View full case

REPUBLIC v. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking the reversal of the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Decision and Order. The RTC Decision granted respondent's petition for cancellation of entries in her marriage contract, while the Order denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Respondent discovered that she was already married to a Korean national when she requested a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) as a requirement for her planned marriage. She denied contracting the alleged marriage and claimed that she did not know the supposed husband, did not appear before the solemnizing officer, and that the signature in the marriage certificate was forged. She filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, naming the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City and her alleged husband as parties.

During the trial, respondent testified that she could not have appeared before the supposed solemnizing officer because she was working in Makati. She recognized the named witnesses as individuals she had met while working as a receptionist but denied knowing the supposed husband. She believed that her name was used by a certain Johnny Singh to obtain a passport. A document examiner testified that the signature in the marriage contract was forged.

The RTC granted the petition and directed the cancellation of entries in the wife portion of the marriage contract, finding that the signature in the contract was not respondent's.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that there were no errors in the entries to be cancelled or corrected and that the cancellation of the entries would effectively declare the marriage void ab initio. The RTC denied the motion, stating that it had jurisdiction under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a pure question of law. The Supreme Court denied the petition, noting that petitioner's arguments lacked merit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract, which effectively nullifies the marriage, can be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding.

  2. Whether or not the cancellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract amounts to declaring the marriage void ab initio.

RULING:

  1. The cancellation of entries in the marriage contract can be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court specifically provides for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, including those pertaining to marriages. Any person interested in any act, event, order, or decree concerning the civil status of persons recorded in the civil register may file a verified petition for cancellation or correction of any entry with the Regional Trial Court. In this case, respondent filed a petition for cancellation of entries in the marriage contract to rectify the mistake in her record.

  2. The cancellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract does not amount to declaring the marriage void ab initio. The purpose of the cancellation is to correct the erroneous entries and rectify the mistake in respondent's record, not to declare the marriage null and void. The cancellation solely pertains to the entries in the wife portion of the marriage contract, which were proven to be erroneous and forged. It does not affect the legality or validity of the marriage itself.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule 108 of the Rules of Court allows for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, including those pertaining to marriages.

  • A Rule 108 proceeding is an appropriate adversary proceeding required for cases involving the correction of substantial errors in the civil registry.

  • The cancellation of entries in the marriage contract aims to rectify mistakes and errors in the record, not to declare the marriage null and void.

  • Direct recourse to the Supreme Court may be taken when only questions of law are raised or involved in the case.