith na meron siyang authority magkasal.

Mr. Razon: Papaano kung dinesignate Atty. Danny, let’s say ako ‘yung pari at ako ‘yung may authority to solemnize marriage at hindi pa expired ‘yung sa kasama kong pari.

Atty. Concepcion: E, ang sa akin, kasi bakit siya pa pumirma? Kasi sa falsifi cation, pinalabas mong nangyari ang ‘di naman nangyari. Hindi naman ikaw ang nagkasal, ikaw ang pumirma. Falsifi cation of publication documents ‘yan at the moment na fi -nile mo ‘yan sa civil registrar’s offi ce ‘yan. Dapat hindi na lang nagkasal silang dalawa.

Question # 10: Isa po itong problema ng nangyari sa anak ng taga-NSO. ‘Yung anak niya pinanganak ng


404

January 19, 1977 so nag-asawa ‘yung bata, pregnant na iyung mapapangasawa niya, kinasal siya noong September 20, 1994. So ang edad niya ay 17 years old. ‘Yung ginawa ng pari ng simbahan inadjust ang edad niya sa marriage contract para maging 1978, pinatanda ang edad ng lalaki. Ngayon kukuha siya ng passport hindi siya makakuha. ‘Yung asawang babae nanganak ng January 12, 1995 dahil ‘yung kanyang birth certifi cate na nakuha sa NSO napatunayan na siya ay disisyete ng nagpakasal.

Atty. Concepcion: Sa passport po kasi, ang hahanapin ng Department of Foreign Affairs ay ang birth certifi cate. Ayun, I presume na noong siya ay nag-apply ng license, fi nalsifi ka na lang ‘yung birth certifi cate. Ini-snowpake ‘yung kanilang edad at pinatanda. Noong siya ay nagpakasal, ang kanilang sinubmit sa civil registrar na birth certifi cate ay falsifi kado para palabasin na siya ay pinatanda, pero ‘yung birth certifi cate na tunay ay bata pa siya. Ngayon, nag-apply pa siya ng passport, hindi po siya makakalusot sapagkat ang hihingiin sa kanya under the Passport Law ay NSO-certifi ed copy ng kanyang birth certifi cate. Ito po ang gagawin niyan para kumuha ng passport. Ngayon, dahil ang kanyang status ay married, hinihingian po siya ng kanyang marriage contract. Makaka-diskubre po kayo na mayroong discrepancy sa kanyang birth certifi cate at doon sa kanyang edad sa marriage contract. Doon po sa Department of Affairs, hindi po siya mai-isyuhan ng passport, dahil may discrepancy po ang kanyang edad. Una, kinakailangan po na siya gumawa ng affi davit tungkol sa falsifi cation. Gagawa siya ng affi davit tungkol sa falsifi cation. Pinapayagan po kayo ng Department of Foreign Affairs na isyuhan kayo ng temporary passport on the strength of that affi davit, pero meron pong risk because you will be confressing to


the crime of falsifi cation and you will not be allowed to renew your passport until you have corrected the marriage contract. You have to go to court to correct the error, because it is not clerical but intentionally done. And therefore, you have to go to court in order to correct the marriage contract to replace your true date of birth. But again, there’s a risk because when you go to court you will have to confess to the crime of falsifi cation. Pero may lusot pa rin ‘yan, hindi ko po alam kung sino ang nag-falsify kasi hindi naman ako ang nag-apply ng marriage license.

Mr. Razon: Pero hindi ba lalabas, Atty. Danny, na hindi valid ang kasal na iyon?

Atty. Concepcion: Talaga namang hindi valid ang kasal, pero wala naman siyang interes na ipa-declare invalid ang kasal. Kasi ang prublema lang naman niya ay ‘yung passport. Kaya ayoko munang pakialaman ang kasal.

Question # 11: Hindi lang po ‘yon. Sa birth certifi cate ng apo, naka-appear din doon na 17 years old ang tatay.

Atty. Concepcion: Tama po ‘yung sabi ni kaka, hindi po valid ang kasal kasi 17 anyos lang ‘yung bata. Pero ho may presumption of regularity dito at hangga’t hindi nagpa-fi le ng kaso ang mag-asawa para kwestiyonin ang validity ng kasal, hindi po madedeklara na invalid ang kasal. ‘Yun namang bata ay illegitimate po ‘yung bata dahil walang bisa ang kasal dahil sa Aricle 165 ng Family Code. Ngayon, kung ang status niya ho ay illegitimate, may presumption of regularity din ho iyon. Sa madaling sabi, halimbawa sa mga dumating na panahon, may naghabol, halimbawa ‘yung kapatid naghabol sa mana. Saka na natin prublemahin kasi passport lang naman ang prublema niya e.

Question # 12: Paano po ‘ yung birth certifi cate ng bata?


406

Atty. Concepcion: Naka-rehistro na po siya at legitimate ang nakalagay. Ang maging prublema na lang ho diyan kapag ang mag-asawa ay nagpakasal uli later, dahil nga alam nilang walang bisa ang kanilang kasal. ‘Yung pong bata naman ay legitimate, because at the time the child was born, ay 17 years old ang tatay. E papaano ‘yung sa kanyang birth certifi cate ay legitimate lang ang nakalagay. Ngayon, kung gusto niyong pagawang illegitimate ang bata. Pumunta ho kayo sa court, kasi under Republic Act 9048, this doest not involve a clerical error but the status of a child. Pupunta kayo sa Court para i-correct ang status of a child. Under existing law po kasi ang bata po na maaring pwedeng legitimated ay iyung lamang mga bata pinagbuntis at pinanganak after the marriage was offi ciated. Sa kaso po nila, hindi po sila maaring magpakasal na may bisa, dahil 17 po ‘yung lalaki, kaya hindi po siya legitimated.

Question # 13: The contracting parties are of minor ages, but the license was issued due to some infl uence of the MCR, the Solemnizing Offi cer offi ciated because the license is there. Although the SO thought that the parties are minors, so is the SO liable for offi ciating the marriage?

Atty. Concepcion: Oho, kung meron pong personal knowledge na talagang menor de edad ang nagpapakasal maski meron hong lisensiya, liable ho siya ay for Article 352 of the Revised Family Code.

Question # 14: It was solemnized already, so the solemnizing offi cer must wait for right time and the right age?

Atty. Concepcion: Halimbawa ay maghihintay siya ng isang taon saka niya ire-rehistro ang kasal, paso na po ang lisensiya ng kasal. Invalid na rin ho ‘yung kasal. Kasi 120 days lang ang license, eh. Kung maghahantay sila ng isang taon, paso na ang license.


Question # 15: Nag-issue ang civil registrar ng license sa isang couple. May date of birth at age equivalent na nakalagay sa babae. Ang age niya ay 18, so no question pwede silang isyuhan ng marriage license. The marriage license was released, so pinasa sa pari. Pagkatapos na kinasal sa pari, pero ang inilagay na age doon sa babae ay 17 dahil ayun ang equivalent ng year sa birthdate ng lalaki. Ang ginawa ng civil registrar hindi niya ini-release ang marriage contract because ‘believing in good faith’ na hindi dapat ikasal because it’s below the marrying age of the couple. What are the liabilities of the persons concerned: the solemnizing offi cer and the civil registrar?

Atty. Concepcion: Maliwanag ba doon sa lisensiya na menor de edad ang babae? Kasi po ganito ‘yan, ang solemnizing offi cer, kung hindi niya kilala ng personal ‘yun babae at kung menor de edad ito, dahil ang titingnan lang naman niya ‘yung lisensiya. For all we know, baka naman may typographical error sa pagta-type ng date of birth fact. Pero ang talagang may obligasyong siyasatin kung may capacity to marry ang mga taong naga-apply ng lisensiya ay ang civil registrar.

Question # 16: Pero Sir, sa marriage contract lang clear na inilagay ng solemnizing offi cer ang age ng babae ay 17.

Atty. Concepcion: Kaya nga lang nilagay na 17, sa palagay ko kasi kwinenta niya sa date of birth ng babae. Hindi niya talaga kakilala. Baka nagprepare ng marriage contract ay ‘yung sekretarya niya na hindi alam na ang marrying age pa rin ay 18. For all we know, noong prinepare ang marriage contract, nagkaroon lang ng typographical error doon sa marriage license. Samakatwid may lusot ang solemnizing offi cer diyan. Pero ‘yung civil registrar who will refuse to record all those documents required under the rules and regulations to be


408

submitted, dahil sa tingin niya 17 ang babae, pwede siyang kasuhan ng administrative doon. Kasi ministerial lang duty when all the documents were presented.

Mr. Razon: Oo nga tapos lalabas doon ay kokontrahin nila ‘yung sarili nila, kasi nag-iissue ng license tapos ngayon ayaw nilang i-rehistro?

Atty. Concepcion: Hindi naman. Minsan kasi nagi-issue ng license, iba kung saan sila nagpapakasal. Halimbawa, ako’y kumuha ng lisensiya sa Cavite pero magpapakasal sa Pampanga. So, ang kasal ko na-record sa Pampanga, so pwedeng habulin ang civil registrar ng Pampanga.

Question # 17: Kung ang isang babae, 17 years old, at ‘yung lalaki 21 years old, sila ay nagpakasal? Paano magiging mabisa ang kasal?

Atty. Concepcion: Magpapakasal sila ulit. That’s the only solution. Mag a-apply po sila ng marriage license pero kung nagsasama na po sila ng limang taon na walang impediment. Mag a-affi davit na lang sila at magpakasal muli.

Mr. Razon: Meron pong tanong dito, a Christian married under the Civil Code, then decided to convert to Islam belief, and then married another woman who was converted to Islam, too. The question is it legal to marry again when converted, when he was married before? Is it allowed to convert into Islam just to marry again?

RD Manulon: My answer is from the point of view of the Presidential Decree 1083. Mayroong doctrine na decision ng Supreme Court ang answer ay hindi pu-pwede, kapag married ka under Civil Code and then magpa-convert ka, tapos mag-aasawa ka ulit. Hindi pu-pwede under the existing jurisprudence and from the point of view of PD 1083. However, from the point of view of Islamic Law, walang prohibition,


because the moment you convert yourself, nandodoon na ‘yung rights and privileges, na pwede mong i-enjoy as a Muslim. So sa pag-aasawa, sa pagdivorce, lahat-lahat naka-attach doon. As to the question, pwede bang magpaconvert para lang mag-asawa, mahirap po ma-measure ‘yung condition ng tao, kung ano ba talaga ‘yung intention niya kung bakit gusto niyang mag-paconvert. Hindi natin mame-measure ‘yon. But we agree na we have observed nowadays na ang conversion to Islam ay may kulay, sort of for convenience. We are trying at the OCRG to work into some revisions and reforms kung papaano natin ma-safeguard and civil registry documents with regard to the conversion of events or acts within the coverage of the Muslim Civil Registration System.

Mr. Razon: Although we want to stay a little longer, kami ay pansamantalang mamaaalam sa inyo.

Open Forum During the 3rd National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers held at Tagaytay City on August 5-7, 2003

OPEN FORUM AFTER MS. RONAIDA JAVALUYA’S PRE-SENTATION

Question # 1: May I request for the addresses where I can fi nd the family library for the residents of Tayabas, Quezon and Sto. Tomas, Batangas.

Ms. Javaluyas: We have a Lipa Center I do not have the address memorized. There you can call me, I have a calling card for everybody who is interested.

Question # 2: Is not discouraging when you fi nd out that your roots are not good roots?

Ms. Javaluyas: kahit ano po pa ‘yung naging kahapon ng ating mga ninuno, may utang po tayo sa kanila. ’Di po natin kayang babayaran whatever anong life man nilang pinagdaanan. It is something but iyong past na iyun connected po tayo,


410

bonded po tayo doon. Maraming nangyari na pinalitan po nila iyung kanilang family name dahil mayroon pong ‘di magandang pangyayari. Still, we could not deny that we come from that lineage. I mean you can nurture those roots and cultivate them in better ground. Then, you have a good cause to do that.

Question #3: I fi nd it quite diffi cult to trace my lineage on my own because I will start with the parents of my mother, whose names I don’t remember anymore.

Ms. Javaluyas: Yes, meron po kaming masugid na researcher. I don’t know if you watched the episode on Brigada Siete. Siya po ay na-feature. Si Jose Maniquis. Na-trace po niya ang kanyang generation up to 17th generation. Retired na po siya na teacher sa UP. So, regardless with the age, you can do genealogy. In fact, marami pong mga katulad natin na mature na, nagre-research dahil nagiging hobby po nila, so it’s a very nice hobby.

Question #4: There is an ethnic group po kasi na ang ginagamit nila usually ay yong kanilang pangalan not the surname. Like the Igorots. So how could we trace ‘yong ating roots kung ang ginagamit naman nila ay yong kanilang fi rst name not the surname?

Ms. Javaluyas: Just like the Chinese. Inu-una po nila yong apelyido ng kanilang tatay. Ganoon din po maging nanay parehong opposite sa ating ginagawa. Nakita ko po iyong mga, sa mga Igorot doon sa Bontoc, Province like Benguet. So mga fi rst name lang talaga wala siyang family name, fi rst name lang. So ang ginagawa po doon mayroon pong genealogy ang mga taong yon, kabi-kabit po yong mga genealogy nila. Nandodoon po sa microfi lm, so sila mismo noong mga taong na mga Ancient Igorot, inuukit po nila yong kanilang mga


ninuno. So every time napa-pass po yon sa mga anak nila. Na-microfi lm ‘yung mga family tree ng iba’t ibang mga clan kasi parang tribe sila, a group of tribes, tama ba iyon brother? So tribe by tribe.

Question #5: I learned that my grandfather was an illegitimate son of a person who was not married. I also learned that grandfather has brothers. I tried to trace the roots of my grandfather but because of this illegitimacy and because of the lost of records, I cannot see from the records of origin of my grandfather, where should I go?

Ms. Javaluyas: Meticulous po ‘yung iyong pagre-research, kailangan may patience. Dahil Noong araw kung hindi po sila ngayon ikinasal, let us say that maybe after 10 years kinasal po sila. Nagkaroon na po sila ng 6 o 8 anak. That’s the time na sila po ay kinasal. So kung hindi po tayo careful na illegitimate noon ang mga anak, then later on they made up their mind to be married. Meron pong marriage certifi cates, so parang ano po ‘yon na, they live in together then they found each other ano tulad din ngayon history repeated itself again ‘yung after how many years nagpakasal po sila then. Then isa pong possibility, that’s only possibility. By oral information mayroon kang lolo, sino ba talaga ang ano. So meron din, pangatlo, na may adopted parents at either you look up to your adopted parents or you go through sa inyong mga lolo at lola.

Question #6: Can I use the death certifi cate of the supposed father of my grandfather?

Ms. Javaluyas: Yes, records of birth, marriage and death certifi cates. All these records.

Question #7: So if I go directly to Family History Centers, I can have direct information?

Ms. Javaluyas: Yes, but you will have to personally look up through the microfi lms. Babasahin po natin


412

yong microfi lms. Maghahanap po tayo. It is research. Saan pong lugar ‘yong origin niyo? (Reply: Mandaue). There is a center in Talisay Cebu.

Question #8: I noticed that the system of establishing a genealogy is biased in favor of males, biased against females. It is the father and the grandfather who are given emphasis. What about females in the family?

Ms. Javaluyas: No, it’s the same, mother and the father, both sides. The tree is one but it covers both the father’s side and the mother’s side. Sorry, I did not tell you are number one in your pedigree and the imaginary line on the upper section is your father’s side and down is your mother’s side.

Question #9: Can the mother start this process of establishing a pedigree?

Ms. Javaluyas: Yeah, it includes the mother. With the mother and father.

Question #10: Good morning I’m Reverend Sablan from United Methodist Church, is there a possibility or even a study done that all persons with the same family name are related to each other?

Ms. Javaluyas: I don’t think so. There are lots of Dela Cruz, Santos, and Garcia, which are very Common names. Hindi po sila related to each other. Let us say, for example, in Batangas City na Dela Cruz. Diyan 99 percent, they are related to each other. Back in ancient time, ang Dela Cruz po doon sa somewhere like in Laoag City, iba din po silang grupo or clan, iba po din sila ng family tree. So pero merong possibility na ‘yong taga-Laoag pumunta po ng Batangas. Then other roots have been established and they were mingled na po sa Batangas. It could be, but it may also be different trees.

Question #11: Since we also consider the degree relationship in marriage and in my knowledge only


up to fourth degree is not allowed. So alin pong generation ang papatak sa magiging fi fth degree relationship that we can allow marriage in considering relationship. Kasi ang atin pong alam ay ‘yong fourth degree relationship sa pamilya hindi pwedeng maka-sal hindi pwedeng mag-asawa. How do we trace the generation that falls into fi fth degree relationship?

Ms. Javaluyas: So how we always start? You are the fi rst generation, then go step by step to Your parents then step two, one step higher to your grandparents and then great grandparents. Parang step by step, parang ladder siya. You cannot start kaagad. Tingnan po natin ‘yong ating seventh generation. Hindi po natin magagawa ‘yan. So starting from your step by step: parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents.

Suggestion #1: I’m just making a suggestion. NSO is the government agency that has all the vast resources for research. In the Philippines, the Church of the Latter Day Saints is the only group throughout the world now who is concentrating on this Kind of research. Pero parang mahihiya kasi ‘yong hindi member ng inyong Church na magpunta sa church niyo at hihingi lang doon ng information. Why not mismong government through the NSO at isali na nag serbisyong ito sa programa ng NSO, magre-research na lang kami mismo sa NSO? Kung puwedeng makipagtie-up na lang ‘yong inyong agency sa NSO?

Adm. Ericta: Ms. Javaluyas, nakikinig po ako, pag-usapan po natin.

Ms. Javaluyas: Sige witness po natin andiyan si Ma’am Ericta, we are affi liated with the NSO and The Philippine Archives ang ibig sabihin lahat po ng ginagawa dito ‘yong microfi lms ay available sa NSO, binibigyan po natin ng


414

copy. Well, in fact meron pa kaming donation aside sa mga church we facilitates na dino-donate sa University of San Agustin in Iloilo and as well as the University of Sto. Tomas in Metro Manila.

So if you need it don’t hesitate, call us, Yeah, the facilities are there okay, we are connected with the government. Thank you.

OPEN FORUM AFTER MS. MARITES ESPINOZA’S PRESEN-TATION

Question #1: Gusto ko lang malaman kung gaano katagal ang processing na ginagawa after the registration of the documents sa local civil registrar? At gusto naming kumuha ng kopya sa NSO sa main offi ce mismo. Gaano katagal bago kami makukuha ng authenticated copy doon sa main offi ce?

Ms. Espinoza: So sa processing after 10 days after each reference period the LCR offi ce submits the document to the provincial offi ce and then six to eight weeks after the documents from the provincial offi ces are submitted to the central offi ce.

Question #2: How about in Metro Manila? Let’s say in Quezon City, nag submit ho halimbawa ako ng papers ko sa Quezon City. How many weeks bago ko mapuntahan National Offi ce para makakuha ng “authentication”?

Ms. Espinoza: Sir, sa Metro Manila, it is shorter because the provincial offi ce is near the Central Offi ce. So ten days after the reference period, naroon na po ang documents. So dahil doon mas madali for “authenticated” copies puwede nang makuha agad doon.

Question #3: So we are requesting…?

Ms. Espinoza: NCR is processing the documents for that.


Question #4: Yes, ma’am. Kasi we are requesting months pa naming makukuha ang “Authentication” sa National Statistics Offi ce, which is very near. So akala ko ganoon ang Law kaya po naitanong ko ito. Isa pa ho, this is my follow-up question iyong pong pagrehistro natin sa LCR noong ating marriage contract kung minsan nire-receive lang nila at ‘di nila nilalagyan ng registry number. Okay sasabihin nila babalikan uli. Pero pag binalikan mo meron “fee” doon sa munisipyo for the research. Ang nabasa ko dito the moment you pass your document iyong registry number ay dapat ilagay na nila para dala dala mo ’di na babalikan.

