Legal Opinion - Midterms

Payad, Azanith Ann B. 11583371 G04 Legal Opinion – Midterms Dear Ms. Teresa Campos, Greetings! Here is the legal opinion that you requested. The facts, based on my understanding, are as follows: You and Roy Lopez are about to get married next month. Roy Lopez has an illegitimate child in his past relationship with Ester Salva. Roy and Ester did not get married but they are currently in good terms and Roy even gives support to his child. Last month, you received by mail copies of a marriage license issued by the Civil Registrar’s office of Imus, Cavite, dated September 17, 2005 in favor of Roy and Ester and a certificate of marriage showing that they were married at the office of some religious pastor at the back of Manila City Hall on August 4, 2005. The documents were obviously falsified and the signature of Roy is forged since Roy and Ester never got married. Ester confessed that she paid for someone’s help to obtain those falsified documents in 2005. Ester’s father is now threatening to file a case for bigamy against Roy if he marries you. Based on our previous conversation, your primary concern is the validity of your upcoming marriage to Roy Lopez despite the existence of the marriage license and certificate of marriage between Roy Lopez and Ester Salva. Hence, we need to consider the following: a.) whether or not there is an existing valid marriage between Roy and Ester; b.) what actions should be taken to relieve you and Roy from any possible charges such as bigamy; and, in connection to Roy’s illegitimate child, c.) what are the remedies needed to protect your personal properties. The best evidence of marriage is the marriage certificate itself 1. In your case, Ester Salva obtained a marriage certificate in favor of her and Roy. The documents filed into the Civil Registry and the 1 People v. Alejo, G.R. No. 149370. September 23, 2003.

National Statistics Office are indeed presumed to be valid. In Ferancullo v. Ferancullo2, it was held that the marriage certificate should prevail over respondents claim that the marriage certificate or his signature therein was falsified. The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity. Therefore, in the eyes of the court, there is a valid marriage between Ester and Roy. It is your burden to provide evidence to support your claim that the marriage certificate was falsified. You may invoke that: 1.) the marriage license and marriage certificate obtained by Ester are falsified since there was no marriage that was celebrated at all; 2.) the information about Roy Lopez are wrong; 3.) as examined by a handwriting expert, his signatures were forged. Also, the genuineness of the aforesaid documents can be challenged in regard to its respective dates. The marriage certificate was dated August 4, 2005 and the marriage license was dated September 17, 2005. Whereas, the marriage license should have been dated first since it is one of the formal requisites in a valid marriage. Hence, there is absurdity. Falsification of documents is punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Hence, it is in your discretion if you opt to file a criminal case. Establishing the fact that the documents were falsified, Ester’s father cannot adduce them as evidence if ever he files a charge of bigamy against Roy. To relieve Roy from any impediments, he should file a petition for cancellation of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. In the case of Republic v. Olaybar3, the court allowed her petition for cancellation of entries because she never contracted to the marriage that was registered in the NSO and her signatures in the said marriage contract were merely forged. As a general rule, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. However, in 2 Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006. 3 Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No 159138, February 10, 2014.

the case Roy, the court cannot declare the marriage between Roy and Ester as void as there was no marriage to speak of. There is no valid marriage if no marriage ceremony is performed. This was further illustrated in the case of Morigo v. People4 where the parties merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The court held that a mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. Since your marriage is already set to happen next month, I suggest that he files his petition immediately because the court shall still cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation 5. Once the petition has been allowed, you may validly continue with the marriage to Roy without having to worry about any hindrances. I would just like to remind you of the other essential 6 and formal requisites7 of marriage such as your legal capacity, authority of the solemnizing officer, valid marriage license, and your witnesses. Upon complying with the requisites, there will be assurance in the validity of your marriage. With regards to the protection of your personal property against possible future claims of Roy’s illegitimate child, I recommend you to have your marriage under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. Under the Family Code, the regime conjugal partnership of gains is defined as: “Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance, and, upon dissolution of the 4 5 6 7

Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004. Rules of Court, Rule 108, Section 4. Family Code of the Philippines, Article 2. Id., Article 3.

marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall be divided equally between them, unless otherwise agreed in the marriage settlements.”

To further elaborate, you will still have your exclusive property which is comprised of: (1) that which is brought to the marriage as your own;(2) that which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;(3) that which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter or by exchange with property belonging to only you; and (4) that which is purchased with your exclusive money8. The obligation of Roy to support his illegitimate child shall come from his separate property9. If Roy’s separate property would be inadequate, only the conjugal partnership shall advance the support and which shall be deducted from the share of Roy upon the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Therefore, your exclusive property will never be held answerable to the support of the illegitimate child of Roy. I hope you find the foregoing legal opinion helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further service to you in this matter. Regards, Atty. Salas

8 Family Code of the Philippines, Article 109. 9 Id., Article 197.