Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

VICTORIA REYES, in her capacity

as Quezon City Civil Registrar,
Defendant-Petitioner,

- versus- Civil Case No. 020496

For: Certiorari

MONIQUE SANTOS and

JOEY DELA CRUZ
Plaintiffs-Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW DEFENDANT-PETITIONER through undersigned

counsel unto this Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully submits the
instant MEMORANDUM and avers that:

NATURE OF PETITION

1. This is a petition for review on CERTIORARI under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court to:
1.1. NULLIFY the Quezon City Regional Trial Court
Decision dated 07 December 2015, which granted the
Plaintiffs-Respondents Petition for Mandamus to
compel Defendant-Petitioner to register the Plaintiffs-
Respondents marriage certificate in the civil registry
and issue the same to the PSA;

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs-Respondents, MONIQUE SANTOS and JOEY DELA

CRUZ, are both 28 years old, Filipino, married with residence at
Eastwood City, Quezon City, where they may be served with legal
processes and notices issued by this Honorable Supreme Court;

3. Defendant-Petitioner, MARIA DELA CRUZ, is 45 years old,

Filipino, married, with residence at 14 Bonifacio Street, Quezon
City, where she may be served with legal processes and notices
issued by this Honorable Supreme Court;

1
 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

4. On 20 July 2015, a Petition for Mandamus was filed by Plaintiffs-

Respondent against Defendant-Petitioner;

5. On 07 December 2015, a decision was rendered by the Quezon

City Regional Trial Court in favor of Plaintiffs-Respondents;

6. On 20 December 2015, a Petition for Review was filed by

Defendant-Petitioner through the Office of the Solicitor General;

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. On 5 March 2015, Plaintiffs-Respondents went to the Office of the

Civil Registrar of Quezon City with all the required documents for
their application for a marriage license;
8. On 9 March 2015, the Quezon City Civil Registrar at that time,
which was the Defendant-Petitioners predecessor, denied the
Plaintiffs-Respondents application for a marriage license on the
ground that both applicants were female;
9. On 12 March 2015, Plaintiff-Respondent Monique Santos wrote a
letter of request for reconsideration of the said decision of the
Quezon City Civil Registrar;
10.Plaintiff-Respondent also claimed that they would file both
administrative and criminal charges against said Civil Registrar for
the denial of their marriage license for violating of Section 4(f) of
R.A. 10743 or the Anti-SOGI Discrimination Act of 2016;
11. On 16 March 2015, the said Quezon City Civil Registrar
reconsidered her previous decision and issued the Plaintiffs-
Respondents application for a marriage license;
12. On 5 May 2015, Plaintiffs-Respondents were married at the mass
wedding held in the UP Chapel where they received a copy of their
marriage certificate, which was duly signed by the officiator of
their wedding: the mayor of Quezon City;
13. On 7 July 2015, the Plaintiffs-Respondents discovered that the
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) did not have a copy of their
marriage certificate because the current Quezon City Civil
Registrar, herein Defendant-Petitioner, refused to register the said
document on the basis that both applicants were of the same
gender;
14. By virtue of the decision of the RTC QC on 07 December 2015
granting the Plaintiffs-Respondents petition, herein Defendant-
Petitioner was ordered to register the Plaintiffs-Respondents
marriage certificate and to furnish the PSA of the copy of the same;

2
 15. Defendant-Petitioner sought the assistance of the Solicitor General
to question the said decision of the RTC QC on pure questions of
law;

ISSUE OF THE CASE

16. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT

ERRED IN GRANTING THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS
PETITION FOR MANDAMUS; AND

17. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT

ERRED IN DIRECTING THE QUEZON CITY CIVIL
REGISTRAR TO REGISTER THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
AND ISSUE THE SAME TO THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS
AUTHORITY

ARGUMENTS

A. The court erred in ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs-Respondents and

granting their said petition for mandamus since compelling the
Defendant-Petitioner to register the said marriage certificate is a
violation of Section 4 of Act. No. 3753;

B. The court erred in ordering the Defendant-Petitioner to register the

said marriage certificate, and to submit the same to the PSA since it is
tantamount to a neglect of duty with regards to the duties and
responsibilities of a civil registrar as provided by Section 18 of Act
No. 3753;

C. The Defendant-Petitioner is obliged under law to enforce Articles 1

and 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines in not only processing
applications for and in issuing marriage licenses to applicants but also
registering marriage certificates such as those issued in favor of the
Plaintiffs-Respondents;

D. The marriage celebrated between the Plaintiffs-Respondents is void ab

initio due to the absence of the first essential requisite to a valid
marriage as provided by Article 2 of the Family Code in relation to
Article 4 of the same code and thus, there exists no need for the
Defendant-Petitioner to register the marriage certificate issued in
favor of the Plaintiffs-Respondents and to furnish the PSA of the copy
of the said document;

E. Plaintiffs-Respondents reliance on Sec. 4(f) of R.A. 10743 is

misguided.