Ms. Espinoza: So sa operative act, talagang ganoon. Five days after submission, dapat may Registry number. So I guess the LCR concerned shall be notifi ed on that because we are emphasizing that, to implement the rule as prescribed. Now for the LCR civil registry documents submitted siguro iyong sinasabi ninyo, you’re requesting for security paper, so always iyon. The Metro Manila LCRs shall submit the documents ten days after the reference period, otherwise, hindi iyon nare-receive ng NSO wala kaming maibibigay sa inyong certifi cates.

Question #5: Good morning, ma’am, is it imperative for a solemnizing offi cers to use the forms that you have just shown? Can a solemnizing offi cer issue a modifi ed or altered form?

Ms. Espinoza: Sir, sa law nakalagay doon prescribed forms.

Question #6: Who prescribed this form?

Ms. Espinoza: OCRG, Sir please take note…

Question #7: Under the law?

Ms. Espinoza: Yes, Sir.

Question #8: So that is the prescribed form. There are those who have pre-nuptial agreements.


416

In marriage, wherein there is no space for that agreement and I don’t see also how it is to be registered those pre-nuptial agreement or rather the extrajudicial separation of properties, for example, of the contracting parties.

Ms. Espinoza: Siguro, Sir, hindi ninyo pa napupuna kung ano talaga iyong marriage contract?

Take note that in the marriage contract, there is a portion na merong “Pick Box” If they have entered into a pre-nuptial agreement. So meron pong “Pick Box” doon.

Question #9: So there is such an agreement, will it be registered together with the marriage certifi cate?

Ms. Espinoza: Yes.

Question #10: Precisely, they will be submitted together?

Ms. Espinoza: Yes.

Question #11: Puwede po ba na ang both parties, the bride and the groom ay magpakasal sa ibang province, although both parties are non-resident in that place. But they have secured their marriage license in their province?

Audience and RD Gulla: Yes.

Ms. Espinoza: I think the group says, puwede no, any part in the Philippines naman iyon basta’t meron marriage license within the prescribed period.

Question # 12: For the solemnizing offi cers, are they required to keep a copy? I know sa distribution of copies, wala iyong solemnizing offi cer. Is it really necessary? Okay lang na walang copy ang solemnizing offi cer of the contract.

Ms. Espinoza: According to the distribution, kaya siya naging apat, one copy is for the solemnizing offi cer. There is some problem pagdating sa legal document so you have to keep track. Mayroon


RA 9048 na kung ano ang document, use ng marriage certifi cate. So, it will be better for you kung magkaroon ng fi le. Maybe it’s needed today but in the future.

Question #13: Follow up lang. Is the responsibility of fi ling the contract of the solemnizing offi cer or on the contracting parties? Iyong pag-fi le, is it the responsibility of the solemnizing offi cer or the contracting parties?

Ms. Espinoza: According to the law, it is the duty of the solemnizing offi cer. If the solemnizing offi cer does not register it, iyong contracting parties. If not the contracting parties the responsible person iyong mga witness or whoever is the responsible person.

Pero naka-lodge talaga is the very fi rst pag-fi le is the solemnizing offi cer.

Question #14: Should the parties be charged for the expenses as far as the fi ling it, iyon ganoon lang?

Ms. Espinoza: So depende na iyon sa usapan ninyo.

Question #15: I mean basic expenses?

Ms. Espinoza: Basic… kasi kayo ang nakakaalam ng marriage. Personally, nalalaman ninyo iyon kasi kayo ang solemnizing offi cer so you have to report that event. So ire-report ninyo talaga siya.

Question #16: Okay.

RD Gulla: Dito po dito po sa right side.

Question #17: You have mentioned, Ma’am, a new CRIS version. What then is the earlier version?

Ms. Espinoza: Sir, actually mayroon. The previous CRIS, then it was updated into a second version? But that is to include more data. Then the third one, it should have included the ICD-10.

Question #18: Version 2000?


418

Ms. Espinoza: Yes, it’s just the ICD-10. If utilized today can provide a tabulation, which will combine the ICD-9 and ICD-10.

Question #19: For that purpose, Ma’am, do we need to buy a new computer for that version?

Ms. Espinoza: For this version, hindi pa pero, we are also considering iyon. CRIS 2K, which is Windows-based and a more upgraded system that is Windows-based. If CRIS 2K will be implemented, kailangan ninyo talaga ng bagong computer?

Question #20: Does the Windows 1998 conform with that version?

Ms. Espinoza: Ang sabi ninyo, Windows 1998, iyong sabi ninyo, this new version being considered is Windows 2000.

Question #21: Is it available now, Ma’am?

Ms Espinoza: For now, hindi pa, Sir. Tsini- check kung ano ang operation niya.

Question #22: Would it be for free?

Ms. Espinoza: No according to Director Hufana, there’s fee for the implementation. So we will consider that, we will inform kung ano ang napag-agree-han.

Question #23: Yes, ah mungkahi lang po doon sa “FORMS”. Una po doon sa Table 5. I’m aware that the Philippines is a Roman Catholic-dominated country. Puwede po bang mag-suggest din na instead of other religious sects, puwede rin po bang magkaroon din ng data how many were done in mainly protestant churches.

Kasi sa aming churches, we also have our statistics. Puwede ho bang, for example, Baptist, UCP, Presbyterian, Methodist. Kung wala ho eh, we’ll appreciate it very much if you “encode” it. Instead of “other” religious rites, pangalawa po ay ang sabi ang nagpe-


prescribed ng FORM ay ang OCRG. Kasi po sa mga lalawigan mahirap po bumili ng carbon paper.

Puwede po ba ang FORM ay “self-carbon na? Kaya po ang data na nakakarating kung hindi malabo ay mali iyong placing noong tables. Kung ito’y hindi dagdag sa pondo ng pamahalaan maganda ho sana, “self-carbon” na nga Forms, instead na gagamit kami ng “carbon paper”. Ito’y para sa iba na…hindi maka-afford ng “carbon paper”. Pangatlo lang ho na observation, doon po sa “Space” ng witnesses and sponsors napakaliit.

Nauuso ngayon ang kasalan na dalawampung ninong, ninang, allowed ho ba na sulatan ang likod ng “forms”. Sabi ng ilan hindi, iba naman mag-attach ng papers, sabi naman hindi pwedeng mag-attach I-type na lang sa likod. Pag tina-type sa likod dapat notarized pa. Ano po ba ang mabuti sa mga kinakasal na dalawampu ang mga ninong at ninang?

Ms. Espinoza: Iyong fi rst question pa lang muna. About the fi rst question, on other religious rites to segregate different religions, we will have to think about it kasi the manual processing goes down to the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar. So iyong manual na gagawin nila, we will have amend so iyong data entry system to accept other religious rites, iyong itemized religious rites data.

We also have to consider na talagang malaki ang number kaysa naman, we have to present other religious rites na isa lang, dalawa lang. We have to check on those religions. So, basically, we’ll have to start tabulating by religion of bride and groom. Which of these have produced a large number, higher number of statistics. So on the “FORM’, si Mrs. Hufana na.


420

Dir. Hufana: Pursuant to the provision of the law, talagang allowed lang ang two witnesses however, iyong practice po natin na maraming sponsors. S’yempre gusto rin naman nilang malagay ang kanilang pangalan on the marriage contract, so our instruction iyun nga po nailagay sila sa available space. If you will notice we are using already iyong special form, hindi po siya standard iyong size, medyo malaki na siya sa regular size ng paper. Kung papalakihin pa natin iyun, iyon rin po ay isang pinag-iisipan naming whether we will still provide additional space for the other sponsors. So iyon po for now we will just take note of your suggestions.

Question #24: At this point, do you allow “attached paper”?

Dir. Hufana: No! We do not allow attachment po kasi it might get lost or kaya po ang aming instruction, put it on the side or at the back.

Question #25: No need to notarize the names at the back?

Dir. Hufana: Ah, hindi na po ah, kasi it’s still part of the form.

Question #26: Doon po ba sa pag-a-apply ng marriage li-cense, nalaman ba ng local civil registrar na iyong mag-a-apply kung nagpakasal na sa una o hindi?

Dir. Hufana: In the application, kasi, for the marriage license nakalagay po doon the civil satus of the bride and the groom. So nakalagay po doon, halimbawa, nag-divorce or kaya annulled or whatever the status of the bride or the groom. So malalaman po natin kunwari widow or widower na medyo meron tayong information kung fi rst marriage, second marriage and so on.

Question #27: Kasi po, may kaso po kami, I belong to a Born-Again Christian sect at meron pong may nagpakasal sa amin iyong miyembro ko po nagpakasal sa isang ano rin brother


without knowing na ang pinakasalan niya ay pangalawang marriage na niya.

Noong nalaman naming nagpunta po kami sa “Census” at nadiskubre namin na it’s true, so because of that failure on our side medyo maingat na po kami because na destroy ang aming miyembro. So maingat na po kami before we conduct this…Iyong pagkasalan, totoo iyon binigyan sila ng license. Nag-iimbestiga kami because marami na po kami nadiskubreng ganyan. In fact, meron kaming ni reject kasi dahil sa ginawa naming iyon nakita namin na nagsisinungaling ang isang party. So humihingi lang ako ng paunawa sa lahat ng nagso-solemnize, kung puwede ba silang mag-imbestiga?

Dir. Hufana: Actually po, your part in performing the marriage is the marriage license. As long as there’s marriage license parang sinasabi natin, puwedeng magpakasal itong tao na ito. But, of course, on your part, puwede naman ninyong tanggihan, kung ayaw ninyong ikasal iyong contracting party.

Pero gusto po naming sabihin sa inyo na ang pagsasagawa ng imbestigasyon ay nakasalalay sa kamay ng mga civil registrar dahil sila po ang responsible, if ever na-isyu-han nila ng marriage license, ang isang tao na kasal na pala.

Question #28: In fact po, kumukuha kami sa statistics ng certifi cate of no marriage bago po….

Dir. Hufana: Sa National Statistics Offi ce, puwede po kayong mag-fi le ng tinatawag nating “certifi cate of no marriage” record. Pero hindi po iyon ibig sabihin na talagang hindi kasal iyong isang tao, ang ibig sabihin lang ay walang record of marriage ang National Statistics Offi ce. Posible po na iyong tao ay may kasal na hindi lamang narehistro o possible na may kasal na nakarehistro sa


422

Local Civil Registrar pero wala lamang pong marriage record sa National Statistics Offi ce. So hindi po siya dapat maging basehan sa pagi-issue ng marriage license.

Question #29: Hindi po ang tinatanong ko po kung kapag kami na ang naatasang magkasal doon sa nag-aapply para magpakasal having their marriage license. Kita namin na meron nag-iinsist talaga at iyan po ay dumadaan po kami sa counseling at meron din po kaming personal investigation doon sa party lalo na iyong isang party ‘di namin kasama doon sa church ini-imbestigahan namin.

Bakit? Kasi nga ang theme natin “Matatag na Pamilya” kung may lumusot doon hindi na matatag ang pamilya dahil meron nang ano iyon, problem so ang ginagawa naming iyon nga before the marriage takes place, we investigate both parties kung ito ay talagang walang nag-take place na marriage. Noon kasi kung meron sisihin kami ng mga magulang noon. In fact, may mga magulang na hindi nila alam na ang mga anak nila na magpapakasal ay nakasal na sa una.

Dir. Hufana: Iyun pong whether ikakasal po ninyo iyong mga parties na mayroon marriage license or not I think nasa inyo po iyun ano. Siguro karapatan ninyo rin po iyon na mag-imbestiga, Kung gusto ninyo katulad nga ng sinabi ko anyway naman, sa kasal wala po kayong responsibilidad. Meron po kayong responsibilidad kung ang kasal ay naganap ng hindi nangangailangan ng marriage license in which case kayo po ang responsible person para I-ascertain kung qualifi ed sila to get married. So nasa sa iyo po iyon, if you want to conduct an investigation. Puwede naman po.

Question #30: It has been noted that the duty to prepare the marriage contract is the solemnizing offi cer. In the case, solemnizing offi cer is a mayor, who has the duty of preparing the marriage


certifi cate? Is it the offi ce of the mayor or the offi ce of the registrar?

Dir. Hufana: Iyon po kasing pag-a-accomplish na marriage certifi cate ay puwede naman gawin ng kahit na po sino kung, halimbawa po, kinasal siya po sa mayor’s offi ce, defi nitely dapat doon I-prepare ang marriage certifi cate kasi ‘di ba pagkatapos ng kasal merong pang pagpipirma sa mga contracting parties ng mga witnesses ng mayor. Dadalhin na lamang po sa offi ce ng civil registrar for registration.

Ang tingin namin nagkakaroon lamang ng fi lling up of preparation of marriage certifi cate sa Offi ce of the Civil Registrar. Kung ito ay late registration at walang marriage certifi cate na na-fi ll-up-an before. So ganun po, in all cases dapat sa opisina ng mayor o kaya ng judges o kaya sa simbahan ng solemnizing offi cer.

Question #31: In case, ginagawa ang marriage certifi cate sa offi ce ng MCR at pumalpak, sino ho ang responsible doon?

Dir. Hufana: Actually, ang responsibility kung may mali sa marriage contract nandoon sa nagprepare ‘di po ba. Kasi doon po sa ating marriage contract, may nakalagay po na prepared by, pero equally liable iyong informant. Iyong contracting party dapat sila ang nakakaalam kung tama o hindi ang information na nakalagay sa marriage contract.

Question #32: Ang isang halimbawa ang certifi cate of marriage ay na-submit na ng solemnizing offi cer. Ngayon pagkatapos na itong mai-submit sa LCR, napansin na may mali sa entry pahihintulutan ba ng NSO ang solemnizing offi cer na ma rectify ang error at kung ito’y pahihintulutan, ano po ang pamamaraan ang dapat gawin ng isang solemnizing offi cer.

Dir. Hufana: Ganito po iyan, dapat po ang maling intrada sa marriage contract, nai-correct natin


424

prior to registration so kung makikita po ng civil registrar na may mali at hindi niya pa narerehistro maari pa nating ibalik sa simbahan o sa opisina ni mayor para po maitama. Pero once na ito ay nai-rehistro na nalagyan na ng registry number, napirmahan ng civil registrar, hindi na po maaring I-correct pa ng hindi dadaan sa korte o kaya po sa civil registrar under RA 9048.

OPEN FORUM AFTER PRESENTATIONS OF ROUND TABLE SPEAKERS

Mechanics: (Session Chair) We will adopt the guidelines of the Round Table Forum. We will have a one hour for the open forum. There are four microphones to facilitate discussion. Please wait to be recognized fi rst and identify yourself before throwing your question. Each person is allowed only one follow-up question to give others a chance to raise question. There are also intervention sheets that were included in the kits. You may write your questions and submit them to the ushers and usherettes.

Please write also your name and the person to whom you are addressing your question. Some questions may not be answered due to lack of time. Please submit your questions and the secretariat will forward them to the speaker who is concerned later. We will start the ball rolling.

Question #1: My fi rst question is addressed to Atty. Morales and my second question is addressed to anyone in the panel. First question, regarding our Filipino clergy working overseas for some religious organization that have international work, are they granted authorization to solemnize marriages by countries where they are working? The second question is, are they allowed to solemnize marriage our Filipinos who will be requesting such?


Atty. Morales: It depends on the country; there are different laws in different countries. In my experience during my assignment to the Philippine Embassy and unfortunately not all Filipinos priests in Rome could solemnize a valid marriage because in certain cases they are not registered with the civil authorities of Rome, or similar to the system in the Philippines in Rome or in general. They need to have authority from what the called ‘commone” or the municipal civil authority. If they have an authority, then it is suffi cient for the marriage to be valid but what the Embassy or consulate, and the other is a religious wedding, so there’s no really confl ict. They marry again but the more legally binding and effective one is that with the civil authority.

As to the second question, the solem-nizing offi cer is specially a religious minister who has dual responsibilities. They have civil authorization to solemnize marriages and they have their ecclesiastical guideline. Using the ecclesiastical guidelines, there are cases in which marriages cannot be solemnized by ministers. For example, the couple has violated certain immorality for fornication or pre-marital sex. Some religious organizations prohibit ministers to do the solemnization of such marriages. Now, will the legal obliga-tion, the authorization to solemnize marriage be bypassed in this case or will he ecclesiasti-cal guidelines supersede the legal responsibil-ity of solemnizing the marriage?

Adm. Ericta: We have no jurisdiction over ecclesiastical rules, we can only respond to legal aspects. In this case we cannot talk about supersede or not to supersede.

Question #2: I am Mr. Joel Carascal, municipal civil registrar of Magallanes, municipal province of Sorsogon, the question is addressed to Atty. Morales.


426

Sir, sometime last year a client came to my offi ce requesting for a copy of marriage contract, which was contracted in Contagura, Nigeria. So when I went to Manila. I requested for a copy and then it yielded a negative result, when I went back to my province, my municipality, I told my client that it yielded a negative report so I asked the client. If they had a certifi cate of marriage registered in Philippines Embassy, she could not remember, however, the passport had been amended from single to married, and then to the surname of the wife.

This time, the only copy that they have in their possession is the amended passport of the wife. But the certifi cate of marriage since they are asking for is no longer in their possession. I told her that it could be applied for delayed registration. However, they don’t have a copy anymore of the certifi cate of mar-riage, so what is your suggestion which other documents the couple could present, in other to apply for the late registration of marriage, which was solemnized in Contagura, Nige-ria?

As I’ve mentioned earlier, we have our post-deferent Consulate and Embassy. Consular jurisdiction, but what you are saying is an article case of Nigeria. We have an Embassy, it used to be in Lagus, it’s now in Abuja. What we do in the foreign service post is only to register a civil act which is already registered with the local civil registry? In that case I cannot remember the town, but I guess that in that town there is still a copy of the marriage certifi cate in the local civil registry. Unless, it was burnt or destroyed by some reason or another.

Another possibility is fi rst to ask from the local civil registry authority, perhaps, the consular records division to explain the


situation in a sworn statement. What the department can do is to ask the Embassy of Abuja to check with the authorities in that town? Because were not sure if the marriage was still valid. There has to be some verifi cation, if we’ll have to verify in the Embassy with the local civil registry authority. Another option, with regards to the passport, it is secondary. We cannot use the amendment of the passport as Proof.

Atty. Morales: In certain cases I had handled during my assignments, I usually ask for a copy of the marriage contract and the presentation of the original, which I attached in the passport application. However, these are not permanent records after fi ve years, the passport application; the entries are just inputted in our electronic database. However, the documents are disposed of in accordance with regulations, shred iyong mga documents na ‘yon, kaya chances are after fi ve years. If it happened in fi ve years, it is extremely diffi cult to locate the document.

So, the best thing this person can do is to request our Embassy in Abuja to inquire with the local civil registry in that town, or they had relatives or acquaintances in Nigeria to get from that town a copy of the document where the marriage was solemnized.

Question #3: What we did, Sir, was to request the Embassy, after what happened we requested the Embassy of Nigeria? And we wrote the St. Michael’s Parish in Contagura, Nigeria but to no avail. If both options are not available, then we cannot register a marriage with no documentary evidence of the marriage.

Atty. Morales: How about the church, the church records wala rin ho ba? Because it’s a question of evidence, how can they provide that there was such a marriage? We only to rely on documentary evidences.


428

Question #4: I would just like to make a suggestion that I made in private to the NSO-OCRG to produce a Handbook for Solemnizing Offi cers that would bring together all the legal, requirements and legal issues that were discussed here for the guidance of solemnizing offi cers, and or in the future, before issuing an authority for solemnizing offi cers.

