The Supreme Court has ruled that a petition for cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court cannot be used to declare a marriage void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license. In its decision in G.R. No. 276941, the Court held that this kind of case falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Family Courts.
The Court denied the petition filed by Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The Case
On March 20, 1989, Spouses Ferreros were married in the Philippine Independent Church in Sta. Cruz, Manila. Unknown to them, at the time of their marriage ceremony, they did not have a valid marriage license. The absence of the marriage license was indicated in their marriage contract, and the Philippine Independent Church reported to the Local Civil Registry of Manila that the marriage was celebrated without a marriage license.
Believing that their marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license, the couple decided to get married again on October 3, 1995 in Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City. This time, their marriage had all the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage.
On September 7, 2022, Spouses Ferreros filed a Petition for cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry before the RTC, seeking the cancellation of their previous marriage due to the absence of a marriage license. The RTC dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that the allegations and reliefs sought to declare the previous marriage void ab initio, which falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Family Court, and that even under Rule 108, the couple failed to implead all the indispensable parties.
The couple later filed an Amended Petition to include the Local Civil Registry of Quezon City and a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition and affirmed the RTC. Their Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was likewise denied, leading them to bring the case to the Supreme Court.
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that resorting to Rule 108 to declare the first marriage void for lack of a marriage license was an improper remedy and cannot substitute for a Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Our Lady of Lourdes Church confirmed that the couple celebrated their wedding there on October 3, 1995 with a marriage license.
The Issue
The issue is whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari of Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Ruling
The Court disagreed with the petitioners. It held that the main cause of action in their Petition was to seek the declaration of their previous marriage as void ab initio, which is not governed by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. The Court stated that Rule 108 does not extend to cancellation of documents like the marriage contract which has the effect of declaring the marriage null and void.
The Court's disposition read: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 27, 2024 and Resolution dated October 21, 2024 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 176229 are AFFIRMED. Branch 50, Regional Trial Court, Manila has no jurisdiction to try and hear the Petition for Cancellation of Entry in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court filed by Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros. This is without prejudice to the filing of Ramon C. Ferreros and Dulce T. Ferreros of the appropriate action before the proper court."
By the Numbers
- March 20, 1989 — date of the couple's first marriage in Sta. Cruz, Manila
- October 3, 1995 — date of the second marriage at Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Quezon City
- September 7, 2022 — date the couple filed their Petition before the RTC
- October 14, 2022 — date the Amended Petition was filed
- June 27, 2024 — date of the CA Decision
- October 21, 2024 — date of the CA Resolution
- G.R. No. 276941
- CA-G.R. SP No. 176229
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is generally limited to the review of errors of law committed by the CA, and the findings of fact of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon it. It found no ground to apply the exception.
Citing Republic v. Olaybar, the Court reiterated that a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage, and a direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code and A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. A Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry.
Relying on Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8369, the Family Courts Act of 1997, the Court held that the issue of whether the petitioners' marriage should be declared void ab initio is within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Because the petitioners sought the cancellation of their marriage contract on the ground that it is void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license, and not merely to cancel a specific entry, the RTC properly dismissed the Petition.
The Court noted that the RTC dismissed the Petition without prejudice, meaning the case can be re-filed, tried, and resolved in the appropriate proceeding. Under Rule 41, Section 1(h) of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 276941, penned by Associate Justice Lopez.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.