The marriage license and marriage certificate are official and public documents, so their validity cannot be successfully assailed except by strong, clear and convincing oral testimony as to the incapacity of one of the parties.
What is the test of incapacity of one of the parties? Is old age, or physical infirmities, feeblemindedness, weakness of memory or other eccentricities enough to show that incapacity? What is the effect of the marriage on the legitimacy of the children born before or after its celebration? These are the questions answered in this case of Mhar and Elena.
Mhar is a rich, old man who was already 76 years old when he started cohabiting with Elena, a young woman about half his age. During their cohabitation, they begot a son who was later baptized as Jonathan. Four years thereafter, Mhar and Elena decided to get married. Each of them obtained a marriage license, got married before a priest according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, then signed their marriage contract. A few weeks after their marriage however, Mhar died, although another son, Mark was still subsequently born about seven months after Mhar’s death.
It turned out that Mhar executed a Last Will and Testament about four years before he died, wherein he named Marilou as executrix of said will and Christian as the universal heir. And during the probate of said will, Elena, in her behalf and in behalf of her sons Jonathan and Mark, filed an Action for Declaration as heirs of Mhar for being his widow while her two sons are their legitimate children.
To support her claim, Elena testified and presented their marriage license and marriage certificate. The officiating priest likewise testified as to the capacity of both parties to get married.
In answer to said suit filed by Elena, Marilou and Christian alleged that the marriage between Elena and Mhar was not valid because Mhar was already suffering from senile dementia, which became worse a few weeks before said marriage when their province was bombarded. They further alleged that the deceased Mhar was deprived of his free will due to his age and sickness, such that he could not even talk coherently and intelligibly and that Elena took advantage of his condition by intrigue and threat of abandoning him, thus forcing Mhar to marry her by means of deceit. They also claimed that Mhar was congenitally sterile, unable to procreate and impotent.
The lower court, however, ruled that the marriage between Mhar and Elena was valid as shown by their marriage licenses and marriage contract. It likewise declared that Mhar was not impotent and that Jonathan and Mark are his sons with Elena, but only Mark is legitimate because Jonathan has not been acknowledged as a natural child and thus could not be legitimized by the subsequent marriage of Mhar and Elena.
This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court. According to the SC, the marriage licenses and the marriage certificate of Mhar and Elena are the best evidence of their marriage. They are official and public documents and their validity can be successfully assailed only by strong, convincing and clear oral testimony. In this case, the oral evidence of Marilou and Christian is too sweeping because they refer to a general, not a specific, period of time.
The old man Mhar, although somewhat weak, had a clear mind as testified by the officiating priest, which is corroborated by the marriage contract and marriage certificate where Mhar’s signatures could not have been written by a man who is almost unconscious and physically and intellectually incapacitated. Besides, neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of mind, weakness of memory, being under guardianship nor eccentricities are sufficient jointly or singly to show that a person is incapacitated to contract marriage.
But only Mark is their legitimate son because he was born more than 180 days after the marriage but less than 300 days after the death of Mhar and thus conclusively presumed to be legitimate under Rule 123 Section 68 of the Rules of Court. With regards to Jonathan, the lower court ruling that he cannot be legitimized by the subsequent marriage of his parents since he has not been acknowledged as a natural child cannot be reviewed anymore because Elena did not appeal it.
So the judgment of the lower court is affirmed in all its parts. (Probate of the will of the late Faustino Neri San Jose, Paz Neri San Jose, Petitioner, Matilde Menciano etc., plaintiffs appellees, vs. Paz Neri San Jose and Rodolfo Pelaez, defendants-appellants, G.R. L-1767, May 28, 1951)