My question is about woman who is widowed with children who went to the States to work there. After 20 and 30 years she was quite successful and was able to buy lots in California, then she went back here during 1990’s. She was about 73 years old and she decided she wanted to get married, so she found a lover, who is 32 years old.

So this brought quite a friction to the family of the woman, so what she did was she secretly went to the US Embassy because she already acquired US citizenship? She went to the US Embassy to get married there, so they got married. Eventually, a year the family of the lady accepted the man, or so we thought. This young man and the woman lived together for three years and after three years the lady died.

Now after her burial, her family does not want the widower, the young man, to have any right to any property that the woman had. They didn’t even want him to use the service vehicle that they had been using. They wanted the man to get out of the house that they were occupying prior to death. The man, because he is from Mindanao, has no relatives. He lived in the church prior to the marriage. He has nowhere to go. Now, my question is, can the US Embassy be contacted in this case for them to help assist the young man to have a claim in maybe some of the property of the woman?


Mr. Simmons: First of all, I have no idea what jurisdiction you are talking about. If it is Florida or North Carolina, I could express opinion on the law but (California) US government has no authority to get involved in private legal matters for one thing. I can’t tell you about California law because I’m not a California attorney.

Question #5: In case a solemnizing offi cer died and failed to register some certifi cates of marriage within the prescribed time, can his successor register the same? If this is so, how?

L. Hufana: Yes.

Question #6: To Atty. Morales, because the question has something to do with extraterritoriality, can a solemnizing offi cer by invitation celebrate a wedding of Filipinos abroad inside the Philippine consulate?

Atty. Morales: It depends ho, what are the factors? For Example, the contracting parties are not residents of that country where the embassy is located. They would not have a marriage license. Their marriages cannot be solemnized. To go around the local regulation, they would ask the solemnizing offi cer, who is a head of religious organization to solemnize it in the embassy. The department regulation ho to my knowledge does not allow the solemnization of marriage in the Embassy, by one who has no authority to do so.

Question #7: There is a passport law. Its not fool-proof, we are still working on ensuring its integrity. In any case, this question is about passports. May client po ako nag-apply for passport and he discovered na may double registration of birth certifi cate. The fi rst certifi cate of live birth could need correction on the fi rst name of the late registration.

The lady came to my offi ce with your note that the fi rst certifi cate could need correction and


430

for late registration needed to cancel and withdraw for cancellation. Is it possible just to cancel the fi rst registration and the second one is to be used in securing passport?

Dir. Hufana: The answer ho clearly is no. Basically passport applications, the entry there are based in the certifi cate of live birth or the marriage contract. If you had two certifi cates of live birth then this gives rise to confusion and what we do is what has been done by the passport offi ce is to request them to correct. The fi rst registration as an erroneous entry to correct that entry perhaps under RA 9048 and then to petition for cancellation of the second one, that is also a liability if you go to court as stated by Atty. Danny Concepcion but its not just possible to cancel the 1st registration, that is the answer.

Question #8: In securing a passport, is it always necessary that there is an authenticated COLB or marriage certifi cate in SECPA? If so, why?

Atty. Morales: SECPA means the security paper of the NSO, in most cases we required the security paper of the NSO because they had certain security features, we had diffi culty accepting ordinary documents on ordinary papers because even the one in security paper, there are those who already try to falsify. So much more for those in ordinary papers, this is part of our efforts to ensure the integrity of Philippine passports.

Question #9: One of them, an individual has US immigrant visa went to US return in the Philippines doesn’t explain why, but stayed in the Philippines for three years.

Mr. Simmons: Simple answer is, if you stay out in US for more than a year you have to fi le a request to return and get a form number but I’m sure, remember she or he in an immigrant visa section determines whether not or approved that form and largely depends on why the


person stays outside US for more than a year.

Question #10: In order to avoid problems in reading entries in the certifi cate of marriage like diffi cult to read or some what blurred entries, can NSO-OCRG produce a self-carbon marriage certifi cates.

Adm. Ericta: The question is whether the NSO can have a self-carbon certifi cate printed. Yes, it is possible. The next question is whether we will do it or not? We’ll have to see.

Question #11: Does the OCRG sell the marriage certifi cates of the solemnizing offi cer of any religious sects? Can the OCRG not just give it to us, as solemnizing offi cer’s free of charge? Anyway, tinutulungan naman po namin ang mga mayors para mapadali ang kanilang trabaho or ma-lessen ang kanilang trabaho.

Adm. Ericta: Yes, the certifi cates are being sold, P170.00 per pad. I didn’t get the rest of the question.

Question #12: This question I would like to raise to Ma’am Ericta. I am Jaime Makayanan, a solemnizing offi cer and I happened to be the secretary for Personnel Administration in Reservation Army. I certify all renewal of application of the solemnize and in our offi ce I observe that it takes about average of 2 months before the papers are processed.

In fact, when I came in the offi ce a year ago, I discovered that’s normally average length of time. When it was my turn I started December and its now August, my license is instill with me. I’ve read that processing will take three days to two weeks if it is renewal.

Adm. Ericta: May I ask you a question. Did you ask whether you have some lacking requirements, usually that happens when some papers are lacking, or we need other documents.


432

Question#12B: I have an assistant in the offi ce and when I came in everything seems to be in its place, the system has been set-up. I only raised the question when it was my turn, it took so long and up to now I’m still waiting. We were told by the offi ce that we should follow it up and we did it very religiously and consistently, unfortunately there were changes I think in the offi cers in charge, I haven’t gone to your offi ce yet and I had the opportunity to raise it now.

Adm. Ericta: Could you leave me your calling card please so that I will look for it. So right now hav-ing two initiatives, I think this has been dis-cussed: One, is the computerized databank of solemnizing offi cers, the solemnizing offi cers information system and we will put you in the web. So, those who are registered solemnizing offi cers will be listed on our web sites. Two, we are decentralizing the renewal of the reg-istration. What we’re doing is developing the system so that You don’t have to go all the way to Manila. If you coming from Mindanao for example, you don’t have to go to Manila but you can fi le your renewal in Mindanao, from Manila come over to my offi ce.

Question #13: This is just a request if Atty. Morales could follow up the issue left by Mr. Simmons about the couples who are divorced in States, what is the stand of our government about those?

Atty. Morales: It depends, as I stated I’m not sure of the Article, but the Civil Code provides that laws relating to family status, rights, conditions, duties are binding on citizens of the Philippines even though they are living abroad, if they contracted marriage in the Philippines and they are still Filipino citizens even if they go abroad later on and obtain the divorce, which is valid in the place where they are currently residing but still remain Filipino citizens. The divorce has no legal force and effect in


the Philippines, it’s a different case when a divorce which is validly obtained abroad. It can only be recognized in the Philippines, if it is one marriage between Filipino national and a foreign spouse. And two, if the divorce is obtained by the foreign spouse. And three, that after obtaining the divorce the foreign spouse can remarry again. But if they are still Filipino citizens whose divorce is obtained abroad, the divorce will have no legal force and effect insofar as the Philippines is concerned.

Question #14: My question is something on validation about authority. For example, one of the family members of an offi ciating person violated the law of marriage especially the children, is his or her authorization still valid?

Ms. Hufana: Yes, isa po ‘yon sa mga ground natin for revocation or cancellation of the authority kung meron pong mag re-report sa OCRG, then we will conduct an investigation and if proven na talagang may violation na ginawa iyong Solemnizing Offi cer then we will cancel the authority. Kung wala pong mag re-report then we will not know that this solemnizing offi cer is committing a violation.

Question #15: I have received and registered 15 copies of marriage certifi cates where all the contracting parties are Roman Catholic but these marriages were solemnized by a certain pastor of Jesus Christ All Powerful in the Barangay Hall of a certain barangay in our municipality. He violated Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

Dir. Hufana: Also, one of the cause for revocation of his authority is who will be responsible in reporting this action? Anybody who knows about the violation can report to the church or to the OCRG about the violation. In the fi rst place, hindi naman po namin immediately ika-cancel the authority but we will also


434

conduct our own investigation. As I said, if proven that there is really violation, then we will cancel the authority. So, in this case even if nakalagay po doon na talagang Roman Catholic ‘yon ikinasal tapos ang nagkasal ay pastor kailangan pa rin ang report.

Question #16: Among those solemnizing offi cers, if anyone will solemnized same sex, what would be the accountability since we know, it is against public policy and against the purpose of marriage.

MCR Soriano: Well, we know it is against the law. It’s against morals, it’s against public policy, now because he didn’t determine the legal capacity, it is incumbent upon the SO to determine the legal capacity of the contracting parties but by doing so, offi ciating or solemnizing a same-sex marriage he may be held liable.

Question #17: We should avoid this I think because, it might be a precedent that the homosexual would be willing to aspire marriage to a macho man.

MCR Soriano: Ang sabi ko nga, if they did offi ciate and then they present it to us for registration, wala po kaming magagawa kung di po ire-register. Totally po naman ang sabi ko nga registration has nothing to do with the legality or validity of the marriage. In fact, maganda pa nga dahil na document, nai-record at kung sino man ang managot mayron tayong maipakitang ibedensya sa maling ginawa because wala pong effects sa legalidad o validad ng isang kasal yong pagre-rehistro.

Question #18: Seven years na pong walang communication sa unang kasal ang babae na sa pagka-alam n’ya ang asawa niya ay patay na. Nagpakasal siya sa ikalawang asawa na foreigner at nagkaroon sila ng isang anak, possible po bang malagay sa kanyang apelyido ng kanyang ikalawang asawa ang bata, paano po ba mapapawalang


bisa ang unang kasal ngayong patay na ito o kung buhay man hindi na s’ya mahanap.

Adm. Ericta: Kung seven years na walang communication ang pwedeng gawin ay pumunta sa Korte at humingi ng declaration of presumption of death. Kapag wala yoon at nagpakasal uli s’ya, iyong pangalawang kasal n’ya ay bigamous dahil wala pang declaration of presumption of death so kung mayroon na iyon at nagpakasal s’ya ulit maari nang gamitin nong anak n’ya yong apelyido ng pangalawang asawa n’ya.

Ngayon kung biglang lumitaw uli yong unang asawa, magkaroon ng declaration of appearance at iyong pangalawang kasal ay mawawalang bisa. So, hindi s’ya dapat nagpakasal agad sa pangalawa hangga’t hindi siya nakakuha ng declaration of presumption of death.

Question #19: Why is it that our Marriage Law does not give equal treatment to Muslims and Christians? I thought Philippine laws apply to all citizens of the Philippines. Why Muslims are allowed to have four wives and are allowed to obtain a divorce, while Christians are not?

MCR Soriano: Magkaka-iba tayo ng culture and traditions, in fact, in fairness to the Muslims dapat ‘yon laws nila adopted to their customs and traditions kaya magka-iba at saka we respect their customs and tradition and their laws. Itong why are they allowed four wives and divorced while Christians are not. Well, ‘yon iyong naka-ugalian nila, ‘yon ang sabi ng batas na basehan ng kanilang kultura at ‘yong mga marriage laws nila so we cannot do anything about it.

Question #20: I am Judge Odilin Abutin of municipal trial court of Catbalogan, Samar. Last July 28, there was an American national who presented himself for the purpose of getting married to a Filipina woman in our municipality. It so


436

happened that he presented only an affi davit in lieu of the capacity to contract marriage. It took a little time for me personally to convince our local registrar that it may already suffi ce because the problem with that affi davit is that, it is not only affi davit but there was a footnote below which serves as a sort of a disclaimer saying that, “With respect to the correctness or accuracy of the said form the US Embassy does not claim any responsibility worse there is a part in that affi davit which says this does not serves US government certifi cation that the affi ant, the American in that case has no impediment to get married.”

This serves as a problem because, about a month ago, a judge refuse to solemnize mar-riage because he looked into the attachment of that and was presented for purposes of issuing the marriage license and he discovered that this was the very same form — the affi davit in lieu of the certifi cate to contract marriage.

Because correct me if I am wrong but to my best recollection the US Embassy issues not an affi davit but it’s a categorical certifi cate of capacity to contract marriage. We know, of course, for probative value purposes that of course an affi davit is self survey. We want a more categorical statement from the US Embassy and second as I’ve said, with this related question, will be addressed to anyone in the panel?

Ms. Soriano: Yes, in my experience as civil registrar and also probably to other registrars that is suffi cient. As the substitute for legal capacity, because aside from that there is an application for marriage license and member, it is a sworn statement. Sworn statement nga, ‘pag sinabi diyan na divorced siya or single siya doon, secured. It doesn’t impose much problem kasi he will suffer the consequences of his declaration or wrong fi ll-out. So, sa


experience namin, wala naman problema. Actually, it’s my fi rst time to hear that pino-prublema ng isang judge ‘yang affi davit of legal capacity because that’s a requirement for the issuance of the marriage license and not as a requirement for the solemnization of the marriage.

Atty. Morales: Napansin ko po kaninang umaga doon sa statistics na ipinakita sa amin, na malaki ang porsiento ng maaga nagpapakasal ay pinipili pa rin ‘yong religious ceremony regardless of confession. Kung ano nga, Christian o kung ano pa mang pananampalaya at ngayon po dito, napapansin ko rin na mas marami ang mga solemnizing offi cers na galing din sa mga religious confessions.

Noong ako po ay nasa Italy at kahit po dito napapansin ko rin na marami sa mga nagpapakasal na karamihan ay galing nga sa mga may religious confessions, sila na may mga contracting parties na nagpapakasal sa civil, napapansin ko at nagtanong ako sa ating Embassy sa Italy na bakit ganoon na marami ang magpakasal sa civil muna tapos sa churches nila, na ang sagot nila paniwala nila na mas matibay ‘yong kasal sa civil na hindi nila alam na ‘yong mga solemnizing offi cers. Kung sila ay i-register as valid as, doon sa civil, ngayon po ang akin pong doubts ay kung meron bang certain vigilance ‘yong mga nasa opisina ng civil registrar o kung sino pa ang solemnizing offi cers doon sa civil registrar na paalalahan sila na yong pagpapakasal po sa simbahan nila ay kasing tibay nong sa simbahan.

Kasi po pastor nagiging problema naming itong sa Italy na ‘yong mga kapwa natin Pilipino na nagpapakasal sa Embassy ang susunod po n’yang pupuntahan Chinese restaurant at pagkatapos, pagkaraan na nang ilang linggo o buwan papakasal uli sa


438

simbahan din, another handaan na naman at ang problema pa yong tungkol sa pirmahan, na parang sa amin. Halimbawa po sa Catholic hindi lumalabas na parang convalidation lamang ang nangyayari sa harap naming samahan, supposed to be na kung sa simbahan kaagad kinasal? Wala namang problema dahil ipini-forward naman po ng church doon sa registrar’s offi ce.

Ms. Hufana: Ganito po kasi ‘yan. Kapag napansin ninyo na maraming religious marriages as against ‘yong civil marriages, hindi naman po ibig sabihin na para kasing ang sinabi nila na ‘di ba, nauuna ang civil marriages tapos nagkakaroon ng religious marriage. Yet iyong statistics natin marami pa rin ang religious marriages, siguro gusto lang naming i-clarify na yong una pong kasal. Iyon ang nare-rehistro, so ang nakikita po natin in the statistics is that there are many religious marriages than civil marriages. Totoo po yon na talagang maraming religious marriages na nangyayari that is why ‘yung unang kasal, ibig sabihin ‘di po ba, so ganoon po ang gusto po nating emphasize here na kahit dalawang beses nagpakasal iyong couple, the fi rst marriage is always the valid one.

Question #21: In relation to the procedure being complained of by many marriages applicants, which in a way adversely affects the smooth fl ow of civil registrar’s transaction. This is in connection to pre-marriages counseling committee, which includes the DSWD offi cer regarding the scheduling in conducting in pre-marriage counseling.

In our municipality, it is done. Once a week but they are proposing to have it at least twice a week, instead of the once-a-week schedule. Many of our clients complain because that prolongs the processing of the marriage license issuance. This pre-marriage


counseling (PMC) certifi cate is on of the requirements before we can start ten-day posting because of the scheduling. There are cases that even when the clients want to comply, they are not entertained by the PMC committee because of sudden call for other offi cial business.

Ang nalalaman ko there are some LCRs that facilitate help to our clients, napag-alaman ko sa ibang kliyente namin na merong mga LCR na they just start the counting even without the release of the PMC certifi cate yet. Is it valid or justifi able to have this scheduling?

Mrs. Hufana: As far as the PMC is concerned, we cannot answer for them so siguro kayo ang dapat makipag-usap sa kanila para maintindihan nila ang problema.

Ms. Soriano: You know it’s not only the requirements for marriage license, is not only the counseling certifi cates. You should remember that. You will only post the notice after the last or all requirements are already completed. Kahit nandiyan na iyong counseling certifi cate, wala pa iyong advice or consent maybe, you don’t post it. Hintayin muna makompleto ang requirements and post, then comply with the publication.

And remember there is a memo from NSO, kasi sabi mo naaabala iyong clients. Hindi ba ni-remind tayo that there is difference between receipt and acceptance. We can receive the application walang durate, naka-fi ll-up na sila, kasi kulang pa iyong requirements. It just means the physical presentation of the application to you. But at a time when all requirements are already completed ‘yon na ‘yong date of acceptance ng civil registrar, so ‘yon na ‘yong napirmahan mo na yong durate ng PML.


440

Question #22: Through NSO-OCRG, how can we be help to our clients lalo na doon sa munisipyo namin na malayo, talagang far distant place, ang mga ibang applicant for marriage hindi taga-roon, ang napangasawa lang yong taga doon sa aming munisipyo? They just come home for the purpose of applying for marriage. How can NSO-OCRG help our client na magkaroon ng memorandum in relation that scheduling?

Mrs. Hufana: Siguro what the NSO can do is to coordinate and talk to DSWD people and explain to them yong necessity of the certifi cate of marriage counseling para maisyuhan ng marriage license.

Question #23: For the sake of uniformity of application, in cases of the 90-days suspension of the marriage license, when should we start the counting of the 120 days validity of the marriage license . Should it be after the 10 days posting or should it be after the 90-day suspension, ‘yong 120 days na validity po ng marriage license?

Ms. Soriano: For the information of everyone, that is also a subject of debate sa conference namin sa Civil Registrars’ Association of Pangasinan, this about when the advice is not favorable or when the advice is not secured. There is an affi davit sworn in by the applicants of marriage license.

Now, the laws say, we will suspend the license for 90 days immediately after posting, so the 10 days posting period, on an 11th day bibilang ka nang 90 days noon na suspension. Ang pinag dedebatihan ngayon, kung after suspending the license the issuance, the provisions of the laws say, you suspend the issuance of the license and not the license, so after 90 days issuance, ang pinag dedebatihan ngayon, kung ang validity pa rin ba noong license is still 120 days or may remaining


na lang 30 days validity. Pero divided kami doon.

Question #24: This is not a question but a mere a suggestion later, this is very simple and addressed to Mr. Simmons of the US Embassy. As solemnizing offi cer, I come across several foreigners including US citizens coming to the Philippines to contract marriages with our beautiful women.

When we did the other contracting party arrive in the Philippines. Then I asked the woman three days. The day before yesterday, I told her where are you staying? For the meantime ang sabi niya sa bahay po. Ngayon sabi ko sa kanya, kelan s’ya aalis? Sabi nya limang araw lang dito sa Pilipinas. Sabi ko sa babae, tapos ka na? bakit, e kasi hindi pwede dahil 10 o 15 days bago makuha ang lisensya kahit hindi ka makasal ka ko. Now for this reason, I suggest that any foreigner or US citizen coming to the Philippines. For visitors’ visa will be given ten days period to protect the integrity of our women, that’s all.

