The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that a marriage officiated by someone without legal authority is generally void—but not if one or both spouses genuinely believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (retired), the SC’s Second Division dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking to declare her marriage void on the ground that the officiant was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

The couple was married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, Tarlac and their marriage contract listed Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia) as the solemnizing officer.

However, more than 20 years later, the wife’s lawyer claimed that the man in their wedding photos was not Judge De Gracia, but Rosalio Florendo, a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This led the wife to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.

The RTC denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo. It also noted that the wife herself admitted she believed it was Judge De Gracia who officiated the wedding.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, stating that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as prima facie or initial proof of the marriage and its details. The wife failed to present clear and convincing evidence to challenge this.  

The SC upheld both lower courts’ decisions.

Under Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. Article 7 lists those authorized to officiate, including incumbent judges within their jurisdiction. Article 35(2) states that a marriage is void if the officiant lacks authority—unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized.

In this case, the SC found that the wife failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority. The marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

While the wife later alleged that the solemnizing officer was not Judge De Gracia, the SC found that she presented no evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo. Aside from bare allegations, she and her lawyer failed to submit other documentary or testimonial proof to support their claim.

The SC emphasized that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Further, the wife herself admitted she believed at the time of the marriage ceremony that the officiant was Judge De Gracia and never questioned his authority. It was only nearly three decades later that her lawyer raised doubts, but failed to actually prove his allegation.        

Thus, the SC held that the marriage falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code and remains valid.

In a Dissenting Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen argued that even if the solemnizing officer’s lack of authority falls under the exception, the absence of a personal declaration by the spouses during the ceremony—where they publicly take each other as husband and wife—renders the marriage void. He added that irregularities in the ceremony and the officiant’s authority raise reasonable doubt about the marriage’s validity. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 267998, April 23, 2025 and the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen.