CASE DIGEST : REPUBLIC VS OLAYBAR

 G.R. No. 189538               February 10, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.

MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, Respondent.

Facts : Respondent requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of the requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years. Upon receipt thereof, she discovered that she was already married to a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National. She denied having contracted said marriage and claimed that she did not know the alleged husband. She, thus, filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion thereof. On May 5, 2009, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision in favor of Olaybar. Petitioner, however, moved for the reconsideration of the assailed Decision. the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

ISSUE : WON the RTC is correct.

Held : It is true that in special proceedings, formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the remedy [is] granted upon mere application or motion. However, a special proceeding is not always summary. a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence of marriage.1âwphi1 Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence. The testimonial and documentary evidence clearly established that the only "evidence" of marriage which is the marriage certificate was a forgery. While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of marriage, we cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial court where all the parties had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent; the procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and examined. Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.