Atty. Morales: Salamat sa katanungan n’yo. The question you referring to is only staying here for fi ve days kasi pwede naman po silang pumasok dito na ang visa upon arrival for more than 21 days. Baka nagpapalusot lang ho ‘yon kaya limang araw ang palaging sinasabi.

Question #25: First, how many couples marry in one place in the same time, this refers to a mass wedding?

Adm. Ericta: We don’t have no limit as long as the requisites of marriage are allowed.

Question #26: How many and what are the major causes for revocation of solemnizing offi cer’s license?

Adm. Ericta: Yes, but we don’t have the numbers here. There in my offi ce, if you’re interested, we can provide it to you later on.


442

Question #27: Is Article 34 also valid among foreigners? What is the opinion of the NSO regarding this. Do we have the administrative order to this effect?

Dir. Hufana: The answer is yes, there is already a DOJ opinion on this, that even foreigners may avail of marriages under Article 34 as long as they can prove that they have stayed here in the Philippines for that long — fi ve years or more.

OPEN FORUM AFTER DIR. HUFANA’S PRESENTATION

We have 30 minutes for the Open Forum. Please Observe the rules strictly so that everyone will have an opportunity to ask.

Question #1: Can an LC solemnize marriage abroad, if he is traveling on offi cial time and that both contracting parties come from his area of jurisdiction or from his municipality? (Addressed to Atty Concepcion:)

Atty. Concepcion: Question was skipped.

Question #2: To avoid confl icting views and thus, have a standardized and uniform application of the law, the place of registration must be the place of occurrence of vital events, what is really the proper place of registration of this case for late registration of marriage, where it occurred in a place which was formerly a barrio of a municipality but presently separated as another municipality? Will that be represented as still within the jurisdiction of the municipality fi rst mentioned or with the municipality where the actual vital event took place?

Dir. Hufana: Ganito po ‘yan, kasi identifi ed natin ‘yung barangay where the marriage happened, ‘di ba? Even if ‘yung municipality na ‘yun ay nag-split into two municipalities, saan napunta na barangay where the marriage


happened? Halimbawa, si Barangay A dati nasa Municipality X, tapos na divide ang Municipality X into Municipality X1 and Municipality X2. Saan napunta ngayong sa Barangay A. Kung si A naiwan kay Municipality X1, the registration has to be done sa Municipality X1.

Question #3: Ang question ko happened in our community. Kasi po sa ARMM, kasal ng kasal pero walang rehistro. Ano ang gagawin namin bilang C/MCR para lahat ng tao doon ay makaka-rehistro?

Dir Hufana: Maganda po ang kanilang katanungan at maganda po ang kanilang intention, gusto po nilang marehistro ang lahat ng kasal. So ang sinasabi po natin, kung hindi pa po nare-re-histro, we allow late registration. Paano na-tin mapapalate registration ang ating mga kababayan sa ARMM? ‘Yung mga civil regis-trars po natin, they do conduct mobile regis-tration. They do not require the C/MCR. Sila na po ‘yung pumupunta doon sa mga baran-gay para ma-rehistro ang mga kasal. So that’s one. Another one is nakikipagtulungan na po tayo with the barangay secretaries, with the barangay chairman to record occurrences of marriages in there are of jurisdiction. And also, ang civil registrar kasama po ang local government offi cials ay sama-samang nagsa-sagawa ng info dissemination or educational campaigns para maisa-hatid ang kahalaga-han ng rehistro.

Question #4: Isa pang katanungan, we are in the ARMM, usually the Muslim brothers and sisters in ARMM, practice polygamy. Ang lalaking Muslim pwedeng mag-asawa ng four at a time. Ang tanong ko po, sa apat na asawa, who is authorized to get the marriage contract.

Dir. Hufana: Ang Muslim men ay allowed to have four wives. Ang lahat po ‘yun ay may kanya-kan-


444

yang marriage certifi cates so kunwari ang isang Muslim na lalaki, ‘yun una niyang asawang babae may isang marriage contract. “Yung pangalawa asawang babae may sarili ‘ding marriage contract. Iyung lalaki may apat na marriage contract pero ‘yung babae ay isa lang. So ganoon po. (Tatayo po si RD Pilimpinas upang sagutin ang inyong iba pang katanungan.)

Suggestion #1: This is about the issuance of the renewal of marriage license. It seems that everything is centralized in Manila. We have a resolution for the OCRG requesting to decentralize issuance of the renewal of marriage license.

Dir. Hufana: I have mentioned in my lecture that we already have decentralized the processing of the applications for renewal, which took effect last January 2002. However, ang pinayagan lang po natin na magprocess at magapprove ay ang mga NSO Regional Directors. So the applications will still be accepted sa mga provincial offi ces for forwarding to the Regional Offi ces for processing and approval. We would like to inform you also that we have developed a system, ‘yung pong tinatawag natin na Solemnizing Offi cers Information System o SOIS na napakadali ang pagpro-process ng applications.

Question #5: The next question is actually a request to the OCRG before the issuance of renewal of marriage license. There should be a requirement to attached, at least, copies of two certifi cates of attendance in NSO seminars in a year.

Dir. Hufana: We will take note of your suggestion.

Question #6: This is a question on registration. A couple whose marriage was celebrated outside of their municipality where the license was issued. Is it proper for a local civil registrar to refuse registration?


Dir. Hufana: Okay, ganito po ‘yan. ‘Yun pong pagpa-fi le ng marriage license is done sa civil registry offi ce where one of the contracting parties resides. Halimbawa, ‘yung babae nakatira sa Caloocan at ‘yung lalake nakatira sa Quezon City so pwede silang mag-apply for a license either sa Caloocan o sa Quezon City, pero the license will be valid anywhere in the Philippines. The marriage license will be valid for 120 days. So wala po akong nakikitang rason for the local civil registrar to refuse registration of marriage where the license was taken in another municipality to the municipality where the marriage was performed. Ngayon po alam ninyo na hindi na dapat i-refuse.

Question #7: How can a solemnizing offi cer determine if a marriage license is valid?

Dir. Hufana: Maganda po ‘yung tanong nila. You can verify from civil registrar where the marriage license was prepared.

Question #8: But the contracting parties just went to the offi ce of the solemnizing offi cer, bringing the documents. Almost always, the marriage licenses were issued in other towns.

In case where the marriage license will not be valid, you will not incur any liability. Kung sakali pong fake ‘yung marriage license pero kayo po ‘yung nagkasal. Wala po kayong kinalaman. You can verify from the civil registrar whether they issued the license through the license number. Halimbawa po, ‘yung civil registrar ng Tagaytay City, so you can ask Wilma kung talaga pong inisyu niya itong marriage license na ito to this person.

Question #9: Does NSO have a list of civil registrars in different municipalities? And does the offi ce issue this list?

Dir. Hufana: Meron po, Sir. But what we have on fi le are just the signatures appearing in the marriage


446

license. It is only the civil registrar who can validate the license.

Question #10: But how in the case where the marriage license was issued by the subordinate of the local civil registrar? And it turned out that it was not a valid marriage license. That is why the solemnizing offi cer refused to solemnize the marriage because the license was not valid? Is it also proper that the subordinate issues the marriage license for the local civil registrar?

Dir. Hufana: So you could ask for a copy of the marriage license or a copy of the application of the marriage license, just so you will be able to know whether the marriage license attached in the marriage certifi cate is valid or not.

Question #11: This is a question on delayed registration of a vital event that took place outside the Philippines. The document or the certifi cate of marriage has already been destroyed, however, the vital event took place in Nigeria, they were not able to register the event with the nearest Philippine Consulate. However, the passport of the woman was amended. But they don’t have a copy of the marriage license anymore. Now they need a copy of the marriage license. What are other documents can they present to the Department of Foreign Affairs for purposes of delayed registration of the vital event that took place?

Dir. Hufana: Actually, I’d like to inform you that we will have a representative from DFA tomorrow. Pero pwede ko na ring sagutin. According to DFA what they need really is the original copy or a certifi ed true copy which they will use as basis na talagang may kasalang nangyari doon sa lugar na ‘yon. Without the original document, there will really be no basis kung saan ‘yang sinasabi mo.


Question #12: Nabanggit ni Atty. Danny po kanina na ang Katoliko po ay hindi pwedeng kasalin ng isang Kristiyano.

Dir. Hufana: Yes, Sir, kasi po pwede lamang magkasal ‘yung pari kung isa sa ikakasal ay miyembro ng kanyang simbahan. Kunwari ‘yung dalawang ikakasal, ‘yung isa Katoliko, ‘yung isa Christian, tapos ‘yung kasal will happen doon sa simbahan ng Christian. Kasi po kung ganoon ang kaso, Sir, pwede po.

Question #13: In a marriage under articulo mortis, is there a need to register the marriage contract consi-dering that only one of the parties was able to sign the contract.

Dir. Hufana: So ang ibig sabihin ba noon, pagkatapos ng kasal, namatay na kaagad ‘yung isang party or ‘yung dying party could not sign the certifi cate. Thumb mark na lang ‘yung ipalalagay natin doon sa dying party, tutal may mga witnesses naman na magpapatunay na bago matapos ang kasal buhay pa ang dying party.

RD Manulon: Wala naming prublema doon kasi ang marriage under articulo mortis meron siyang affi davit o kahit na walang sign ‘yung namatay at ang nakapirma lang ‘yung isang party at witnesses.

Question #14: Where is the place of occurrence for a marriage under articulo mortis and aboard a ship solemnized by the ship captain that left Manila and passed the territorial waters of Cavite, passing Cebu and anchored in Zamboanga?

Dir. Hufana: Ang sabi naman natin kasi ‘di ba, if the place of marriage cannot be ascertained — in this case, saan ba nag-offi ciate. The place of marriage, therefore, becomes the name of the vessel and the place of registration is the destination. Usually naman po kasi, the destination is the place of residence.


448

Question #15: Ito ho ay paglilinaw doon sa requirements na kailangang may 200 bona fi de members of the religion (the mother church) and not the local church. Kasi po I’m with the United Methodist Church, which has existed for more than 100 years, ang ibig sabihin po ba ang local church dapat ang may 200 members. Kapag po bawat local church, eh di pong solemnizing offi cer diyan and that will require a lot of pastors to be checked.

Dir. Hufana: Kasi ganito po ‘yan, ito ho sinasabi natin na may mother church at ang mga branches, ‘yung local church. It has to be the local church that’s why we consider the local church as separate organization. Kasi na rin po kasi kaming observation in our data fi le na dumadami ang local sect at nag-mumushroom, ey ayun pala konti lang ang kanilang miyembro.

Question #16: Isn’t enough that pag pinagsama-sama mo ‘yung congregation ay pwede ng i-validate ang existence of the local church. Ang question lang po kasi ay paano iba-validate na legitimate ang existence of the local church.

Dir. Hufana: Siguro po pag-aaralan namin. Pero as a rule, without 200 members, we will not consider that the organization is a separate church or religious sect. So hindi po namin na ia-allow na mag-recommend kayo ng solemnizing offi cer. Kasi kapag inallow naming nagiging doubtful ang existence ng isang church. Siguro we have to study and determine the right number of members to consider local sect a separate organization.

Question #17: I am asking this question so all of us present will have the same understanding and won’t have confl icting views that the place of registration is the place of occurrence, wherein the application of late registration for marriage happened in a place where it is a former barrio of a certain municipality, what


will be the present registration of a former barrio of a certain municipality but it is presently a barrio of a new municipality? One barrio was separated as a new municipality.

Dir. Hufana: Lagi tayong bumalik sa mother municipality, because what we are registering are the facts of marriage. Kunwari Barrio A was formerly a part of Municipality X. In 1970 when the marriage happened, Barrio A was formerly a part of Municipality X but now in 1990, Barrio X humihiwalay to form a new municipality. But remember that the marriage happened in 1970, and in 1970 that Barrio A was part of Municipality X, therefore the registration has to be made in the previous municipality, in Municipality X.

Question #18: Here comes a couple presenting an affi davit of cohabitation. What should the solemnizing offi cer do? Should the solemnizing offi cer celebrate the marriage without question on the basis of this affi davit shown?

Dir. Hufana: ‘Di ba po sa ating form, may nakalagay doon that the solemnizing offi cer has to certain that there is no impediment at the time of cohabitation and they really have lived together as husband and wife for the past fi ve years. ‘Yung affi davit na ‘yon will serve the purpose of marriage license.

Question #19: What measures do we have so we could ascertain that the couple is telling the truth that they have cohabited for fi ve years?

Dir. Hufana: One, you can ask for the birth certifi cate of the children (if there are any). Na talagang makikita mo na sinasabi nila na 1990 nagsama na sila, tapos magpapakasal sila ng 1995 o kaya 1996. Look for the birth certifi cate of the children (if any), para mapatunayan na nagsama sila.

Question #20: Suppose they have no children?


450

Dir. Hufana: Doon po sa marriage form also meron po doon portion na oath of solemnizing offi cer, ‘di ba? Kaya po nakalagay po doon na they have ascertained that they have lived together as husband and wife. You can ask for witnesses. You can ask for a certifi cation from the barangay chairman. Ito po ang pwede ninyong gamitin.

Question #21: Meron pong live-in partner ang babaeng ka-torse anyos, ‘yung lalaki mga 27 years old na nung nagsama sila. Ngayon po after eight years gusto na nilang magpakasal pero ‘yung kanilang mga anak ni-rehistro na nila sa pan-galan ng lalaki, although he is an illegitimate son. Will the marriage of the couple legitimate the son?

Dir. Hufana: Sir, ang sinasabi ninyo ‘yung tinatawag nating legitimation. Kunwari po merong mag-asawa na nagkaroon po ng mga anak but they were not yet married at the time po na nagkaroon sila ng anak and when the children were registered. Kasi po, Sir, ganito po ‘yan lahat na pinanganak na illegitimate after the 1988 Family Code, they cannot follow the surname of the father. Pero ang mga illegitimate na anak na pinanganak before the 1988 Family Code can adopt the surname of the father. So kaya po tinatanong natin kung kailan po pinanganak ang illegitimate children. Kung 1990 po sila nagkaroon na lang po ng correction in the birth certifi cate, kasi after na makasal ang kanilang mga magulang at wala pong impediment sa pagpapakasal ng kanilang magulang, pwede pong mangyari ang legitimation in which case, madadala ng mga bata ang apelyido ng kanilang tatay. Pero prior to legitimation, kailangan pong maitama ang kanilang birth certifi cate.

Question #22: Whenever a contracting party would apply for marriage, we would require them baptismal confi rmation and marriage license in cases


of late registration. But noong bata pa hindi bininyagan at noong mag-aasawa na saka magpapabinyag at magpaparehistro. In my case, in our municipality, a civil registrar will refuse a late registration because kulang ang baptismal certifi cate. May rule nga ba na nire-require ang party na magkaroon muna ng baptismal bago i-rehistro kahit late. Kasi hindi lahat ang nasa amin ay katoliko, meron ho galing ibang sekta, which we cannot issue a baptismal or any certifi cate.

Dir. Hufana: Sir, sa late registration po of birth, actually, kailangan po natin ang accomplishment of form and certifi cate of live birth and affi davit at the back of the form, or it could be on a separate sheet and supporting documents — one of them is the birth certifi cate — to prove that what are written in the birth form are correct. Pwede hong hingin ang baptismal at pwede rin hong hingiin ang other documents. Kung nagtratrabaho na, pwede rin naming certifi cate of employment.

Question #23: The date of authority of my solemnization license is September 1, 2004. Why was I given that expiration date when the supposed expiration should be on December 31, 2004?

Dir. Hufana: Ang lahat ng binibigay naming authority to solemnize marriage ay December 31. Pwede pong pakibalik na lang sa amin para mai-tama namin. (Session chair: Please approach Mrs. Hufana whoever wrote the intervention sheet.)

Question #24: The other one is, if the authority grants, to City Civil Registrars under Opinion 26, Series of 2001, DOJ, extends the administration of oath in the application of solemnizing offi cers for CRASM. Is the authority granted to MCR and CCR?

Dir. Hufana: Kasi po ‘yung pag a-administer ng civil registrars ng oath is only for registration


452

purposes of vital events. Sorry, it does not cover the oath of solemnizing offi cers.

Question #25: I was just recently appointed judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas. During the lecture, there was a presentation on the recognition of solemnizing offi cers. Now when I got appointed in December, the fi rst thing that I did was to solemnize my brother’s marriage, fortunately or unfortunately. Apparently, you are just recognizing solemnizing offi cers of churches and sects. Although in the operation of law as a judge, I become a solemnizing offi cer. My question is… is the NSO not interested in determining in the listing of solemnizing offi cers on the side of judges, insofar as the database is concerned.

Dir. Hufana: Kasi nga po ang sabi ni Atty. Danny Concepcion na ‘yung pong mga civil solemnizing offi cers tapos religious solemnizing offi cers. Ang nire-rehistro ng NSO ‘yung pong mga authority ng religious solemnizing offi cers. Kasi po, per law, kayo po ay authorized na. But we do have a register of civil marriages. It is not that NSO is interested (in maintaining a database of nonreligious solemnizing offi cers), it is because we are not authorized.

Question #26: This is a question of law. A solemnizing offi cer can only solemnize marriage sa sekta po ninyo. Otherwise, it will be a violation.

RD Manulon: We can note down your concern and this will be added to the summary of all issues and questions that we were unable to answer.

APPLICATION FOR A PHILIPPINE MARRIAGE LICENSE

Marriage License: a requirement for either a Civil or Church wedding to be held in the Philippines. The Application Form for a marriage license must be secured at the Local Civil Registrar from the city, town or municipality where either the bride or the groom


habitually resides. The personal appearance of those getting married is required in applying for a marriage license.

Each of the contracting parties shall fi le separately a sworn application for each license with the proper local civil registrar. Philippine law prescribes a ten-day waiting period from the fi ling of the Application to the issuance of the marriage license. The license is valid for 120 days from date of issuance and may be used anywhere in the Philippines.

At the time the contracting parties appear to fi le their application for a Marriage License to the local civil registrar, he or she must also submit the following supporting documents:

1. Birth Certifi cate — Certifi ed True Copy required of each the contracting parties with the respective registry number. This document is issued by the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO).

NOTE: NSO now provides a web service which accepts online application for copies of birth and marriage certifi cates. It is called the e-Census, a web facility aimed to provide Filipinos within and outside the country an alternative means in applying for copies of their civil registry documents. It also has a 24-7 hotline called the NSO Helpline Plus with telephone no. (632)737.1111. You could also reach them via email through: e-census,[email protected]

2. Parents’ Consent (for 18-21 years old) or Parent’s Advice (for 21-25 years old): Under Philippine law, the legal age for marriage is 18. If the contracting parties are between the ages of 18 and 21, they must present written consent to the marriage from their father, mother or legal guardian. While any contracting party between the age of 22 and 25 must present written parental advice, i.e., a written indication that the parents are aware of the couple’s intent to marry. Read Parental Consent vs. Parental Advice for a detailed discussion on the difference between the two terms.

3. Certifi cate of Attendance in a pre-marital counseling and family planning seminar conducted by the Division of Maternal and Child Health at the Municipal/City Hall in the same municipality or city where the contracting parties applied for the marriage license.

FOR FOREIGNERS: Philippine law requires a citizen or subject of a foreign country to obtain a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage. It is issued by the diplomatic or consular offi ces of his or her country, prior to the issuance of a marriage license in the Philippines. This serves as a clearance or permit from the consul


454

as an actual proof of the subject’s civil status and his/her eligibility for marriage.

http://www.weddingsatwork.com/laws cenomar.html

FOREIGNERS AND MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

NOTE: Please refer to the Family Code of the Philippines for references to any of its article as mentioned in some items below.

There has been a lot of questions posed by foreigners on the proper procedure in marrying a citizen of the Philippines. As a result, we have gathered relevant information to guide those who wish to tie the knot in our country.

