MARTINEZ v TAN

February 5, 1909
WILLARD, J.
PETITIONERS
Rosalia Martinez
RESPONDENTS
Angel Tan
NATURE
APPEAL from judgment of CFI of Leyte
BRIEF
Plaintiff claims she did not appear before the justice of peace and that she and defendant were not legally married
before the justice of peace.
FACTS
CFI held parties were legally married based on: 1) the document itself which plaintiff admits she signed and 2)
testimonies of defendant, Esmero, Ballori, and the bailiff of the court of justice of peace stating that plaintiff
appeared and signed the mentioned document.
Evidence at trial: 1) Petition signed by plaintiff and defendant, directed to the justice of peace, asking justice to
solemnize the marriage they have mutually agreed to enter into and 2) Certificate of marriage dated Sept 25 1909
and signed by the justice of peace, Zacarias Esmero (witness for husband), and Pacita Ballori (witness for wife)
stating plaintiff and defendant were legally married.
Plaintiff claims she never appeared before the justice of peace and was never married to defendant. Document
was signed in her own home at the request of defendant who claimed it authorized him to ask for her parents
consent to marriage. There is evidence that plaintiff is not telling truth because of eight letters that defendant
claims was written by plaintiff. In the letters, fact of civil marriage was referenced by plaintiff a number of times.
Plaintiff and defendant never lived together as husband and wife. Defendant went to Ormoc to ask permission for
marriage from plaintiffs father. Upon plaintiffs arrival in Ormoc, after consulting with her family, she went to
Cebu and commenced this action, which was brought for the purpose of procuring the cancellation of the
certificate of marriage and for damages. The evidence strongly preponderates in favor of the decision of the court
below to the effect that the plaintiff appeared before the justice of the peace at the time named.
ISSUES x RULING
1. WON Martinez and Tan were married on Sept 25 1907 before the justice of the peace, Jose Ballori
YES. A marriage took place as shown by the certificate of the justice of the peace, signed by both contracting
parties, which certificates gives rise to the presumption that the officer authorized the marriage in due form, the
parties before the justice of the peace declaring that they took each other as husband and wife, unless the
contrary is proved, such presumption being corroborated in this case by the admission of the woman to the effect
that she had contracted the marriage certified to in the document signed by her, which admission can only mean
the parties mutually agreed to unite in marriage when they appeared and signed the said document which so
states before the justice of the peace who authorized the same. What took place before the justice of the peace on
this occasion amounted to a legal marriage.
Plaintiff claimed that what happened did not constitute a legal marriage.
General orders, No. 68, Sec 6: No particular form from the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties must
declare in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage, that they take each other as husband and wife.
Esmero testified that after signing, justice of peace addressed plaintiff and defendant and said You are married.
Additionally, there was no abuse of discretion in courts allowance of first and second amendments in defendants
original answer to complaint.
DISPOSITIVE
CFI decision and acquitting of defendant AFFIRMED.