[G.R. No.

167746, August 28, 2007]

RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. ROSITA A. ALCANTARA and HON.

COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Facts:

Restituto Alcanata and Rosita A. Alcantara sought to be married in December 8,

1992 through a “fixer”. They got married on the same day without a marriage
license. It was solemnized by a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the
Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel. Restituto and Rosita went through another marriage
ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983.
The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage
license. A copy of the marriage license bearing the name of Restituto and Rosita
was subsequently procured in Carmona, Cavite.

Restituto filed a petition for the nullity of his marriage with Rosita. He contends that
the marriage contracted by the parties should be void because the alleged marriage
license indicated in the marriage contract was a sham. Neither of the spouses went
to Carmona Cavite nor are residents of the said municipality.

Rosita, in her answer, avers that the presence of the marriage license certified by
the local civil registry of Carmona Cavite is enough proof to validate the marriage.
She alleges that Restituto filed for the nullity of their marriage only because he has
a mistress with whom he has three children. Pending the civil case, a criminal case
for concubinage was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong.

The trial court dismissed the petition for the nullity of marriage due to lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.

The case is a petition for review on certiorari. Restituto further contended that the
marriage license could not be given weight since the license bearing the name of
the spouses is numbered 7054133 while the marriage contract that bears the
license is numbered 7054033.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriage between Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Alcantara is
void.

Ruling:

No. The marriage between Restituto and Rosita Alcantara is not void.
Under the law, an irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage does not affect its
validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly, criminally
and administratively liable.

In this case, an irregularity in one of the requisites of marriage (i.e. typographical

error in the marriage license) should not affect the validity of the marriage in
question. Moreover, the Court held that the church ceremony corrected whatever
irregularity or defect which arose from the civil wedding. Thus the marriage of the
spouses Alcantara is not void.

“Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio”

The presumption is always in favour of the validity of the marriage.