First of all, foreigners who wish to marry in the Philippines are required to obtain a certifi cate of legal capacity to marry issued by diplomatic or consular representatives of their country. This is in accordance with the fi rst paragraph of Article 21 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states:

“When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certifi cate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular offi cials.’’

For example, a citizen of the United States wishing to marry in the Philippines, must appear personally before a consular offi cer, at the U.S. Embassy in Manila and procure a certifi cate of legal capacity to marry. Once the certifi cate has been received, the application for a marriage license can be made at the offi ce of the local Philippine Civil Registrar of the town or city where the Filipino fi ancée is a resident. The foreigner will need to present the certifi cate, passport, and documentation regarding parental consent or advice if applicable. There is also a need to present a divorce decree if the foreigner has been previously married and a death certifi cate if a widow or widower.

For the Filipino applicant the following shall be needed for purposes of the marriage license application:

1. Birth Certifi cate of Baptismal Certifi cate. If widow or widower Death Certifi cate of late spouse (certifi ed true copy).

2. Community Tax Certifi cate


3. ID picture of both applicants

4. Certifi cate of Family Planning and Marriage Counseling (the couple are required to attend a Counseling Seminar before the certifi cate is issued).

Marriage applicants who are aged 18 to 21 must have parental consent in writing, those aged 21 to 25 must have written parental advice (a written indication that the parents are aware of the couple’s intent to marry). There is a ten-day waiting period before the marriage license is issued by the registrar’s offi ce. This period is prescribed by law to inform the public about the pending license application and to give the local civil registrar an opportunity to entertain any objections to the upcoming marriage.

The marriage license, once issued, is valid in any part of the Philippines for 120 days. If it has not been used during this 120-day period it will then automatically expire.

The marriage ceremony must be solemnized by an individual with the legal authority to perform such a ceremony. Among these are a priest, imam, or any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction (See Article 7 of the Family Code of the Philippines). Upon the completion of the ceremony all participants (the presiding offi cial, the witnesses, and the husband and wife) must sign the marriage certifi cate.

Following the signing of the marriage certifi cate by all parties involved, the marriage certifi cate must be sent to the city hall or the municipality in which the Philippine national habitually resides. It will then be registered by the local civil register. You can get certifi ed true copies of the marriage contract from the local civil registrar or the National Statistics Offi ce.

HOW TO GET MARRIED IN THE PHILIPPINES IF YOU ARE A U.S. CITIZEN

The U.S. Embassy in Manila, Philippines, states that the requirements for getting married in the Philippines, if you are a U.S. Citizen, are as follows:

Affi davit of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage

Philippine law requires a citizen or subject of a foreign country to obtain a Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage, issued


456

by the diplomatic or consular offi ces of his or her country, prior to the issuance of a marriage license in the Philippines.

As American consular offi cers are specially prohibited from certifying that any U.S. citizen has the capacity to marry, the Philippine government has agreed to accept as substantial compliance with the Philippine law, an Affi davit in Lieu of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage (“affi davit”). The Affi davit attests to the absence of any legal impediment to the marriage and is sworn to before an American consular offi cer. Therefore, U.S. citizens wishing to marry in the Philippines must appear personally before a consular offi cer, either at the U.S. Embassy in Manila or the U.S. consulate in Cebu City and complete the Affi davit concerning their own capacity to marry. There is a $10.00 service fee, subject to change, for the notarial service.

At the time a U.S. citizen appears to execute the Affi davit, he or she must present the following:

1. Proof of Citizenship

Examples of suffi cient evidence of U.S. citizenship are:

a. current registration as U.S. citizen at the Passport and Citizenship Offi ce of the Embassy or at the Consulate

b. a U.S. passport

c. a birth certifi cate issued in the United States or a record of birth abroad issued by a U.S. Embassy or Consulate, together with identifi cation bearing a picture or a physical description or

d. a Certifi cate of Naturalization.

2. Evidence of Termination of Previous Marriage(s)

If the U.S. citizen has been previously married, evidence of termination of the previous marriage, such as a certifi ed copy of the fi nal decree of divorce or annulment, or a certifi ed copy of the death certifi cate of the deceased spouse must be submitted.

3. Parents’ Consent or Advice

Under Philippine law, the legal age for marriage is 18. If the contracting parties are between the ages


of 18 and 21, they must present written consent to the marriage from their father, mother or legal guardian. Any contracting party between the age of 22 and 25 must present written parental advice, i.e., a written indication that the parents are aware of the couple’s intent to marry.

4. Military Approval

An active member of the United States Armed Forces wishing to execute the Affi davit must present a letter of approval of the marriage from the appropriate military authority. Military personnel NOT assigned in the Philippines are also required to obtain their authorization from their respective commanding offi cer. Military members are encouraged to plan well in advance of the intended wedding date and to discuss the requirements with their own command personnel offi ce.

Marriage Procedure

The procedure to marry in the Philippines is as follows:

1. Secure the Affi davit in lieu of Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage from the American Service Branch of the U.S. Embassy in Manila or from the U.S. consulate in Cebu City. If both the bride and the groom are U.S. citizens, each one must obtain an Affi davit.

2. Apply for the marriage license at the Local Civil Registrar from the municipality where either the bride or the groom habitually resides. The documents necessary for the marriage license are:

a. the Affi davit for the U.S. citizen bride or groom

b. the death certifi cate or divorce decree which shows the termination of any previous marriage(s) of the bride and/or the groom

c. the birth, baptismal or residency certifi cate for the Filipino bride or groom, and

d. the parental consent or advice, if either party is under age

e. Philippine law prescribes a ten-day waiting period from the fi ling of the Application to the issuance of


458

the marriage license. The license is valid for 120 days and maybe used anywhere in the Philippines.

f. Present the license to a person authorized to perform marriage ceremonies, such as judge, justice of the peace, priest or minister of religion.

3. Passport Amendment — a female U.S. citizen may have her passport amended to indicate her married name. She should bring her passport and a certifi ed true copy of the Marriage contract to the Passport 7 Citizenship Offi ce of the U.S. Embassy in Manila or the U.S. Consulate in Cebu City. This amendment is not obligatory and there is no fee for this service.

Entry of Alien Spouse into the United States

Marriage of a foreign national to a U.S. citizen does not automatically confer United States citizenship upon the alien spouse. He or she must be petitioned by the U.S. citizen spouse as an immigrant to the United States. An alien spouse is almost never eligible for a non-immigrant visitor visa to the United States. In almost all cases, the existence of the marital relationship between the U.S. citizen and the alien makes the alien spouse an intending immigrant to the United States and, by defi nition, ineligible for a temporary visa.

The procedure to obtain an immigrant visa for an alien spouse is as follows:

1. File the Immigrant Visa Petition: The Petition Form I-130 for an immigrant visa for an alien spouse should be fi led at the INS offi ce nearest the Petitioner’s place of residence. Only a U.S. citizen who is also a resident of the Philippines may fi le the petition at the INS offi ce at Room 1036 of the U.S. Embassy in Manila. All others MUST fi le the petition at the INS offi ce in the United States closest to his or her residence.

When fi ling the petition, the following documents must be submitted:

a. a certifi ed copy of the marriage certifi cate

b. proof of U.S. citizenship


c. a certifi ed copy of evidence of termination of any prior marriage(s) for either spouse, if applicable, and

d. $75.00 or its equivalent in pesos, to cover the statutory fee for fi ling the petition.

2. Obtain the Immigrant Visa: When the approved peti-tion is received by the Immigrant Visa Branch of the Con-sulate Section of the U.S. Embassy in Manila, it will no-tify the foreign spouse and provide guidance concerning the subsequent steps to be completed in order to obtain a visa. The applicant must obtain a passport, birth cer-tifi cate, marriage certifi cate, police certifi cate, affi davit of support, photographs, and medical examination accord-ing to specifi cations provided in the instructions. The visa is good for four months from the date of issuance.

It can take anywhere from two to four months from the date the petition is approved by INS to the date of the issuance of the immigrant visa. If a fi eld investigation is required, the time period may be even longer. Therefore, a U.S. citizen should not plan to take the alien spouse back to the United States immediately following the marriage. The non-resident US citizen spouse should be prepared to leave the alien spouse behind to complete the required documentation.

Because of the time involved in processing the peti-tion and the application for an immigrant visa, those in-dividuals living in the Philippines on assignment, either government or private, are advised to initiate the required documentation for their spouse’s and/or step-children’s visa as far in advance of the anticipated rotation date as possible.

Note: A separate visa petition must be fi led by the U.S. citizen spouse for each child of the alien spouse under the age of 18 at the time of the marriage who wishes to immigrate to the United States. Those children 18 years of age and older at the time of the marriage must be petitioned by the alien spouse after he or she becomes legal permanent resident in the United States. Under U.S. immigration law, only step parent’s children under the age of 18 at the time of their natural parent’s marriage to a U.S. citizen are considered a “child” of the U.S. citizen for immigration purpose.


460

Fiancée Visa

It is possible to fi le a petition for an alien to enter the U.S. as the fi ancée of an American citizen. The procedure is similar to the procedure for fi ling a petition and obtaining an immigrant visa for an alien spouse although, fi ancée petitions must be fi led in the INS offi ce within the U.S. nearest to the petitioner’s residence. The petitioner will be asked to submit evidence of his or her U.S. citizenship and evidence that he or she has met the fi ancée in person within the last two (2) years. He or she may also be required to present evidence of the bona fi de of the relationship with the fi ancée.

When approved, the petition will be forwarded to the Immigrant Visa Branch of the U.S. Embassy in Manila. The Philippine fi ancée will subsequently be provided by the Embassy with instructions on how to proceed with his or her fi ancée visa application. Again, the time period from the date the petition is approved by INS to the date the visa is issued is approximately two to four months and can be longer if a fi eld investigation is required.

The fi ancée visa grants the fi ancée six months from the time of issuance to enter the U.S. Upon entry, the fi ancée has ninety days in which to marry the petitioner. Once the marriage has taken place, the alien spouse can apply to adjust status to that of legal permanent resident at the INS offi ce nearest to his or her place of residence.

Note: U.S. immigration law concerning the children of an alien fi ancée is not the same as that concerning the children of the alien spouse. The U.S. citizen fi ancée does NOT have to fi le a separate petition for each of the alien fi ancée’s unmarried children under 21 at the time the alien fi ancée enters the U.S. The U.S. citizen only needs to indicate the names and date of birth of the children in the appropriate block on the petition for alien fi ancée. The children will automatically be included in the petition. Unmarried children over the age 21 can be separately petitioned by the alien fi ancée after he or she has adjusted status in the U.S. to that of legal permanent resident.

Source: http://www.bookhaus.com/fi lipino/married.html

461

Appendix 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESNATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE


Administrative Order No. 1Series of 2007

Subject: IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE REGISTRATION OF THE AU-THORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE WITH THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF BISHOPS, HEADS/FOUNDERS OF RELIGIONS AND RELI-GIOUS SECTS, PRIESTS, IMAMS, RELIGIOUS MINISTERS, TRIBAL HEADS/LEADERS/CHIEF-TAINS, COMMUNITY ELDERS, AND OTHER DES-IGNATED AUTHORITIES.

Pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines which took effect on 3 August 1988, the following rules and regulations governing the registration of authority to solemnize marriage by bishops, heads/founders of religions and religious sects, priests, imams and other religious ministers with the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) are hereby promulgated for the information, guidance and compliance of all concerned. This Rule amends OCRG Administrative Order No.1, Series of 1988.

Pertinent provisions of marriage laws governing Muslim Filipinos and Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), under P.D. 1083 otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines and Republic Act 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts of the Philippines, respectively, are incorporated in these rules.

461


462

RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISION

The National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) through the Civil Registrar General (CRG) is the authority having technical control and supervision on the civil registration in the Philippines.

The Administrator of the NSO, concurrently the CRG, is vested with authority to issue rules and regulations in carrying out the provisions of Act 3753 (entitled: “An Act to Establish a Civil Register”) and other laws on civil registration including those on the registration of the authority to solemnize marriages.

Prior to the enactment of Civil Registry Law on February 27, 1931, the system of civil registration was purely a local government affair. Section 2 of said Act provides, among others that “The Director of the National Library shall be the Civil Registrar General and shall enforce the provisions of this Act. Thus, the system became centralized because all rules and regulations pertaining to civil registration emanates from the CRG”.

When Commonwealth Act No. 591 was enacted on August 19, 1940, the civil registration function of the National Library was transferred to the Bureau of the Census and Statistics (now NSO). Section 2 (f) of this law mandated the NSO to carry out and administer the provisions of Act 3753.

On August 3, 1988, with the enactment of the Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, the function of registering the authority of priests or ministers of any church and religious sect to solemnize marriage is vested upon the Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General [Art. 7 (2)].

RULE 2. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Unless otherwise given another meaning elsewhere in these rules, each of these terms shall mean and be understood in accordance with the following working concepts and defi nitions:

2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG)

The head of the NSO which is the national agency mandated to carry out and administer the provisions of Act No. 3753 and other laws on civil registration.

2.2 Solemnizing Offi cer (SO)

An offi cer vested with the authority to solemnize or offi ciate the marriage of a man and a woman in accordance with

463APPENDIX 5ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1

law or with the rites, practices, and ceremonies as prescribed or granted by their religion/religious sect or tribe or ethnic aggrupation.

These include:




d. Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military operation, likewise in cases of marriage in articulo mortis;



As provided in Article 18, Section 1, Chapter II Book Two of Presidential Decree 1083:

j. proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be wedded;

k. any person who is competent under Muslim Law upon authority of the proper wali; or

l. judge of the Shari’a District Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court or any person designated by the judge, should the proper wali refuse without justifi able reason, to authorize the solemnization.

As provided by OCRG Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004, otherwise known as “Rules


464

and Regulations Governing Registration of Acts and Events Concerning the Civil Status of Indigenous Peoples”, marriages between members of ethnic cul-tural communities or indigenous peoples may be sol-emnized by:

m. community elders;

n. tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-political structures certifi ed by National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); or

o. authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal communities who perform and solemnize marriage in accordance with the customs, traditions and practices of the community.

2.3 City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR)

The head of the department/offi ce in the Local Government Unit mandated by law to carry out civil registration functions.

2.4 NSO Regional Director (RD)

Head of the NSO Regional Offi ce (RO) who assists the CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the region of jurisdiction.

2.5 NSO Provincial Statistics Offi cer (PSO)

Head of the NSO Provincial Offi ce (PO) who assists the CRG in the implementation of civil registration in the province of jurisdiction.

2.6 Offi ce of the Muslim Affairs (OMA)

An offi ce created under the Offi ce of the President with a mandate to preserve and develop the culture, traditions, institutions and well-being of Muslim Filipinos, in conformity with the country’s laws and in consonance with national unity and development. (Executive Order No. 122-A)

2.7 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

An offi ce created under the Offi ce of the President, which is primarily responsible for the formulation and


implementation of policies, plans and programs to recog-nize, protect and promote the rights of Ethnic/Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples.

2.8 Marriage

A special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life (Article 1, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)

2.9 Essential Requisites of Marriage

Essential requisites refer to the substance of the marriage that affect its intrinsic validity.

The essential requisites of marriage are:

a. legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and

b. their consent freely given in the presence of the Solemnizing Offi cer. (Article 2, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)

2.10 Formal Requisites of Marriage

Formal requisites refer to the form of the marriage that affect its extrinsic validity.


a. the authority of the Solemnizing Offi cer;

b. a valid marriage license except in cases of marriage exempt from marriage license requirement;

c. a marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the Solemnizing Offi cer 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 (Article 3, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)

2.11 Marriage License

Is an offi cial document issued by the C/MCR that gives authority to be married to each other in accordance with law. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)


466

2.12 Certifi cate of Marriage

The prescribed form used for the declaration of facts and circumstances regarding the marriage of two persons for purposes of registration. (Manual on Civil Registration, 1983)

2.13 Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM)

A certifi cate issued to SO certifying the registration of his authority to solemnize marriage after complying with the requirements. This certifi cate indicates that the SO is authorized to solemnize marriages under his territorial jurisdiction within the period specifi ed.

The CRASM shall be valid for a period of three years and shall expire on the thirty-fi rst day of December of every third year, and shall be renewable within the last quarter of the expiration year. The effectivity date of the authority to solemnize marriage shall be indicated in the CRASM.

2.14 Register of Solemnizing Offi cers

The registry book which contains the information pertaining to the registration of SOs.

2.14 Territorial Jurisdiction

A well-defi ned but delimited area or place where a SO can validly offi ciate a marriage. The area or place may be the whole Philippines, or only part thereof, such as a region, province, congressional district, or a diocese.

2.15 Place of Solemnization of Marriage

Place where marriage is solemnized publicly such as in a church, chapel, temple, mosque, judge’s sala or chamber, mayor’s offi ce, offi ce of the Consul-General, consul or vice-consul, and not elsewhere unless with prior written request from the contracting parties and with prior written approval from the solemnizing offi cer, which fact must be declared in a public instrument. (Art. 8, EO 209 otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines)


For Muslim marriages, it may be solemnized in any mosque, at the Offi ce of the Shari’a judge, at the Offi ce of the District or Circuit Registrar, residence of the bride or her wali, or any other suitable place agreed upon by the parties. (Art. 19, Section 1, Chapter Two, Book Two of PD 1083).


2.16 Church/Chapel/Temple/Mosque

Any building, either of strong or light materials or combination of strong or light materials, which is permanent in character, and is opened during convenient hours of the day, and used actually and exclusively for holding religious gatherings, rites and services, including solemnization of marriage, and such building must be under the possession and control of the religion or religious sect of which the applicant is a member.

2.17 Religious Sect

A group of persons or organization professing a common faith and set of beliefs, and governed or guided by a common religious doctrine or creed.

2.18 Religion

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.

2.19 Religious Services

Gatherings periodically done in a fi xed place for the exercise of religious worship and manifestation of the member’s faith.

2.20 Religion/Religious Sect Deemed Operating in the Philippines

A religion or religious sect is deemed operating in the Philippines when a great number of Filipinos profess it, and this fact appears clearly in the latest census records of the Philippines. In the absence of census records, or in case of doubt, the founder or head of the religion or


468

religious sect shall declare in a public instrument the following facts:

a. Brief history of the religion or religious sect;

b. That said religion or religious sect is duly incorporated for the administration of its temporalities;

c. That the religion or religious sect has at least one church, temple or chapel which is used actually and exclusively for religious rites and worship in the Philippines, and if more than one, the places in the Philippines wherein these churches, temples or chapels are respectively situated, and the name of the priests, rabbis, imams or religious ministers assigned to each; and

d. That the religion or religious sect has a congregation of not less than two hundred bona fi de active members who must all be residents of the Philippines and who attend the religious gatherings and services which said religion or religious sect holds periodically in its own church, temple or chapel

2.21 Religion/Religious Sect in Good Repute

A religion or religious sect is in good repute when it holds religious services or gatherings periodically in a fi xed place devoted actually and exclusively for religious rites and worship, complies with the requirements of the marriage law and of these regulations, and that there is nothing in its teachings, principles and practices that is contrary to law, moral, good custom and public policy.

Unless and until otherwise shown, the religion or religious sect appearing in the latest census records of the Philippines, as being professed by a great number of Filipinos, shall be presumed to be in good repute.

When the religion or religious sect does not appear in the latest census records of the Philippines, or in case of doubt, the question of its being in good repute may be proven by means of a certifi cation of the Mayor having jurisdiction over the place where its church, temple or chapel is situated, affi rming the facts and circumstances referred to in the fi rst paragraph of this section.


RULE 3. DUTIES OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL

3.1. Keeps and maintains the national database of solemnizing offi cers;

3.2. Issues instructions to the RDs and PSOs with reference to the implementation of this Order;

3.3. Conducts a thorough investigation for all cases of violations related to this Order;

3.4. Enforces and monitors the implementation of the Rules and Regulations of this Order;

3.5. Consolidates the monthly reports/data fi les submitted by the RDs;

3.6. Enforces penalty provisions as prescribed by law;

3.7. Prescribes fees for registration of SOs.

RULE 4. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOL-EMNIZING OFFICER

4.1. Registers his authority to solemnize marriage at the NSO, if applicable;

4.2. Displays in a conspicuous place, inside his/her offi ce his/her CRASM;

4.3. Ensures that the requirements for the solemnization of marriage under the law are complied with;

4.4. Performs religious services except those SOs who solemnize marriage inherent to their functions, customs and traditions as provided by law;

4.5. Solemnizes marriages within the territorial jurisdiction;

4.6. Ensures the accuracy and completeness of entries in the Certifi cate of Marriage;

4.7. Submits the Certifi cate of Marriage to C/MCR for registration within the reglementary period;

4.8. Files, keeps and preserves Certifi cate of Marriage;

4.9. Complies with other requirements as may be prescribed by the CRG.


470

RULE 5. DUTIES OF THE NSO REGIONAL DIRECTOR

5.1. Accepts, reviews and evaluates applications for registration of authority to solemnize marriage from the PSOs;

5.2. Records data pertaining to SOs;

5.3. Signs and issues the Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM);

5.4. Investigates applications which cannot be acted upon by the PSOs when necessary;

5.5. Recommends to the CRG for resolution applications which cannot be acted upon by the RD;

5.6. Files, keeps and preserves records of SOs;

5.7. Submits reports/updated data fi les to CRG on the tenth day after the reference month;

5.8. Supervises and monitor the activities of all PSOs under his jurisdiction relative to the implementation of this Order;

5.9. Implements security measures to preserve the integrity of the CRASM;

5.10. Performs other functions related to the implementation of this Order.

RULE 6. DUTIES OF THE NSO PROVINCIAL STATISTICS OFFICER

6.1. Ensures the availability of application forms (OCRG-SO Form No.1);

6.2. Accepts duly accomplished application forms together with the supporting documents as enumerated under Sec. 7.4 of Rule 7;

6.3. Checks the completeness and correctness of entries;

6.4. Evaluates the application and supporting documents;

6.5. In case of doubt, conducts investigation with respect to the following:

a. Whether the applicant for registration is performing


other religious rites and services and not merely solemnizing marriage.

b. Whether or not the religious sect to which the applicant is a member, has a church, temple or chapel in the province where the religious rites and services are periodically conducted.

c. Whether or not the religion or religious sect to which the applicant is a member, has a congregation of at least 200 bona fi de active members.

6.6 Endorses application forms and all other required documents to the Offi ce of the Regional Director;

6.7 Submits reports of investigations conducted;

6.8 Accepts payments on prescribed fees and issues corresponding offi cial receipts;

6.9 Submits monthly fi nancial report to the Accounting Division;

6.10 Releases CRASM to the concerned SOs;

6.11 Performs other functions related to the implementation of this Order.

RULE 7. REGISTRATION PROCEDURES

7.1 Who Shall Apply

The following shall apply for the registration of authority to solemnize marriage:

a. Bishop

b. Founder of the religion/religious sect

c. Head of the religion/religious sect

d. Priest

e. Imam

f. Tribal Head/Chieftain

g. Other religious ministers/pastors

7.2 Where to Apply

All SOs enumerated under Rule 7.1 shall secure and fi le their application forms for registration from the NSO


472

Provincial Offi ce of the province where the church, temple or chapel is situated.

7.3 When to Apply

Applications for registration of authority to solemnize marriage maybe fi led anytime of the year. SOs whose registration shall expire on the 31st of December of any current year may submit their applications on or before the 31st December but not earlier than the 1st of October of that current year.

7.4 Requirements for Registration

The SOs whose religion or religious sect are deemed operating in the Philippines and in good repute are required to register their authority to solemnize marriage with the CRG under Article 3 of the Family Code shall comply with the following:



c. A machine copy of appointment as priest, head, founder, bishop, pastor and minister of the religion or religious sect;

d. Proper endorsement/designation/recommendation from the head of religion or religious sect to mention: the full name, nationality, complete address, location of the church, temple or mosque where the applicant regularly perform rites and indicate the extent of his territorial jurisdiction;

e. Proof of attendance in an orientation seminar conducted by NSO for SOs;


f. Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Live Birth;

g. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country;

h. Certifi ed True Copy of Certifi cate of Ordination issued by his/her respective church;

i. Payment of registration fee;

j. Certifi cate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations and by-laws, and updated General Information Sheet (G.I.S) certifi ed by the Head of the religion or religious sect.

For Heads/Bishops/Presidents/Founders, the following requirements are required in addition to Requirements 7.4.a to 7.4.i above:

a. Endorsement or recommendation from the Board of Trustees/Directors or Church Council.

b. In case there are no Board of Trustees/Directors, the head/bishop/president/founder of the religion/religious sect shall submit a sworn statement duly notarized.

c. Sworn statement containing brief history of the religion/religious sect and the list of 200 bona fi de active members stating therein their complete address and signed by the members.

d. A certifi ed Certifi cate of Registration, Articles of Incorporations and by-laws, and updated General Information Sheet (G.I.S.) issued by the Security Exchange Commission (SEC).

For Imams, the following requirements are required:


b. Three copies of colored ID pictures (2x2) with white background taken not more than a month ago from the date of application. Pictures should not be com-


474

puter generated to preserve its quality. In cases the person is using glasses, it should be removed to have a clear image of the person. The back of the ID pic-ture should contain the signature of the applicant;



e. I-Card issued by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID), in case the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country;

f. Certifi cation from the Offi ce of Muslim Affairs (OMA) that the applicant is authorized to solemnize marriage;

g. Payment of registration fee.

For Tribal Heads/Chieftains, the following requirements are required:





e. Certifi cation from the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) that the applicant is authorized to solemnize marriage;

f. Payment of registration fee.


7.5 Fees


For each registration and issuance of authority to solemnize marriage ............. Php 500.00

For each certifi ed transcript from the register of solemnizing offi cers ............. Php 100.00

For each duplicate or subsequent copy of the certifi cate of authority to solemnize marriage .................................. Php 100.00

For each certifi cation issued pertaining to solemnizing offi cers ................. Php 100.00


RULE 8. GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF CRASM

The CRG through the RDs shall cancel the CRASMs issued to SOs based on the following grounds:

8.1 When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize marriage is made by bishop or head of the religion or religious sect of which the SO is a member;

8.2 When the request for cancellation of authority to solemnize marriage is made by the SO himself;

8.3 When before the expiry date of his authorization, the SO ceases to be a member of the religion or religious sect which he represented at the time of registration;

8.4 When the SO has been convicted by fi nal judgment of any crime;

8.5 When the SO retires from his function as a priest or religious minister, or dies, or becomes permanently incapacitated to discharge the function of his offi ce;

8.6 When the SO willfully violates the provisions of the existing laws as when he offi ciates marriage where no one


476

of the contracting parties is a member of his religion or religious sect;

8.7 When the SO offi ciates marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction;

8.8 When the SO fails or refuses to exhibit his authority to solemnize marriage when it is demanded from him by the contracting parties, their parents or guardian;

8.9 When the SO offi ciates marriage where the contracting parties do not have a valid marriage license when such license is required and such fact is known to him;

8.10 When the SO offi ciates marriage with expired marriage license;

8.11 When the SO fails or refuses to indicate on the marriage certifi cate his registry number and the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage;

8.12 In case of foreigner, when his visa/I-Card expires before the expiry date of his authority to solemnize marriage;

8.13 When the SO allows proxy marriages which is a kind of marriage arrangement where one of the parties to a marriage is represented merely by someone else who may be a delegate or a friend of one of the contracting parties;

8.14 When the SO is represented by a proxy SO or somebody else who performs the marriage for and in his behalf;

8.15 When the SO is physically incapacitated where his performance to solemnize marriage is substantially affected such as blindness, etc.;

8.16 When the SO does other acts in contravention with law.

RULE 9. PENALTY PROVISIONS

ACT 3613

Section 39. Illegal Solemnization of marriage. Any priest or minister solemnizing marriage without being authorized by the Civil Registrar General or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses to exhibit his authorization in force when called upon to do so by the parties or parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons having


charge; and any bishop or offi cer, priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect the regulations and practices whereof require publications previous to the solemnization of a marriage in accordance with section 10, who authorizes the immediate solemnization of a marriage that is subsequently declared illegal; or any offi cer, priest or minister solemnizing marriage in violation of the provisions of this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two thousand pesos.

Section 40. Marriage in improper places. Any offi cer, minister or priest solemnizing marriage in a place other than those authorized by this Act (now, Family Code), shall be punished by a fi ne of not less than twenty-fi ve pesos nor more than three hundred pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 41. Failure to deliver marriage certifi cate. Any offi cer, priest, or minister failing to deliver to either of the contracting parties one of the copies of the marriage contract or to forward the other copy to the authorities within the period fi xed by law for said purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one month or by a fi ne of not more than three hundred pesos, or both in the discretion of the court.

Section 42. Affi davit on marriage in articulo mortis. Any offi cer, priest, or minister who, having solemnized a marriage in articulo mortis, or any other marriage of an exceptional character, shall fail to comply with the provisions of Chapter II of this Act (now Chapter 2 Family Code), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fi ne of not less than three hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 43. Unlawful signboards. Any person who, not being authorized to solemnize marriage, shall publicly advertise himself, by means of signs or placards placed on his residence or offi ce or through the newspapers, as authorized to solemnize marriage, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than two years, or by a fi ne of not less than fi fty pesos not more than two thousand pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 44. General penal clause. Any violation of any provision of this Act (now Family Code) not specifi cally penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be punished by a fi ne of not more than two hundred pesos


478

or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 45. Disqualifi cation of priests and ministers. Any priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination, church, sect, or religion convicted of any of the provisions of this Act or of any crime involving moral turpitude, shall, in addition to the penalties incurred in each case, be disqualifi ed to solemnize marriage for a period of not less than six months nor more than six years at the discretion of the court. (as amended by Act No. 4263)

REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law.

RULE 10. RETROACTIVITY CLAUSE

These rules shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.

RULE 11. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

If any portion or provision of these rules is declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such declaration.

RULE 12. REPEALING CLAUSE

All circulars, memoranda, rules and regulations or issued by the CRG or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of these rules are hereby repealed or modifi ed accordingly.

RULE 13. DATE OF EFFECTIVITY

These rules shall take effect fi fteen days after its publication in the Offi cial Gazette.

Done in the City of Manila, Philippines this ____day of ______, 2007.

(SGD.) CARMELITA N. ERICTACivil Registrar General

479

Appendix 6

OCRG-SO Form No. 1Revised January 2007(To be accomplished in triplicate)

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

(Fill out completely, accurately and legibly — Use ink or typewriter)

__________________Date

The Civil Registrar GeneralSta. Mesa, Manila

Sir/Madam:

I hereby declare

1. That my full name is ________________________________ (First) (Middle) (Last)

2. (For alien applicants) That I am a citizen of _____________ and my I-Card No. is ______________ and presently residing at ___________________________________________________________________ (No.) (Street) (Sitio/Barangay)______________________________________________________________ (City/Municipality/Province)

Attached 2x2 pictureWith signature at the

back

479


480

3. That I was born on ______________________ at _________ (Month) (Day) (Year)_____________________________________________________________; (Municipality) (Province/City)

4. That I am a member of ______________________________; (Name of Religion or religious sect)

5. That I am duly appointed as _________________________; (Specify the title or position)

by ______________________________________________________; (State the title, name and position of the appointing offi cer)

6. That in accordance with my appointment, a true copy of which is hereto attached, I am authorized to perform religious rites and services including solemnization of marriages in accordance with my religion or religious sect upon the recommendation of __________________________________________________________________; (Head of the religion/religious sect)

7. That my jurisdiction for the purposes of solemnizing marriages as authorized by my religion/religious sect (specify the exact territorial jurisdiction) is ________________________________;

8. That my religion or religious sect operates in the Philippines and as in good repute and I am assigned to its church, temple or chapel situated in_____________________________________________________________;

(No.) (Street) (Sitio/Barangay)______________________________________________________________

(City/Municipality/Province)

9. That I have attended a:

Full course training on _____________________

Refresher course on ________________________

10. That I apply for registration as Solemnizing Offi cer in accordance with Article 7 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines Promulgated on August 3, 1998 and Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2005 and request that an authorization to solemnize marriage be issued to me.

_______________________________________________(Signature Over Printed Name of the Applicant)

481APPENDIX 6APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF AUTHORITY

TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ day of __________, in the city/municipality of ______________________, applicant exhibiting his Community Tax Certifi cate No. ____________________________ issued at _______________, on _________________________.

__________________________Notary Public

Doc. No. ___________Page No. ___________Book No. ___________Series of ___________

(Affi x documentary stamp)

O.R. No. ___________Date Paid __________Amt. paid __________


482

Appendix 7

ACCOMPLISHMENT OF APPLICATION FORM(OCRG-SO FORM NO. 1)

For registration purposes, the application form is to be accomplished in triplicate distributed as follows:

fi rst copy — to the applicant

second copy — to the Regional Offi ce

third copy — to the Provincial Offi ce

The following are the specifi c instructions on how to fi ll up the OCRG-SO No. 1:

Item No. 1 Full Name of the Applicant.

Enter the First Name, Middle Name and Last Name of the applicant. Do not include here the title of the SO such as Rev., Pastor, etc.

Do not include aliases or nicknames.

Item No. 2 Citizenship/I-Card No./Address of the Appli-cant.

Enter the correct citizenship of the applicant.

Example: German American

In case the applicant is a foreigner, indicate the I-Card number.

Include also in this item the address where the SO resides.

Enter the House/Building Number, Street Name, Name of the Sitio/barangay, Name of the City/Municipality/ Province

482

483

Item No. 3 Date and Place of Birth.

Enter the complete date when and the place (city/municipality) where the SO was born.

Example: That I was born on May 25, 1965 at Dagupan City, Pangasinan.

Item No. 4 Name of the Religion/Religious Sect.

Enter the exact name of the religion/religious sect where the applicant SO is a member. Do not use abbreviations or acronyms.

Example:

Roman Catholic Church

Iglesia ni Cristo

Item No. 5 Title or Position of the Solemnizing Offi cer/Title, Name and Position of the Appointing Offi cer.

Title or Position — refers to the designation of the applicant Solemnizing Offi cer/Appointing Offi cer such as bishop, president, head, parish priest, pastor, minister, etc.

Enter the correct title or position of the Solemnizing Offi cer.

Enter the title, name and position of the Appointing Offi cer.

Item No. 6 Name of the Recommending Offi cer.

Enter the complete name of the recommending offi cer in the space provided.

Item No. 7 Exact Territorial Jurisdiction Wherein the Solemnizing Offi cer is Authorized to Solemnize Marriage.

Enter the exact territorial jurisdiction of the applicant SO as recommended by the Appointing Offi cer.

Example: That my jurisdiction for purposes of solemnizing marriages is whole Philippines.

APPENDIX 7ACCOMPLISHMENT OF APPLICATION FORM

(OCRG-SO FORM NO. 1)


484

Item No. 8 Complete/full Address of the Church, Temple or Chapel is Situated.

Enter the complete address where the church/temple/chapel is situated.

Item No. 9 Confi rmation from the Applicant SO if he has Attended the SO Training, Whether Full Course or Refresher Course Training.

Check the appropriate box corresponding to whether the SO has attended full course or a refresher course/training. For either choice, enter the date of attendance when the SO attended the course/training.

Enter the date of attendance to the full course or refresher course training.

Item No. 10 Intention of the Applicant that his/her Request for an Authority to Solemnize Marriage be Granted.

Item No. 11 Signature Over Printed Name of the Applicant.

Affi x the signature of the applicant on the space provided.

OCRG-SO Form No. 1 is a sworn statement. Hence, it should be subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer oath.

485

INDEX

Act No. 3613, 5, 15, 16Act No. 3753, 2, 3, 80Africa, Tomas P., 50, 56, 57, 64, 71Bayaca, Gerardo P., 14Capili, Severino G., 65Cases cited: Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 26 Arañes vs. Judge Occiano, 21 Bartolome vs. Bartolome, 123 Beso vs. Judge Daguman, 79 De Cardenas vs. Cardenas, 116 De Loria, et al. vs. Felix, 151, 161, 178 Jamias vs. Rodriguez, 11, 188 Jones vs. Hortiguela, 76 Leonor vs. Court of Appeals, 98 Madridejo vs. de Leon, 28 Martinez vs. Tan, 26 Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals, 67 Navarro vs. Judge Domagtoy, 20 Negre vs. Rivera, 26 Ninal, et al. vs. Badayog, 154 People vs. H. Janssen, 144 Pugeda vs. Trias, 177 Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Angelina Castro, 122, 131 Tomasa Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 157 United States vs. de los Reyes, 34 United States vs. Gaoiran, 124 United States vs. Memoracion, 176 United States vs. Peñalosa, 31 United States vs. San Juan, 29 Vergara vs. Pascua, 42 Villar v. Paraiso, 36 Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo, et al., 53Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage

(CRASM), 80, 180

485


486

grounds for cancellation, 202Circular No. 99-1, Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, 61City/Municipal Civil Registrars, 59 power to administer oaths, 6Civil Registrar General (CRG), 1, 3, 6, 11 duties of, 190Code of Muslim Personal Laws, 46Commonwealth Act No. 591, 2, 3Consul general, 40, 41Danger of death distinguished from point of death, 151De los Reyes, Isabelo, 13, 14, 16Director of Public Libraries, 5Divorce obtained abroad by an alien from his or her Filipino spouse,

97Doctrine of pari delicto, 44DOJ Opinion allowing aliens to avail of Article 34 of Family Code,

149DOJ Opinion No. 26, 7Ericta, Carmelita N., 6, 45Fake death certifi cate, 78 Family Code of the Philippines, 1, 2, 4Fonacier, Santiago A., 14Gonzalez, Raul M., 48Jamias, Juan, 12, 13, 17Kijano, Juan T., 12, 13Legitimation under Article 177 of the Family Code, 71Liwag, Ramon J., 52Local civil registrar is not required to inquire into the authority of

the offi cer administering the oath, 59, 77Marriage, 90 between Filipino citizens abroad, 40, 41 canonical, 91 characteristics as an institution, 94 classifi cation, 91 counseling, 95 delayed registration, 108 effect if there is absence, defect or irregularity of any of the

essential or formal requisites, 126 essential requisites, 115 formal requisites, 121 forms, 91 Islamic marriage, 92

487

proof of the existence, 174 proxy, 121 registration, 97 salient principles, 93 without marriage ceremony, 94 witnesses, 124Marriage certifi cate, 159 availability or non-availability, 110

certifi cate of marriage among Muslims and its attachments, 179

marriage certifi cate for indigenous peoples (IPs), 180 number of copies, 179 reconstructing the certifi cate, 113 signifi cance, 160 when to furnish the local civil registrar, 75Marriage contract availability or non-availability, 110 failure to register, 77 differentiated from ordinary contract, 93Marriage in articulo mortis, 38, 150, 151, 153Marriage license, 126 effect of lapse of period, 127 issuance despite knowledge of impediment, 137

issuance of marriage license capacitating a widow to remarry, 143

marriage exempted from license requirement, 138 marriage without license among indigenous peoples, 159 validity of marriage that took place before issuance of, 137 validity of marriage without license among Muslims, 158 where parties have lived together as husband and wife for at

least fi ve years, 156Marriage shall be solemnized publicly, 58 instances where public solemnization is not needed, 58Military commander, 39Muslim Code, 84National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), 88National Statistics Offi ce (NSO), 1Navarro, Rodolfo G., 20NSO Provincial Statistics Offi cer (PSO), 82 duties of, 194NSO Regional Director, 80 duties of, 193

INDEX


488

OCRG’s memorandum to LCRs on nullity of marriage due to absence of valid marriage license and lack of authority to solemnize marriage, 57

Offi ce of the Muslim Affairs (OMA), 83 Certifi cate of orientation on conversion to Islam, 88Ombudsman case against LCR for refusing to issue marriage license

to applicants due to their failure to submit required family planning certifi cate on time, 140

Opinion No. 25, Series of 1986, Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General, 60

Orense, Marcelo M., 61P.D. No. 1083, 46Perez, Hernando B., 11Persons authorized to solemnize marriage on indigenous people, 49Philippine Independent Church, 16Place of solemnization of marriage, 182 Instances where public solemnization not required, 184 under the Muslim Code, 183Priest, 26Problem on marriage performed by chieftain of indigenous people

without marriage licence, 53Proper government offi ce, 5Rabbi, 27Religion, 185Religion/Religious sect deemed operating in the Philippines, 186Religion/Religious sect in good refute, 188Religious ratifi cation, 154Religious sect, 185Religious services, 186Republic Act No. 9048, 74Ruiz, Leopoldo A., 12, 13, 17Shari’a or Muslim Judges, 19Solemnizing Offi cer (SO), 18 absence of authority, 55 authorities duly acclaimed and respected in the tribal

communities, 49 city or municipal mayors, 41 community elders, 49 consul-general, consul or vice-consul, 40 duties and responsibilities, 54, 192 failure to send certifi cate to LCR’s offi ce, 175 failure to sign or issue certifi cate, 175

489

incumbent member of the judiciary, 19 judge of the Shari’a District Court, 44 military commander of a unit, 39

person who is competent under Muslim Law upon authority of the proper wali, 44

priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church of religious sect, 26

proper wali (guardian in marriage) of a woman to be wedded, 44

registration procedure, 195 ship captain or airplane chief, 37 territorial jurisdiction of, 55 tribal leaders or authorities and traditional socio-political

structures, 49Solemnizing offi cer who solemnizes marriage with expired license liability of, 131Solemnizing offi cer, need not investigate whether marriage license

issued by LCR is legal or not, 58Soliman, Eduardo R., Jr., 74Territorial jurisdiction, 182Tion, Benjamin V., 70Widow’s remarriage, 143

INDEX


490

491

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The author is a pioneer of National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) fi eld offi ce and has had many years of experiences in dealing with Civil Registration. He started as a Municipal Census Offi cer, Provincial Statistics Offi cer and promoted to Regional Administrator, now Regional Director. With his Leadership, NSO Region X has been a consistent top performer/fi rst placer in the NSO National Field Awards with Civil Registration as one of the criteria since 1991 to the present. Part of his laudable achievement is the Most Outstanding Fellow Award in Public Administration in the 2002 search for Outstanding Philippine-Japan Fellowship Association (PHILJAFA-JICA) and his conferment with the Presidential/Lingkod Bayan, the highest award given to government employees in 2003.

His active involvement in Civil Registration enabled him to recognize the First Mindanao Convention for Civil Registration (1994) and First National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers (1998).He was hired as one of the Consultants of the German Technological Agency (GTZ) tasked for the establishment of Mobile Civil Registration in Aceh Province of Indonesia. He was a recipient of KAPWA AWARD (1993) which recognized his exemplary achievement for having produced the fi rst Video Tele Play titled “AT SILA’Y NAMULAT” which featured issues and concerns in Civil Registration. Aside from this, he also authored two books in Civil Registration. The latest of which is the Primer on Civil Registration in the Philippines and adjudged as the Best Selling Reference Book by Rex Book Store in the year 2003.

His academic background include the following degrees:

Bachelor of Arts (AB)

Bachelor of Laws (Ll.B)

Dr. Salvador A. Aves


492

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology (Ph.D.)

He is a Career Executive Offi cer (CESO) Rank V and a part-time Graduate School Professor at Capitol University, Cagayan de Oro City.

He is married to Dr. Luvismin Sy-Aves with children Dr. Derrold Marl, Salvador Jr., Jerrald White, Jerrick Red and Iolani Mae. Daughters-in-Law, Dr. Janith Cabalang-Aves and Maureen Chaves-Aves and Grandsons Joshua Marl C. Aves and Budz Louis C. Aves.

493

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Atty. Anecito E. Tiempo, a former priest of the Roman Catholic Church, was born on April 28, 1964 at Labason, Zamboanga del Norte to Dominador V. Tiempo and Luisa A. Ebacitas. In 1977, he graduated from Lawigan Elementary School as fi rst honors, and in 1981 he fi nished his secondary education at Ferrer High School, Labason, Zamboanga del Norte as one of the benefi ciaries of the COCOFED Scholarship Program of the government.

After his secondary education, he entered the Cor Jesu Seminary in Dipolog City to pursue studies for the priesthood, and fi nished Bachelor of Arts major in Philosophy in 1985. He continued his studies for the priesthood at the Regional Major Seminary of Mindanao in Davao City, and was ordained priest on October 16, 1992.

From Priesthood, he joined NSO, Zamboanga del Norte as in-charge of Civil Registration matters for a short stint and at the same time studied law at the Andres Bonifacio College in Dipolog City where he obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree in 2005. He took and passed the Bar examination in 2005 and he was admitted to the Bar on March 10, 2006. He is now connected with the Public Attorney’s Offi ce.

He is married to Philetta D. Aves of Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte.

i

HandbookforSolemnizing Offi cersin thePhilippines(Based on Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007)

with:

• Philippine Supreme Court Decisions

• Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinions and

• Offi ce of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) Memo/Cir-culars Concerning Duties and Functions of Local Civil Registrars

by

SALVADOR A. AVES, A.B., MBA, Ll.B., Ph. D.ANICETO E. TIEMPO, A.B., Ll.B.

856 Nicanor Reyes, Sr. St.Tel. Nos. 736-05-67 • 735-13-64

1977 C.M. Recto AvenueTel. Nos. 735-55-27 • 735-55-34

Manila, Philippineswww.rexinteractive.com

Published & Distributed by

ii

Printed by

84 P. Florentino St., Quezon City

Tel. Nos. 712-41-08 • 712-41-01

Philippine Copyright, 2007

by

SALVADOR A. AVES

ANICETO E. TIEMPO

ISBN 978-971-23-4678-1

No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without the written permission of any of the authors except brief passages in books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other offi cial proceedings with proper citation.

Any copy of this book without the correspond-ing number and the signature of any of the authors on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDBY THE AUTHORS

No. ____________

iii

Republic of the PhilippinesNATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE

Manila

FOREWORD

The last decade and the turn of the century brought a wealth of changes in the fi eld of civil registration. In dealing with many Solemnizing Offi cers and Local Civil Registrars, I found that one of the biggest needs for a clear understanding of their responsibilities, duties and functions aligned with the recently issued Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007, is a reference that can guide them in their work, especially in matters concerning marriage.

It gives me great satisfaction to see a book that compiles illustra-tive cases that can more or less answer your questions on marriage and other marriage-related topics. Considering that this book is a fruition of nearly four years of work, there is no doubt that it can provide you, the readers, with guidance and at the same time situate you within the wider perspective of these cases.

With this, we at the National Statistics Offi ce hope that read-ers will fi nd this book useful in providing information and advancing knowledge. I believe that anyone reading this book will be convinced of the strength and resolve of the commitment of the authors to provide a good reference that abounds with illustrative cases.

If you fi nd the previous book, Primer on the Civil Registration in the Philippines, enlightening and benefi cial to our countrymen as evidenced by being certifi ed by REX Book Store, Inc. as the best selling reference book, you will fi nd this publication as comprehensive and benefi cial. For this reason, I highly recommend this book.


v

PREFACE

This handbook has been written over a period of nearly four years of laborious research. It is an offering born out of my perception of the needs of about 40,750 solemnizing offi cers and about 1,617 local civil registrars throughout the country for an easy to comprehend reference anchored on Memoranda/Circulars issued by OCRG, DOJ Opinions and Supreme Court decisions. A distinct feature of this book is the section that builds a remarkable follow-up of the pertinent rules through some notes and illustrative cases and considerable text of cited authorities.

Written for people who want to understand better the process and for church leaders who must offer guidance, this book refl ects a concern on shedding important light on how to implement the ad-ministrative order.

With the emergence of the Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007, the importance of this handbook gained more weight and rel-evance to the day-to-day functions of the solemnizing offi cers and the local civil registrars. Thus, this handbook has fi nally taken shape.

The Authors though, cannot just close the pages of this book, without mentioning with sincere appreciation to the Honorable Car-melita N. Ericta, NSO Administrator and Civil Registrar General, who never fails to toss a challenge to NSO employees to continually engage with stakeholders, to possibly come up with brighter ideas for the good of civil registration. To Deputy Administrator Monina G. Collado, Dir. Lourdes Hufana, Dir. Enrique Navarro, Atty. Maribeth C. Pilimpinas, Ms. Editha Orcilla, Ms. Minette Esquivias, Ms. So-corro Constantino and to all NSO Regional Directors and Provincial Statistics Offi cers throught the country, our earnest gratefulness.

Likewise, our indelible gratitude goes to Frezier S. Binondo, Yvonne R. Mabatam, Juliet Cordero, Rogelio Saraspe, Garry Obsioma and to all regional and provincial staff of NSO Region 10.

vi

Most profoundly our sincerest gratefulness to all members of Aves and Tiempo families and importantly to the God Almighty.

The Authors

Cagayan de Oro City

March 8, 2007

vii

CONTENTS

Topics Page

Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007 – ImplementingRules and Regulations Governing the Registration of AuthorityTo Solemnize Marriage with the Civil Registrar General ....... 1

Rule 1 General Provision ................................................... 1Rule 2 Concepts and Defi nitions ....................................... 2Rule 2.1 Civil Registrar General (CRG) ............................... 3

Historical Background ...................................................... 3Legal Basis Governing Registration of Authority of Solemnizing Offi cers to Solemnize Marriage with OCRG ................................................................ 4Memorandum Re Legal Basis of CRG’s Direction and Supervision Over City/Municipal Civil Registrars .. 5DOJ Opinion Re Authority of OCRG Over LCR’s and The LCR’s Duty to Administer Oath – Opinion No. 26 S. 2001 ............................................. 7DOJ Opinion Re The Civil Registrar General to File Administrative Proceedings Against Local Civil Registrars – Opinion No. 128 S. 1979...................... 11An Illustrative Case on a Ministerial Duty on the Part of OCRG To Issue Authorization to Solemnize Marriages to Solemnizing Offi cers Pending Court Decision ............................................ 11 (Mons. Juan Jamias, petitioner vs. Eulogio B. Rodriguez, Director of Public Libraries, and Manuel V. Gallego, Secretary of Education, respondents.)

Rule 2.2 Solemnizing Offi cer (SO) ........................................ 18Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriages ................... 19

Rule 2.2 (a) Any Incumbent Member of the Judiciary Within the Court’s Jurisdiction ......................... 19

viii

An Illustrative Case on Celebration of Marriage by a Member of Judiciary Outside Court’s Jurisdiction ............................................................... 20An Illustrative Case of a Member of a Judiciary Who Celebrated Marriage Without Marriage License and Outside of Court’s Jurisdiction ........... 21Liability of Solemnizing Offi cer Who Signs Marriage Contract Before the Marriage License is Obtained .................................................................... 26The Legality of a Case on Marriage Where the Solemnizing Offi cer Judge Who Merely Said “You Are Married” .................................................... 26

Rule 2.2 (b) Any Priest, Imam, or Minister of any Church or Religious Sect Duly Authorized by His Church or Religious Sect ...................... 26

A Problem on Marriage Where Both Contracting Parties Do Not Belong to the Church of the Solemnizing Offi cer ................................................... 27An Illustrative Case on the Validity of Marriage in Articulo Mortis for Failure of the Parish Priest to Submit the Marriage Certifi cate to the Municipal Secretary (Now Local Registrar) ............ 28An Illustrative Case of a Solemnizing Offi cer Who Performed Marriage Ceremony Where One of the Contracting Parties was Under the Age of Consent .................................................................. 29An Illustrative Case of a UCCP Minister Who Resigned and Ran for Mayor .................................................... 36

Rule 2.2 (c) Any Ship Captain or Airplane Chief Only in Cases of Marriage In Articulo Mortis ............. 37

A Problem on Marriage In Articulo Mortis by An Airplane Pilot ............................................................ 38A Problem on Marriage In Articulo Mortis by A Ship Captain ............................................................. 38

Rule 2.2 (d) Any Military Commander of a Unit to Which a Chaplain is Assigned, in the Absence of the Latter, During a Military Operation, In Cases of Marriage in Articulo Mortis ......... 39

A Problem on Marriage In Articulo Mortis Solemnized by A Military Commander........................................ 39

Rule 2.2 (e) Any Consul-General, Consul or Vice-Consul, in Cases of Marriage Between Filipino Citizens Abroad .................................................. 40

ix

Reason Why Ambassador Cannot Solemnize Marriage .. 41Marriage of Filipinos Abroad ............................................ 41

Rule 2.2 (f) City or Municipal Mayors Within Their Area of Jurisdiction ..................................................... 41

An Illustrative Case Concerning An Issue of Nullity of Marriage Due to Absence of a Valid Marriage License and The Lack of Authority to Solemnize Marriage of the Solemnizing Offi cer ........................ 42

Rule 2.2 (g) Proper Wali (Guardian in Marriage) of a Woman to be Wedded ......................................... 44Rule 2.2 (h) Any Person Who is Competent Under Muslim Law Upon Authority of the Proper Wali ......................................................... 44Rule 2.2 (i) Judge of Shari’a District Court or any person Designated by the Judge, Should the Proper Wali Refuse Without Justifi able Reason, to Authorize the Solemnization ......................... 44

DOJ Opinion Re Coverage of Muslim Solemnizing Offi cers To Register Their Authority to Solemnize Marriage with OCRG ............................................... 45A Problem on Absence of Marriage License to Muslim Marriage ...................................................... 48

Rule 2.2 (j) Community Elders ............................................. 49Rule 2.2 (k) Tribal Leaders or Authorities and Traditional Socio-Political Structures Certifi ed by National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) ................................................... 49Rule 2.2 (l) Authorities Duly Acclaimed and Respected in the Tribal Communities Who Perform and Solemnize Marriage in Accordance with the Customs, Traditions and Practices of the Community ............................................... 49

Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage on Indigenous People (IP).............................................. 49DOJ Opinion on the Need of Tribal Heads or Chieftains of Indigenous People to be Authorized and Register Their Authority to Solemnize Marriage with OCRG ............................................... 50A Problem on Marriage Performed by Chieftain of Indigenous People (IP) Without Marriage License ....................................................................... 53An Illustrative Case on the Validity of Marriage Before a Village Leader ............................................ 53

x

Other Pertinent Features for Solemnizing Offi cers ........ 54Duty of the Solemnizing Offi cer as Required Under the Marriage Laws of the Philippines ............................ 54An Instance Where Marriage is Valid Despite Absence of Authority of Solemnizing Offi cer to Solemnize Marriage .................................................. 55OCRG’s Memorandum on Territorial Jurisdiction of Solemnizing Offi cers ................................................. 55OCRG’s Memorandum to LCR on Nullity of Marriage Due To Absence of Valid Marriage License and Lack of Authority To Solemnize Marriage ....... 57Marriage Shall Be Solemnized Publicly ........................... 58Instances Where Public Solemnization Is Not Needed ... 58A Solemnizing Offi cer Need Not Investigate Whether Marriage License Issued by LCR is Legal or Not ... 58The Local Civil Registrar Is Not Required to Inquire Into The Authority of the Offi cer Administering the Oath .................................................................... 59

Rule 2.3 City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) ............... 59OCRG Circular Re DOJ Opinion on Ministerial Duty of LCR Not to Deny Registration of Documents Other than Insuffi ciency Thereof ......... 60An OCRG Circular Re Court of Appeals (CA) Decision Against LCR for Refusing to Register Legitimation of Child To Underage Mother and that LCR’s Ministerial Duty to Register CR Documents Only Obtains once the LCR is Satisfi ed that the Application Along with the Supporting Documents are Complete and Consistent ............... 61An Illustrative Case Against LCR Where the Court Ruled That Mandamus Does Not Lie to Compel the Performance of an Act Prohibited by Law ........ 65OCRG’s Memorandum Concerning a Case of LCR Who Refused to Register Document Despite Regional Trial Court’s Order.................................... 71OIC Local Civil Registrar Cannot Validly Exercise the Additional Power Vested by RA No. 9048 ........ 74An Instance Where OIC Local Civil Registrar (LCR) May Accept and Act on Petition Under RA No. 9048 .............................................................. 74When to Furnish the Marriage Certifi cate to the Local Civil Registrar ........................................................... 75Failure to Furnish the Marriage Certifi cate to the Local Civil Registrar ................................................. 75

xi

An Illustrative Case on the Validity of the Marriage for Failure to Record the Marriage in the Marriage Register ..................................................... 76Failure to Register Marriage Contract ............................ 77The Local Civil Registrar is Not Required to Inquire Into The Authority of the Offi cer Administering the Oath .................................................................... 77OCRG’s Memorandum Regarding A Case Where LCR Was Dismissed from Service Due to Issuance of Fake Death Certifi cate ......................................... 78An Illustrative Case on Failure of the Solemnizing Offi cer (Judge) to Retain a Copy of the Marriage Certifi cate and to Register the Marriage With LCR’s Offi ce ..................................... 79

Rule 2.4 NSO Regional Director (RD) .................................. 80OCRG’s Circular Re Delegation of Supervisory Function to Regional Directors and Provincial Offi cers of NSO by OCRG ......................................... 81

Rule 2.5 NSO Provincial Statistics Offi cer (PSO) ............... 82Rule 2.6 Offi ce of the Muslim Affairs (OMA) ....................... 83

Islamic Rule on Application of Laws ................................ 84Islamic Marriage to Non-Muslims.................................... 85Explanation of Imagined Confl ict of Article 13 and Article 3 of Muslim Code ................................... 85Example of Questions of Marriage Between Muslim and Christian ............................................................ 86OMA’s Certifi cate of Orientation on Conversion to Islam ...................................................................... 88

Rule 2.7 National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) ........................................................ 88Rule 2.8 Marriage .................................................................. 90

Canonical Marriages ......................................................... 91Classifi cation of Marriage ................................................. 91Forms of Marriage ............................................................. 91Meaning of Islamic Marriage ............................................ 92Salient Principles in Marriage ......................................... 93Marriage Contract and Ordinary Contract Differentiated ............................................................ 93Characteristics of Marriage as an Institution ................. 94Can There Be A Valid Marriage Even Without A Marriage Ceremony? ............................................. 94The Rationale of the Law Requiring A Marriage Ceremony .................................................................. 94

xii

Marriage Counselling ........................................................ 95Reason for Requiring Marriage Counseling..................... 95OCRG’s Circular Requiring Certifi cate of Marriage Counseling as a Requirement for the Issuance of Marriage License ...................................................... 96Registration of Marriage ................................................... 97OCRG’s Memorandum Re Effects of Divorce Obtained Abroad by an Alien from His or Her Filipino Spouse .................................................. 97An Illustrative Case of A Petition for Annulment of Marriage Since the Solemnizing Offi cer Failed to Send Copy of the Marriage Contract to the Civil Registrar’s Offi ce .............................................. 98

Rule 108 – Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry .................................................... 105

Delayed Registration of Marriage .................................... 108Marriages to be Registered Under the Rules of Delayed Registration ................................................ 109Availability or Non-Availability of Certifi cate of Marriage (Marriage Contract) ................................. 110Procedures in Reconstructing the Certifi cate of Marriage .................................................................... 113Double or Multiplicity of Registration Should be Avoided ................................................................. 114

