Tomasa vda.

De Jacob vs CA GR # 135216
Topic on Presumption of Marriage
Facts
Plaintif-appellant, Tomasa vda. De Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Dr.
Alfredo E. Jacob and as appointed !pecial Administrati" for the various estates of the deceased
b# virtue of a reconstructed Marriage $ontract beteen herself and the deceased.
Defendant-appellee, Pedro Pilapil on the other hand, claimed to be the legall#-adopted son of
Alfredo. %n support of his claim, he presented an &rder dated '( Jul# ')*' issued b# then
Presiding Judge Jose +. Mo#a, $,%, $amarines !ur, granting the petition for adoption -led b#
deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil.'.phi'.n/t
During the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Alfredo in $ase 0o. T-1*
2entitled 3Tomasa vda. de Jacob v. Jose $entenera, et al4 herein defendant-appellee Pedro sought
to intervene therein claiming his share of the deceased5s estate as Alfredo6s adopted son and as
his sole surviving heir. Pedro 7uestioned the validit# of the marriage beteen appellant Tomasa
and his adoptive father Alfredo.
Relevant facts about the a!!"a#e of Tomasa and D!. Alf!edo $ Jacob
Appellant claims ethat the marriage beteen her and Alfredo as solemni8ed b# one Msgr.
,lorencio $. 9llana, $:$P, %ntramuros, Manila sometime in ');<. !he could not hoever present
the original cop# of the Marriage $ontract stating that the original document as lost hen Msgr.
9llana allegedl# gave it to Mr. Jose $entenera for registration. %n lieu of the original, Tomasa
presented as secondar# evidence a reconstructed Marriage $ontract issued in ');(.
During the trial, the court a 7uo observed the folloing irregularities in the e"ecution of the
reconstructed Marriage $ontract, to it=
'. 0o cop# of the Marriage $ontract as sent to the local civil registrar b# the solemni8ing o>cer
thus giving the implication that there as no cop# of the marriage contract sent to, nor a record
e"isting in the civil registr# of Manila? 2@epublic vs $A4
A. %n signing the Marriage $ontract, the late Alfredo Jacob merel# placed his 3thumbmarB3 on said
contract purportedl# on '* !eptember ');< 2date of the marriage4. Coever, on a !orn
A>davit e"ecuted beteen appellant Tomasa and Alfredo a da# before the alleged date of
marriage or on '< !eptember ');< attesting that both of them lived together as husband and
ife for -ve 2<4 #ears, Alfredo DafE-"ed his customar# signature. Thus the trial court concluded
that the 3thumbmarB3 as logicall# 3not genuine3. %n other ords, not of Alfredo Jacob5s?
F. $ontrar# to appellant5s claim, in his A>davit stating the circumstances of the loss of the
Marriage $ontract, the a>ant Msgr. 9llana never mentioned that he allegedl# 3gave the copies of
the Marriage $ontract to Mr. Jose $entenera for registration3. And as admitted b# appellant at the
trial, Jose $entenera 2ho allegedl# acted as padrino4 as not present at the date of the
marriage since he as then in Australia. %n fact, on the face of the reconstructed Marriage
$ontract, it as one 3:enGamin Molina3 ho signed on top of the t#peritten name of Jose
$entenera. This belies the claim that Msgr. 9llana allegedl# gave the copies of the Marriage
$ontract to Mr. Jose $entenera?
1. Appellant admitted that there as no record of the purported marriage entered in the booB of
records in !an Agustin $hurch here the marriage as allegedl# solemni8ed.
%ssue
Hhether or not the marriage beteen the plaintif Tomasa Ida. De Jacob and deceased Alfredo E.
Jacob ere valid in corollar# to the substitution of a reconstructed marriage contract.
&eld
'al"d"t( of a!!"a#e
Doctrinall#, a void marriage ma# be subGected to collateral attacB, hile a voidable one ma# be
assailed onl# in a direct proceeding. Aare of this fundamental distinction, @espondent Pedro
Pilapil contends that the marriage beteen Dr. Alfredo Jacob and petitioner as void ab initio,
because there as neither a marriage license nor a marriage ceremon#. He cannot sustain this
contention.
