Pascua v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Arthur V. Pascua (Arthur) and Shirley Bullos Pascua (Shirley) were married on February 8, 2005, in Caloocan City. Their Marriage Certificate indicated Marriage License No. 5013850 issued on January 6, 2005, in Taytay, Rizal. The parties separated in 2014 due to Shirley's alleged illicit affair. In 2017, Arthur inquired with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Taytay, Rizal, regarding the license. He was allegedly referred to the Municipal Treasurer (MT), who issued a Certification stating that Accountable Form (AF) No. 54 with Serial Number 5013850 was not included in the series issued by the municipality. 2. Procedural History: Arthur filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 4 of the Family Code, alleging the absence of a valid marriage license. To support his claim, he presented the MT's Certification and the testimony of an authorized representative from the MT's office, who identified the Marriage License Record Book (Logbook). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition, ruling that the MT had no authority to certify the non-issuance of marriage licenses, as that duty belongs to the LCR. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the MT's records pertain only to blank forms for inventory purposes. 3. The Petition: Arthur filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the MT is a valid custodian of marriage license certificates (AF No. 54) pursuant to the Local Government Code (LGC) and the Local Treasury Operations Manual (LTOM). He contended that the MT's Logbook, which showed no record of the specific serial number, was sufficient evidence to prove that the municipality never issued the license.
Issue(s)
Whether the Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer (MT) possesses probative value to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license under Rule 132, Section 28 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is DISMISSED for lack of evidence, without prejudice to the refiling of the same action.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the Certification from the Municipal Treasurer (MT) lacks probative value because the MT is not the legal custodian of issued marriage licenses. Under Articles 9 and 25 of the Family Code, the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) is specifically mandated to maintain the Register of Applications for Marriage License and to record the names of applicants and dates of issuance. Rule 132, Section 28 of the Rules of Court requires that a negative certification must be issued by the officer having 'custody' of the official record to be admissible as evidence of the record's non-existence. The Court clarified that the MT's custody of Accountable Form (AF) No. 54, as defined in the Local Treasury Operations Manual (LTOM), refers only to blank or unused forms for inventory and physical count purposes. The MT's Logbook merely records the receipt and release of booklets of forms to other officers and does not contain the specific applicant data necessary to verify the issuance of a particular license. Applying the principle in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., a certification issued by a government officer who is not the legal custodian of the relevant record cannot be relied upon as adequate proof. Furthermore, the Court noted that Arthur could have compelled the LCR's participation through a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum but failed to do so. Finally, the Court held that the dismissal does not constitute res judicata because it was based on insufficiency of evidence in a case involving the establishment of a status or fact, allowing Arthur to refile the action with proper evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Local Civil Registrar (LCR) is the sole legal custodian of the Register of Applications for Marriage License and the accomplished applications. Under Rule 132, Section 28 of the Rules of Court, a written statement proving the lack of an official record is only admissible if signed by the officer having actual legal custody of the record. While a Municipal Treasurer (MT) maintains custody of blank Accountable Form (AF) No. 54 (Marriage License Certificate), this custody is for inventory and physical count purposes only and does not constitute a record of licenses actually issued to specific applicants. Consequently, a negative certification from an MT cannot serve as adequate proof of the non-issuance of a marriage license to overcome the presumption of marriage validity.