Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

VICTORIA REYES, in her capacity

as Quezon City Civil Registrar, and
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
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:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs-Respondents, MONIQUE SANTOS and JOEY DELA

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

2. Defendant-Petitioner, VICTORIA REYES, 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;

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;

1
 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

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

Respondent against Defendant-Petitioner;

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

City Regional Trial Court in favor of Plaintiffs-Respondents;

4. 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

5. 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;

6. 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;

7. 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;

8. 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-Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Discrimination Act of 2016;

9. On 16 March 2015, the said Quezon City Civil Registrar

reconsidered her previous decision and issued the Plaintiffs-
Respondents application for a marriage license;

10. 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;

2
 11. 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;

12. 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 a copy of the same;

13. 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

14. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT

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

15. 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

INDEX OF 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 to take into consideration Articles

1 and 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines in not only processing

3
 applications for and in issuing marriage licenses to applicants but also
in 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 of a valid
marriage as provided by Article 2 of the Family Code of the
Philippines 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. Under the rule of ejusdem generis in statutory
construction, general words are not to be construed in their widest
extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the
same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

ARGUMENTS/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.1
(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

1 Section 4 of Act. No. 3753 or the Law on Registry of Civil Status

4
 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.2

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

Plaintiffs-Respondents as married in the Marriage Register since she
is obligated 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 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)3
(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)4
(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 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:

2 Section 18 of Act. No. 3753 or the Law on Registry of Civil Status

3 Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines

4 Article 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines

5
 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) 5

E. Jurisprudence also illustrates the import of the first essential requisite

of a valid marriage. As ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of
Silverio vs Republic of the Philippines:

a. The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-

ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, even the
trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioners first
step towards his eventual marriage to his male fianc. However,
marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. One
of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting
parties who must be a male and a female.6

F. 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 the said marriage as void from the beginning.

G. 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
registry books for it is not a valid document and must not be used as a
basis for the entry of the civil status change 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.

5 Article 4 of the Family Code of the Philippines

6 Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174689 (2007)

6
H. The Plaintiffs-Respondents should not have been issued a marriage
license in the first place 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 actions 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 if 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.

I. It must also be reiterated that the importance of marriage as described

by Article 1 of the Family Code has its constitutional roots. Section 2,
Article XV of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
states:

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

foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.7

J. 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.

K. Lastly, 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. Applying the rule in statutory construction known as
ejusdem generis, that is: where general words follow an enumeration
of persons or things, by words of a particular, and specific meaning,
such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but
are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind
or class as those specifically mentioned.8 One must keep in mind the
given statutory construction rule when reading Section 4 (f) of R.A.
10743, which provides:

7 Section 2, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines

8 Diaz, Noli. Statutory Construction, pg. 82

7
 a. SEC. 4. Discriminatory Practices It shall be unlawful for any person,
natural or juridical, to:
(f) Deny any application for or revoke a PROFESSIONAL or
any other type of license, clearance, certification or any other
similar document issued by the government due to the
applicants sexual orientation or gender identity;9

The license, clearance, or certification intended by the said section is

in regards to professional licenses, clearances, or certifications, and
other such documents issued by the government. The words any
other similar document cannot be interpreted to mean its widest
extent since the inclusion of the word professional limits its scope
to one which is applicable to the same kind or class as the specific
word professional. The professional license, clearance or
certification contemplated by Section 4(f) of R.A. 10743 covers
certifications for qualification for a specific job or profession, licenses
for the regulation of a particular occupation or clearances for
authorization to enter or continue in a particular vocation or
profession. A marriage license and certificate, not intended for a
profession but rather for the establishment of a social institution, is not
the one contemplated by the abovementioned provision of the law and
thus cannot be relied on by the Plaintiffs-Respondents as a basis for
criminal action against the local civil registrar.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING

THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR
MANDAMUS

II. 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

9 Paragraph f, Section 4 of R.A. 10743 or the Anti-SOGI Discrimination Act of 2016

8
 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.

KRISTELLE R. BRIONES
Solicitor General
Roll No. 51497
IBP Lifetime No. 189469
MCLE Exemption No. IV-006592