156933674 Vda de Jacob v CA Digest

Vda. de Jacob v. CA [G.R. No. 135216. August 19, 1999]

TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, JACOB, as Special Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfredo E. Jacob, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for the Province of Camarines Sur, and JUAN F. TRIVINO as TRIVINO as publisher of "Balalong," respondents.

Petitioner: Tomasa Petitioner:  Tomasa Vda. de Jacob Private Respondent: Pedro Respondent: Pedro Pilapil What:  The loss of the best evidence of marriage, specifically the marriage What:  contract, and how to prove the validity of marriage using a reconstructed marriage certificate and other evidences. Summary: Tomasa is the surviving spouse of the deceased Alfredo e. Jacob Summary: Tomasa and claims the right over the latter's estate. However Pedro, the legally adopted son of the late Alfredo, claims for his share of the estate as the sole surviving heir. Pedro further questions the validity of the marriage between Tomasa and his late adoptive father. Nature of the Case: The instant case is a petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The CA ruled in favor of Pedro Pilapil and against Tomasa Vda. de Jacob on grounds including the declaration that the reconstructed marriage certificate as spurious and non-existent. Hence, the present petition.

What are the facts of the case? 1. Petitioner Tomasa narrated that her marriage with the late Alfredo was solemnized by one Msgr. Florencio C. Yllana in Intramuros, Manila sometime in 1975. She could not however present the original copy of the Marriage

Contract stating that the original document was lost when Msgr. Yllana allegedly gave it to one Mr. Jose Centenera for registration. In lieu of the lost marriage certificate, petitioner presented a reconstructed marriage contract issued three years after the said marriage. However, several irregularities of the reconstructed marriage contract was observed by the court: a. No copy of the Marriage Contract was sent to the local civil registrar; b. A mere thumbmark was purportedly placed by the late Alfredo on the alleged reconstructed marriage contract instead of his customary signature as affixed in their sworn affidavit; c. Inconsistencies in the affidavit of Msgr. Yllana on the circumstances surrounding the loss of the marriage contract and the testimonies of appellant Tomasa; and d. Appellant admitted that there was no record entered into the San Agustin Church where the alleged marriage was solemnized.

What are the issues of the case? 1. Whether the alleged reconstructed marriage contract is valid and is a sufficient proof of marriage in lieu of the lost Marriage Contract. 2. Whether the questioned marriage was void ab initio due to lack of marriage license and a marriage ceremony as alleged by the legally adopted son, Pedro. 3. Whether the absence of said marriage on the record book of the local civil register affects the validity of such.

What is the ruling of the court?

1. Yes. Even though the marriage contract is the best evidence that a marriage indeed took place between two contracting parties, absence or lost

thereof does not render the marriage void. The marriage license is not a formal requisite of marriage; it is merely a written manifestation or the reiteration of the exchange of vows done during the marriage ceremony. As provided by Section 3 in relation to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the contents of such document may be proven by competent evidences other than the document itself. In the case at bar, appellant Tomasa had provided competent evidences to prove that a valid marriage had been solemnized between her and the late Alfredo. Such evidences were supplied by the sworn testimonies of Msgr. Yllana who was the solemnizing officer; witness Adela Pilapil, and Tomasa herself both in open court and in writing. 2. No. The contention Pedro that there was no marriage license issued prior to the solemnization of the marriage between the two was misplaced due to the fact that the said spouses had been cohabiting with each other for more than five years as stated in a sworn affidavit made by the late Alfedo and the appellant. This is an exceptional character under the Article 76 of the Civil Code which provided that the questioned marriage is exempted from the requisite of a valid marriage license. The accusations of Pedro Pilapil which were formerly favored by the Court of Appeals were then reversed and set aside. 3. No. Absence of an entry pertaining to 1975 in the Books of Marriage of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and in the National Census and Statistics Office (NCSO) does not invalidate the marriage. It is of the solemnizing officer's duty to send a copy of marriage certificate to these offices in order to be duly recorded (Art. 23, FC). In the absence of other competent evidences to the contrary, a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have entered into a legal contract of marriage. The fact that the appellant and the deceased had lived together as husband and wife and the same was affirmed by the evidences, the presumption of marriage was not likewise rebutted.

Held:

The marriage between petitioner Tomasa and the late Alfredo was proven to be valid in virtue of the reconstructed marriage contract sworn by the solemnizing officer himself and a witness to the marriage ceremony. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage between Petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob and the deceased Alfredo E. Jacob is hereby recognized and declared VALID and the claimed adoption of Respondent Pedro Pilapil is DECLARED NONEXISTENT.

Significant Provisions to the Case at Bar

Section 3, Rule 130, ROC.  Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror; xxx

xxx

xxx

Section 5, Rule 130, ROC.  When the original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy. Or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

Art. 76, CC. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in

an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oath. The official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.

Other issues: ADOPTION. Whether Pedro Pilapil is a legally adopted son of the late Alfredo Jacob. No. The court ruled that the burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming such relationship. However, Pedro Pilapil failed to do such. Likewise, both the Bureau of Records Management in Manila and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Tigaon, Camarines Sur, issued Certifications that there was no record that Pedro Pilapil had been adopted by Dr. Jacob. Taken together, these circumstances inexorably negate the alleged adoption of respondent.

Semper Presumitur Pro Matrimonio : Always Presume Marriage

The Supreme Court, holding the sanctity of marriage with the highest regards and respect, rule that marriage shall always be presumed between a man and a woman of legal age, who had voluntarily cohabitated with each other, and had no legal impediment to marry. Marriage is always favored in the absence of proofs to the contrary. If ever there will be an ambiguity in the question of the validity of the marriage, the question shall be resolved in light of the presumption of marriage. The court held that "Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married."

The constant pressure of the presumption of marriage made it necessary that the evidence presented in order to repel such must be strong, distinct, and satisfactory (Sta. Maria, 2010). The Duty of the Solemnizing Officer Article 23 of the Family Code provides that it is the primary duty of the solemnizing officer to submit the copies of the Marriage Contract, specifically the duplicate and the triplicate copies, to the Local Civil Registrar where the marriage was validly solemnized. It is mandatory that the copies shall be sent to the Local Civil Registrar not later than 15 days after the marriage ceremony. Such as in the case of Beso v. Judge Daguman (323 SCRA 566), the solemnizing officer will be held administratively liable for the nonregistration of the marriage or a significant delay thereof. Such non-registration is a mere irregularity in the procedure of marriage and does not render the marriage void or annullable for it is not the contracting parties’ duty to do such.

In my Humble Opinion

Vocabulary Administratix (noun) - a woman who is an administrator, specifically of an estate.