3
 DISCUSSION

A. It must be emphasized that the Defendant-Petitioner had acted in

accordance with her function as the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon
City in refusing to register the disputed marriage certificate of the
Plaintiffs-Respondents. As provided by Section 4 of Act. No. 3753 or
the Law on Registry of Civil Status:
a. Section 4. Civil Register Books. The local registrars shall
keep and preserve in their offices the following books, in which
they shall, respectively make the PROPER entries concerning
the civil status of persons:
1. Birth and death register;
2. Marriage register, in which shall be entered not
only the marriages solemnized but also divorces
and dissolved marriages.
3. Legitimation, acknowledgment, adoption, change
of name and naturalization register.
(Emphasis supplied)

B. The Civil Registrar is mandated by the said provision to keep and

preserve the registry books and to make the appropriate entries
concerning the civil status of persons. Defendant-Petitioner acted
within her powers and responsibility as the local civil registrar to deny
the registration of the said marriage certificate and the issuance of the
same to the Philippine Statistics Authority. To use the said marriage
certificate as the basis for listing Monique Santos and Joey Dela Cruz
as married persons are contrary to her mandate as provided by Section
4 of Act. No. 3753 and may lead her to become subject to sanctions
due to neglect of duty as provided by Section 18 of the same Act:

b. Section 18. Neglect of duty with reference to the provisions

of this Act. Any local registrar who fails properly to perform
his duties in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of
the regulations issued hereunder, shall be punished for the first
offense, by an administrative fine in a sum equal to his salary
for not less than fifteen days nor more than three months, and
for a second or repeated offense, by removal from the service.

C. Also, the Defendant-Petitioner cannot make an entry in favor of the

Plaintiffs-Respondents as married in the Marriage Register since she
is obliged under law to take into consideration Articles 1 and 2 of the
Family Code when issuing marriage licenses and registering marriage
certificates. Articles 1 and 2 of E.O. 209 or the Family Code of the
Philippines states:

c. Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent UNION

BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and

4
 family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable
social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are
governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that
marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)
(Emphasis supplied)

d. Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential

requisites are present:

1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties who

MUST BE A MALE AND A FEMALE;
2. Consent freely given in the presence of the
solemnizing officer. (53a)
(Emphasis supplied)

D. Article 1 and 2 of the Family Code explicitly specifies the limitation

that a marriage is one which is celebrated by two people of the
opposite sex. Since the marriage that was celebrated by the Plaintiffs-
Respondents, is one that is between persons of the same sex, it is
deemed null and void as provided by Article 4 of the Family Code:

e. Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites

shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in
Article 35 (2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the
validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for
the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively
liable. (n)

E. Following the fact that the marriage celebrated between Plaintiffs-

Respondents Monique Santos and Joey Dela Cruz is void ab initio
despite the fact of it being able to comply with all the formal
requisites of a valid marriage as enumerated by Article 3 of the Family
Code (i.e. the Quezon City Mayor as their authorized solemnizing
officer, a marriage license issued to them by the previous Quezon City
Civil Registrar out of fear of delayed retirement benefits, and a mass
wedding held at the UP Chapel as the marriage ceremony required by
Article 3), the nonexistence of the essential requisite of the legal
capacity of the contracting parties who must be male and female,
render it as void from the beginning.

F. Being void from the very start, the marriage certificate issued and
signed by the solemnizing officer or the Quezon City Mayor in favor
of the Plaintiffs-Respondents must also be deemed as void ab initio,
there being no actual valid marriage. Thus, Defendant-Petitioner must
not be compelled to register the said marriage certificate in the civil

5
 registry books for it is not a valid document and must not be used as a
basis for the entry of the change of the civil status of the Plaintiffs-
Respondents. Defendant-Petitioner must not also be compelled to
furnish a copy of the marriage certificate to the PSA since the same is
null and void.

G. In the first place, the Plaintiffs-Respondents should not have been

issued a marriage license if not for the fear of the Defendant-
Petitioners predecessor of administrative and criminal charges that
may delay her enjoyment of her retirement benefits. The Plaintiffs-
Respondents was only able to acquire a marriage license by making
use of threats of administrative and criminal action against the
previous Quezon City Civil Registrar to make her reconsider her
earlier decision to deny the Plaintiffs-Respondents application for a
marriage license. It would be the height of injustice and entirely
unlawful to compel the Defendant-Petitioner to perpetuate the wrong
committed by the previous civil registrar, such is the effect is the
Petition for Mandamus filed by the Plaintiffs-Respondents is upheld.
Hence, the Court must declare not only the marriage certificate but
also the marriage license null and void.

H. The importance of marriage as described by Article 1 of the Family

Code is also based on Section 2, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines, which states:

f. Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the

foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

I. The Constitution as the primary law of the land defines marriage as a

social institution that is inviolable or absolute and unalterable. The
State has the duty to protect the sanctity of marriage. Thus,
Defendant-Petitioner being a government official and a local civil
registrar under the supervision of the Civil Registrar-General was only
performing a Constitutionally mandated duty to uphold and preserve
the sanctity of marriage as a social institution and a union that is
celebrated by people of the opposite gender in refusing to register a
marriage certificate between people of the same gender.

J. The dependence of the Plaintiffs-Respondents on Section 4(f) of R.A.

10743 or the Anti-SOGI Discrimination Act of 2016 is utterly
erroneous. The license, clearance, or certification contemplated by the
said section is in regards to professional licenses, clearances, or
certifications, and other such documents issued by the government. A
marriage license and certificate, not being a profession but rather a
social institution, is not covered by the said provision and thus cannot
be relied on by the Plaintiffs-Respondents as a basis for criminal
action.

6
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

the Honorable Supreme Court, that:

1. The Marriage License issued by the Quezon City Civil

Registrar in favor of Monique Santos and Joey Dela Cruz on 16
March 2015 be declared NULL and VOID;

2. The Marriage Certificate dated 05 May 2015 between Monique

Santos and Joey Dela Cruz be declared NULL and VOID; and

3. The Decision dated 07 December 2015 of RTC QC be

REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new decision be rendered
DISMISSING the said petition.

Respectfully submitted.
Quezon City, 15 January 2016.

ATTY. KRISTELLE R. BRIONES

Counsel for Defendant-Petitioner
5922 Flogger St., Air Force City, Clark Air Base,
Angeles City, Pampanga