To start ith, @espondent Pedro Pilapil argues that the marriage as void because the parties
had no marriage license. This argument is misplaced, because it has been established that Dr.
Jacob and petitioner lived together as husband and ife for at least -ve #ears. An a>davit to this
efect as e"ecuted b# Dr. Jacob and petitioner. $learl# then, the marriage as e"ceptional in
character and did not re7uire a marriage license under Article ;* of the $ivil $ode. The $ivil $ode
governs this case, because the 7uestioned marriage and the assailed adoption tooB place prior
the efectivit# of the ,amil# $ode.
When Is Secondary Evidence Allowed?
3%t is settled that if the original riting has been lost or destro#ed or cannot be produced in court,
upon proof of its e"ecution and loss or destruction, or unavailabilit#, its contents ma# be proved
b# a cop# or a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or b# recollection of
itnesses.3 Jpon a shoing that the document as dul# e"ecuted and subse7uentl# lost, ithout
an# bad faith on the part of the oferor, secondar# evidence ma# be adduced to prove its
contents.
The trial court and the $ourt of Appeals committed reversible error hen the# 2'4 e"cluded the
testimonies of petitioner, Adela Pilapil and Msgr. ,lorencio 9llana and 2A4 disregarded the
folloing= 2a4 photographs of the edding ceremon#? 2b4 documentar# evidence, such as the
letter of Monsignor 9llana stating that he had solemni8ed the marriage beteen Dr. Jacob and
petitioner, informed the Archbishop of Manila that the edding had not been recorded in the
:ooB of Marriages, and at the same time re7uested the list of parties to the marriage? 2c4 the
subse7uent authori8ation issued b# the Archbishop K through his vicar general and chancellor,
Msgr. :enGamin +. Marino K ordaining that the union beteen Dr. Jacob and petitioner be
reLected through a corresponding entr# in the :ooB of Marriages? and 2d4 the A>davit of
Monsignor 9llana stating the circumstances of the loss of the marriage certi-cate.
%t should be stressed that the due e"ecution and the loss of the marriage contract, both
constituting the conditio sine 7ua non for the introduction of secondar# evidence of its contents,
ere shon b# the ver# evidence the# have disregarded.
%n the present case, due e"ecution as established b# the testimonies of Adela Pilapil, ho as
present during the marriage ceremon#, and of petitioner herself as a part# to the event. The
subse7uent loss as shon b# the testimon# and the a>davit of the o>ciating priest, Monsignor
9llana, as ell as b# petitioner6s on declaration in court. These a!e !elevant) com*etent and
adm"ss"ble ev"dence. !ince the due e"ecution and the loss of the marriage contract ere
clearl# shon b# the evidence presented, secondar# evidence K testimonial and documentar# K
ma# be admitted to prove the fact of marriage.
+!esum*t"on "n Favo! of a!!"a#e
+iBeise, e have held=
The basis of human societ# throughout the civili8ed orld is . . . of marriage. Marriage in this
Gurisdiction is not onl# a civil contract, but it is a ne relation, an institution in the maintenance
of hich the public is deepl# interested. $onse7uentl#, ever# intendment of the la leans toard
legali8ing matrimon#. Persons delling together in apparent matrimon# are presumed, in the
absence of an# counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The
reason is that such is the common order of societ#, and if the parties ere not hat the# thus
hold themselves out as being, the# ould be living in the constant violation of decenc# and of
la. A presumption established b# our $ode of $ivil Procedure is 3that a man and oman
deporting themselves as husband and ife have entered into a laful contract of
marriage.3!emper praesumitur pro matrimonio K Ala#s presume marriage. 2emphasis
supplied4
This Gurisprudential attitude toards marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a
man and a oman deporting themselves as husband and ife have entered into a laful
contract of marriage. Miven the undisputed, even accepted, fact that D!. Jacob and *et"t"one!
l"ved to#ethe! as husband and ,"fe) ,e -nd that the *!esum*t"on of ma!!"a#e ,as not
!ebutted "n th"s case.
The Cou!t !uled on the"! -nal dec"s"on that the ma!!"a#e bet,een +et"t"one!
Tomasa 'da. de Jacob and the deceased Alf!edo $. Jacob "s he!eb( !eco#n".ed
and decla!ed 'A/%D