Marriage without certificate

Can the fact of marriage be proven by evidence other than the marriage certificate? This is the question raised and answered in this case of Anita and her eight siblings.

Anita and her siblings were the children of Cecille who in turn was the daughter of Ella. Both Cecille, their mother and Ella, their grandmother, were already deceased, with Cecille dying ahead on Nov. 21, 1994 while Ella died on Nov. 21, 1999.

As far as Anita and her siblings knew, their grandmother Ella was married to Randy. In fact, Ella and Randy even had two nuptials, one in 1951 and the other in 1953 as shown in two marriage certificates in their possession.

So, on Jan. 17, 2003, upon learning that Randy was also dead already and that an intestate proceedings for the settlement of his estate was pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) filed by Randy’s brother James way back in April 28, 1967, Anita and her siblings filed a manifestation before the RTC praying that they be allowed to intervene in behalf of their grandmother Ella, who should be entitled to a share in the estate of Randy. They contended that at the time of Randy’s death on Dec. 20, 1966, their grandmother Ella was the legal spouse of Randy.

To support their cause, Anita and her siblings attached the two marriage certificates of Randy and Ella, the birth certificate of their mother Cecille, showing that she was the daughter of Ella, and their own birth certificates proving that they were the children of Cecille and grandchildren of Ella.

Anita and her siblings asserted that these pieces of evidence sufficiently established that Ella, their grandmother, was the spouse of Randy and that they are her lawful representatives.

It appears, however, that in the birth certificate of Cecille, who was born on Feb. 14, 1946, she was the legitimate child of Ella and John. The document also certifies the status of Ella and John as “married.” So Randy’s brother James, who was appointed by the RTC as Administrator, opposed the intervention, contending that the said entries in the official registry constitute proof of a prior marriage of Ella and John, so that the supposed marriage of Ella and Randy in 1951 and 1953 was void for being bigamous.

But the RTC still allowed Anita and her siblings to intervene. It held that the birth certificate of Cecille was insufficient to prove that there was a previous marriage between Ella and John. The court said that James should have presented the marriage certificate of Ella and John to prove the existence of said previous marriage because the entries in the birth record of Cecille regarding her legitimacy and the status of her parents Ella and John as “married” might have been made only in order to save Ella and her family from the social condemnation of having a child out of wedlock.

So the RTC said that Ella was indeed legally married to Randy and thus entitled to a share in the estate through her grandchildren, Anita and her siblings, as her legal representative. Was the RTC correct?

No. The existence of a previous marriage between Ella and John was adequately established. This holds true notwithstanding the fact that no marriage certificate between John and Ella exists on record. While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. The fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.

In this case, the birth certificate of Cecille precisely serves as the competent evidence of the previous marriage between her mother Ella and John. It contains entries that Ella and John were “married” and that Cecille is their “legitimate” child. Cecille’s birth certificate speaks of a subsisting marriage between Ella and John. Consequently, in the absence of proof that such marriage had been dissolved by the time Ella married Randy, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter marriage is bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.

This birth certificate itself, which was presented by Anita and her siblings, show that Ella was not legally married to Randy and therefore had no interest in the latter’s estate.

Clearly an intervention by Anita and her siblings in the settlement proceedings of Randy’s estate cannot be justified (Anonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo Jalandoni, G.R. 178221, Dec. 1, 2010, 636 SCRA 420).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]