Rule 2.9 Essential Requisites of Marriage ........................... 115Essential Requisite No. 1 .................................................. 115An Illustrative Case on the Nullity of the Subsequent Marriage Due to Existing Prior Marriage (De Cardenas vs. Cardenas, G.R. No. L-8218) ....................................................... 116Problems Essential Requisites of Valid Marriage in the Phil. ................................................................. 117Parties Must Be Male and Female as an Essential Requisite of Valid Marriage ..................................... 119Problem of Sex as Essential Requisite of Valid Marriage .................................................................... 119Essential Requisite No. 2 .................................................. 119The Consent if Freely Given ............................................. 119Problem on Consent as an Essential Requisite of Valid Marriage ...................................................... 120Marriage by Proxy ............................................................. 120Rules on Marriages by Proxy ............................................ 120

Rule 2.10 Formal Requisites of Marriage .............................. 121

xiii

Formal Requisite No. 1 ..................................................... 121Authority of the Person Solemnizing the Marriage ........ 121Formal Requisite No. 2 ..................................................... 122A Valid Marriage License, except in a Marriage of Exceptional Character .............................................. 122An Illustrative Case of Marriage Declared Void Due to Absence of Marriage License ........................ 122An Illustrative Case Where Marriage Was Presumed Since Record of Marriage Cannot Be Found at LCRO .................................................................... 123Formal Requisite No. 3 ..................................................... 124A marriage Ceremony ....................................................... 124The Liability of the Witnesses to the Marriage Ceremony .................................................................. 124An Illustrative Case on the Liability of the Witness to Marriage Ceremony .............................................. 124Is the Solemnizing Offi cer Liable If He Solemnizes the Marriage Even If An Impediment Exists? ........ 125What is the Effect If There Is Absence, Defect or Irregularity of Any of the Essential or Formal Requisites of Marriage? ............................................ 126

Rule 2.11 Marriage License .................................................... 126Effect of Lapse of Period ................................................... 127OCRG’s Circular Re Place and Period of Validity of Marriage License ...................................................... 128OCRG’s Memorandum to LCR on Nullity of Marriage Due To Absence of Valid Marriage License and A Court’s Reminder That Duty of Mayors to Solemnize Marriage Cannot Be Delegated ............. 130A Problem on the Validity of Marriage License After the Lapse of One Hundred Twenty Days ................ 131Liability of Solemnizing Offi cer Who Solemnizes Marriage With Expired License ............................... 131An Illustrative Case Re Petition for Nullity of Marriage For Having No Marriage License Issued to Parties Prior to Celebration of Marriage ................................................................ 131Validity of Marriage That Took Place Before Issuance of Marriage License .................................................. 137Issuance of Marriage License Despite Knowledge of Impediment ............................................................... 137OCRG’s Memorandum to LCRs That No Application for Marriage License Shall Be Accepted Without Supporting Papers .................................................... 139

xiv

An Ombudsman Case Against LCR for Refusing to Issue Marriage License to Applicants Due to Their Failure to Submit Required Family Planning Certifi cate on Time ................................... 140 (Doroteo B. Ferrer, Jr., Daet, Camarines Sur, Complainant versus Filina Herico Local Civil Registrar, Labo, Camarines Norte, Respondent)Issuance of Marriage License Capacitating a Widow to Remarry ................................................................ 143Solemnizing Offi cer Need Not Investigate Whether the License Issued by LCR Is Legal or Illegal ............... 144An Illustrative Case on Proclamation or Publicity of Marriage (The People of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee, vs. H. Janssen, defendant- appellant) .................................................................. 144Marriages Exempted from License Requirement ............ 148DOJ Opinion Allowing Aliens to Avail of Article 34 of Family Code (Marriage Without Marriage License Provided Living Together As Husband and Wife for 5 Years) ................................................ 149Danger of Death Distinguished from Point of Death – An Issue of Articulo Mortis Being Exempted from Marriage License ...................................................... 151Who Can Perform Marriages in Articulo Mortis? ........... 151An Illustrative Case on the Validity of Marriage in Articulo Mortis Even If One Party Dies Only After One Year .......................................................... 151Affi davit to be Executed by Solemnizing Offi cer that Marriage Was Performed in Articulo Mortis or That Residence of One of The Parties Is So Located That There Is No Means of Trans- portation to Enable the Party Concerned to Appear Before the Local Civil Registrar .............................. 153Religious Ratifi cation Does Not Require Marriage License ....................................................................... 154An Illustrative Case on Marriage Between A Man and A WomanWho Have Not Lived Together As Husband and Wife for At Least Five Years and With Legal Impediment to Marry Each Other (Ninal, et al. vs. Bayadog) ........................................ 154Problems on the Validity of Marriage Without Marriage License Where the Parties Have Lived Together as Husband and Wife For At Least Five Years ................................................................. 156

xv

An Illustrative Case on Marital Cohabitation of At Least Five (5) Years – Tomasa Vda. De Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, et al. ....................................... 157Validity of Marriage Without Marriage License Among Muslims ........................................................ 159Marriage Without Marriage License Among Indigenous People (IP).............................................. 159

Rule 2.12 Certifi cate of Marriage .............................................. 159Signifi cance of the Marriage Certifi cate .......................... 160An Illustrative Case on Failure of the Parties To A Marriage to Sign the Marriage Contract (Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria, petitioner, vs. Felipe Apelan Felix, respondent, G.R. No. L-9005) ....................................................... 161OCRG’s Circular Requiring That Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage Shall Be Issued by the Foreigner’s Diplomatic or Consular Offi cials ..................................................... 166OCRG’s Memorandum for LCR to Require Affi davit In Lieu of Certifi cate of Legal Capacity to Contract Marriage for American Citizens ............... 170Sample of Affi davit In Lieu of Certifi cate of Legal Capacity To Contract Marriage Issued by U.S. Embassy for American Citizens ............................... 171Additional Requirement for U.S. Military Personnel...... 173The Marriage Application Process ................................... 173Alternative to Marriage Abroad ....................................... 174The Proof of the Existence of Marriage ............................ 174Effect of Failure of the Solemnizing Offi cer (Priest) To Send Certifi cate to LCR’s Offi ce ......................... 175Failure to Sign or Issue Certifi cate .................................. 175An Illustrative Case Where A Man and A Woman Living in Marital Relations Under the Same Roof Legally Presumed A Legitimate Spouse (U.S. vs. Memoracion, et al., G.R. No. 11371) ......... 176An Illustrative Cases Where Solemnizing Offi cer Failed To Send Copy of Marriage Certifi cate to LCRO (Pugeda vs. Trias, et al., L-16925)............ 177An Illustrative Case Where Parish Priest’s Failure to Execute Affi davit That Marriage Was Celebrated In Articulo Mortis .................................. 178Number of Copies of Marriage Certifi cates to be Accomplished For Distribution ................................ 179

xvi

Certifi cate of Marriage Among Muslims and Its Attachments .............................................................. 179Marriage Certifi cate for Indigenous Peoples (IPs) .......... 180

Rule 2.13 Certifi cate of Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage (CRASM) ............................... 180Rule 2.14 Register of Solemnizing Offi cers ............................ 181Rule 2.15 Territorial Jurisdiction ........................................... 182Rule 2.16 Place of Solemnization of Marriage ....................... 182

Place of Solemnization Under the Muslim Code ............. 183Instances Where Public Solemnization of Marriage Is Not Required ......................................................... 184Effect If One Party Is Not Asked During the Marriage Ceremony .................................................................. 184

Rule 2.17 Church/Chapel/Temple/Mosque ............................. 184Rule 2.18 Religious Sect .......................................................... 185Rule 2.19 Religion ................................................................... 185Rule 2.20 Religious Services ................................................... 186Rule 2.21 Religion/Religious Sect Deemed Operating in the Philippines ................................................... 186

Constitutionality of Government Offi ce on Determining Whether the Church, Sect, or Religion of the Applicant to Solemnize Marriage Operates in the Philippines Is In Good Repute ........................... 187

Rule 2.22 Religion/Religious Sect in Good Refute ................. 188An Illustrative Case on Whether the Religious Denomination Is In Good Refute (Jamias vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-2133) .................................... 188

Rule 3 – Duties of the Civil Registrar General .................... 190Rule 4 – Duties and Responsibilities of the Solemnizing Offi cer ............................................................... 192Rule 5 – Duties of the Regional Director ............................. 193Rule 6 – Duties of the Provincial Statistics Offi cer ............. 194Rule 7 – Registration Procedures ......................................... 195Rule 7.1 Who Shall Apply ..................................................... 195Rule 7.2 Where to Apply ....................................................... 196Rule 7.3 When to Apply ........................................................ 196Rule 7.4 Requirements for Registration .............................. 196Rule 7.5 Fees ......................................................................... 199Rule 8 – Grounds for Cancellation of CRASM ..................... 202Rule 9 – Penalty Provisions .................................................. 203Rule 10 – Retroactivity Clause ............................................... 206Rule 11 – Separability Clause ................................................ 207Rule 12 – Repealing Clause .................................................... 207Rule 13 – Date of Effectivity ................................................... 207

xvii

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – OCRG –SO Form No. 1 (Application for Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage) .......... 211

Appendix 2 – Circulars/Memoranda Issued by OCRG ........... 214

Circular No. 89-12 19 March 1989 Re Territorial Jurisdiction of Solemnizing Offi cers ........................ 214 Memorandum 19 December 2000 Re Assigning of Population Reference Number (PRN) to Certifi cates of Live Birth for the Year 2001 No Longer Necessary ................................................ 215 Memorandum 22 November 2000 Re Signature Specimen of German Embassy Offi cers Who Are Authorized to Issue Certifi cate of Legal Capacity .. 216 Memorandum 25 July 2001 Re The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 ..................................... 216 Sample: Report to the SCN ............................................... 218 Sample: Notice to the Public ............................................. 219 Memorandum 7 September 2001 Re Guidelines Implementing Section 7, RA 9139 Pursuant to the Pertinent Provisions of Section 7, Republic Act (RA) No. 9139, the following are the Guidelines in Implementing the said Provisions ....................... 220 Memorandum 24 September 2001 Re Implementation of Republic Act No. 9139 .......................................... 221 Memorandum 15 November 2001 Re Formation of LCRO/NSO Field Unit .......................................... 224 Memorandum 18 April 2002 Re Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 of the Secretary of Justice Concerning Filing Fee of Petition Under Republic Act No. 9048 .............................................................. 226 Memorandum 5 August 2005 Re Reiteration of the Guidelines Implementing Republic Act No. 9139 ... 229 Memorandum 9 September 2002 Re Adjustment of Fees for Unconverted Document Requests .......... 230 Memorandum 27 January 2002 Revised Procedures in the Remittance and Reporting of Collections from Sale of Civil Registry Forms ............................ 231 Report of Collections and Deposits (RCD) ....................... 232 Authentication Procedure to be Adopted at the Regional Census Serbilis Centers ............................ 234 New Rate for the Issuance of Civil Registry Documents ................................................................. 235

xviii

National Statistics Offi ce Advisory Schedule of Fees Effective December 2, 2002 ......................... 236 December 28, 2002 Re Renewal of CRASM ..................... 236 Memorandum Circular 03-01 February 10, 2003 Re Offi cers-In-Charge at the Local Civil Registry Offi ce ...................................................................... 237 03 April 2003 Re Reiteration of Memorandum Dated August 10, 2001 Re Price of Civil Registration Forms ................................................... 238 Memorandum 26 June 2003 Re Requests Made Through E-Mails, Fax Messages and Letters/ Communications ....................................................... 239 Memorandum 5 July 2003 Re Transfer and Applications for Annotated Civil Registry Documents Affected By Republic Act No. 9048 from the Offi ce of the Administrator in NSO-Sta. Mesa to the Civil Registry Department in NSO-EDSA. ..................... 240 Memorandum 15 September 2003 Re Prohibition of Certifying Photocopies of NSO-Issued Civil Registry Documents in SECPA ................................ 241 Memorandum 4 November 2003 Re Guidelines in Providing Information to the Media ........................ 242 Memorandum 4 January 2004 Re New Decentralized Vital Statistics System ............................................. 243 Memorandum Circular No. 2004-01 January 8, 2004 Re Rules and Regulations in the Registration of Births of Children in Need of Special Protection (CNSP)..................................................... 244 Memorandum Circular No. 2005-002 8 October 2004 Re Guidelines on Securing Copies of Documents Affected by R.A. No. 9255 from the OCRG .............. 248 Memorandum 11 October 2004 Re Use of Birth Reference Number (BREN) Generated Through the Civil Registry System Information Technology Project (CRIS-ITP) Replacing the Population Reference Number (PRN) ......................................... 249 Memorandum Circular 04-12 18 October 2004 Re Clarifi cation On the Scope of Public Documents Under Republic Act No. 9255 ................................... 250 Memorandum 9 November 2004 Re NSO Fees to be Imposed in BREQS Transactions ............................ 252 Memorandum 21 January 2005 Re Civil Registration Month (February 2005) ............................................ 253

xix

Memorandum Circular No. 2005-002 10 February 2005 Re Guidelines on Securing Copies of Documents Affected by R.A. No. 9255 from the OCRG .............. 255 Memorandum 1 August 2005 Re Free Birth Registration of Children in Need of Special Protection (CNSP)..................................................... 257 Memorandum Circular No. 05-006 1 August 2005 Re Guidelines on Securing Copies of Documents Affected by R.A. No. 9255 from the OCRG .............. 258 Memorandum Circular No. 2005-007 June 21, 2005 Re Clarifying Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048 (Publication Requirement for Change of First Name) ............................................................... 260 Memorandum Circular No. 05-009 June 28 2005 Re Registration of the Authority to Solemnize Marriage .................................................................... 261 Memorandum Circular No. 2005-001 April 8, 2005 Re CENOMAR As Requirement for Legitimation .............................................................. 262 Memorandum Circular No. 2007-004 February 7, 2007 Re Guidelines in Preparing and Issuing Supplemental Report ................................................ 266 Memorandum Circular No. 2007-005 February 13, 2007 Re Middle Name and Middle Initial in the Certifi cate of Live Birth ........................................... 269 Memorandum Circular No. 2007-006 February 13, 2007 Re guidelines in Filing the Appropriate Petition Involving the Use of Jr., II, III and the Likes Under RA 9048 ......................................................... 271

Appendix 3 – DOJ Opinions Opinion 73, S 2005 ............................................................ 275

Appendix 4 – Referred Cases/Queries

Opinion No. 90, S. 2000 – Use of the Surname by the Son of Malaysian National................................. 280 Opinion No. 26, S. 2001 ..................................................... 281 1) Re Power to control and supervise LCRs 2) Whether LCRs can still perform duty to administer oath Opinion No. 60, S. 2002 – Whether Permanent or Temporary/OIC/Assistant LCR Acting as LCR Can Validly Act RA 9048 .......................................... 286

xx

Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 – On which fi ling fees shall prevail, those prescribed by RA 9048 or those prescribed by city ordinance of Cagayan de Oro City ..................................................................... 288 Republic Act No. 6514 – An Act Providing that the Authorization to Solemnize Marriage Issued to Priest, or Ministers or Rabbis Shall Be Valid for a Period of Three Years The Same o Expire on the Thirty-First Day of December of Every Third Year Amending for the Purpose Article Ninety-Five of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and For Other Purposes ...................... 294 Legal Provisions Concerning Marriages .......................... 295 Marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the church, chapel or in the temple ............................................. 296 Presidential Decree No. 1083 ........................................... 297 Section 1. – Requisites of Marriage ......................... 297 Section 2. – Prohibited Marriages ........................... 299 Section 3. – Subsequent Marriages ......................... 300 Section 4. – Batil and Fasid Marriages ................... 301 Section 5. – Rights and Obligations Between Spouses ............................................................... 302 Section 6. – Property Relations Between Spouses .. 303 Registration of Application for Marriage License ........... 308 The Civil Registry Law Act No. 3753 – An Act to Establish A Civil Register ....................................... 312 Republic Act No. 6809 – An Act Lowering the Age of Majority From Twenty-One to Eighteen Years, Amending for the Purpose Executive Numbered Two Hundred Nine and For Other Purposes .......... 319 Papers Presented During the 4th National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers Held at Bacolod City on August 9-11, 2005 ................................................ 320 New Procedures in the Registration of the Authority to Solemnize Marriage.............................................. 320 Marriage Registration: Issues and Concerns ................... 329 Issues and Concerns Pertaining to Marriage Registration ............................................................... 337 Types of Void Marriages 1. Absence of Formal Requisites A. Marriages Without a Marriage License ............ 338 B. Marriages Without a Marriage Ceremony ........ 338 C. Marriages By Proxy ........................................... 339

xxi

D. Marriages Offi ciated By a Person Without Any Legal Authority To Solemnize Marriages ............................................................ 339 2. Absence of Essential Requisites ............................... 340 3. Marriages that Are Incestous and Those that are Against Public Policy ......................................... 340 4. Marriages that are Bigamous and Polygamous ...... 343 5. Marriages that Have Not Complied with Recording Requirements .......................................... 344 6. Marriage Despite Impediment ................................. 344 7. Effect of Lapse Period ............................................... 344 CENOMAR: as a Requirement for Legitimation and Marriage License ............................................... 354 What Is CENOMAR .......................................................... 354 How to Avail the CENOMAR ........................................... 355 CENOMAR as a Reuirement for Legitimation ................ 357 CENOMAR as a Requirement for the Issuance of Marriage License .................................................. 359 CENOMAR and Its Effects ............................................... 360 Answers to Main Issues and Questions During Open Forum Re The 4th National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers at Bacolod Convention Plaza Hotel, Bacolod City on August 9-11, 2005 (As reprinted from the Daily Publication of Highlights during the Convention) .......................... 362 Primary Issues and Concerns Experienced by Concerned Agencies in Dealing Marriage Documents As Discussed by Different Lecturers During the 14th National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers at Bacolod City on August 9-11, 2005 ..................................................... 365 Papers Presented During the 3rd National Convention of Solemnizing Offi cers Held at Tagaytay City on August 5-7, 2003 .................................................. 366 Issues and Concerns on Marriage Registration By US Consul Barry Simmons ................................. 366 Issues and Concerns on Marriage Registration By MCR Cynthia B. Soriano .................................... 369 Issues and Concerns on Marriage Registration By Atty. Antonio Morales ......................................... 378 Radio-Style Discussion with Broadcasters Daniel Razon and Atty. Danny Concepcion .................................... 386 Open Forum After Ms. Ronaida Javaluya’s Presentation .............................................................. 409

xxii

Open Forum After Ms. Marites Espinoza’s Presentation .............................................................. 414 Open Forum After Presentations of Round Table Speaker ............................................................... 424 Open Forum After Dir. Hufana’s Presentation ............... 442 Application for a Philippine Marriage License ................ 452 Foreigners and Marriage in the Philippines .................... 454 How To Get Married in the Philippines If You Are A U.S. Citizen ........................................................... 455 Fianceé Visa ...................................................................... 460

Appendix 5 – Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2007

Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing the Registration of the Authority to Solemnize Marriage with the Civil Registrar General of Bishops, Heads/Founders of Religions and Religious Sects, Priests, Imams, Religious Ministers, Tribal Heads/Leaders/Chieftains, Community Elders, and Other Designated Authorities .............. 461

Appendix 6 – OCRG-SO Form No. 1 – Application for Registration of Authority to Solemnize Marriage ........... 479

Appendix 7 – Accomplishment of Application Form (OCRG-SO Form No. 1) ..................................................... 482

Index ........................................................................................... 485

About the Author ....................................................................... 491

About the Co-Author .................................................................. 493

Handbook for Solemnizing Officers in the Philippines

Documents

Transcript of Handbook for Solemnizing Officers in the Philippines