Evidence of marriage

This is another case about marriage which is considered as the “basis of human society throughout the civilized world.” Verily, in our jurisdiction, marriage is “not only a civil contract but … a new relation, an institution the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested.” So, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing it. Consequently, “a man and a woman dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed to be in fact married in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case.” This is illustrated in the case of Tita and Ernie.

Tita and Ernie got married on Sept. 30, 1942 in rites officiated by the parish priest of their town. During their union, they begot four children, namely Gerry, born on March 3, 1945; Bert, born on Aug. 2, 1946; Mila born on July 6, 1951 and Jim born on Dec. 5, 1953.

About 12 years after they got married, Ernie left his family and his whereabouts was not known until four years later, when Tita and her children learned that he was in a city down south living with another woman, Virgie, who later died without leaving any children.

About 25 years after Ernie left his family, Tita learned that Ernie got married to another woman, Gilda, on March 20, 1979 at the parish church of the city where he transferred. Eventually, after the death of Ernie, Tita decided to file a complaint against Gilda for the Declaration of Nullity of the latter’s marriage to the late Ernie on the ground that it is bigamous and void. She filed the petition to protect the rights of her children over the properties acquired by Ernie.

At the trial, Tita herself testified about her marriage to Ernie in a wedding ceremony officiated by the parish priest of their town. Lita, the sister of Ernie, who personally witnessed the marriage ceremony, also testified. The eldest son Gerry likewise testified and declared that his mother was married to his father.

Also presented were documentary evidence other than the marriage certificate to prove the fact of marriage because the records of the local civil registrar were destroyed during World War II.

On the other hand, Gilda testified that her marriage to Ernie took place on March 20, 1979; about her life as a wife and how she took care of Ernie when he was already in poor health, and her knowledge that Tita’s marriage is not legal and that she was only the common law life of Ernie.

She also submitted documentary evidence to substantiate her allegations, like their marriage contract, the affidavit of Ernie declaring himself as single and had only common law relations with Tita, as well as the certificate issued by the local civil registrar of their place of marriage.

After trial the RTC rendered a decision denying Tita’s petition to declare Gilda’s marriage to Ernie null and void. It also dismissed Gilda’s counterclaim. This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which declared the validity of Tita’s marriage to Ernie while pronouncing on the other hand the marriage between Gilda and Ernie to be bigamous and thus null and void. Was the CA correct?

Yes, said the Supreme Court (SC). According to the SC, while a marriage certificate is considered as the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.

It is error for the RTC to rule that without the marriage certificate, no other proof of the fact of marriage can be accepted. In this case, the due execution of the marriage contract was established by the testimony of Lita, the sister of Ernie, who was present during the marriage ceremony, and of Tita herself as a party to the event.

The subsequent loss of said marriage certificate was shown by the testimony and the affidavit of the officiating priest which is relevant, competent and admissible evidence. Since the due execution and the loss of the marriage contract were clearly shown by the certifications issued by the National Statistics Office (NSO) and the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of the place where the marriage was celebrated, secondary evidence – testimonial and documentary – may be admitted to prove the fact of marriage.

In this case the fact of marriage has been established by the testimonies of Lita, Gerry and Tita; the unrebutted fact of the birth within the cohabitation of Tita and Ernie of four children as shown by the children’s birth certificates and baptism and the certification of marriage issued by the parish priest.

Besides, a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is presumed to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage under the Code of Civil Procedure, (Section 334 No. 28). (Macau Vda de Avenido vs. Avenido, G.R. 173540, Jan. 22, 2014)