Lim Tanhu vs Ramolete

66 SCRA 425

FACTS:

Private respondent Tan Put alleged that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan, who was a
partner and practically the owner who has controlling interest of Glory Commercial Company and a
Chinese Citizen until his death. Defendant Antonio Lim Tanhu and Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua were
partners in name but they were mere employees of Po Chuan and were naturalized Filipino
Citizens. Tan Put filed complaint against spouses-petitoner Lim Tanhu and Dy Ochay including
their son Tech Chuan and the other spouses-petitoner Ng Sua and Co Oyo including also their son
Eng Chong Leonardo, that through fraud and machination took actual and active management of
the partnership and that she alleged entitlement to share not only in the capital and profits of the
partnership but also in the other assets, both real and personal, acquired by the partnership with
funds of the latter during its lifetime."
According to the petitioners, Ang Siok Tin is the legitimate wife, still living, and with whom Tee
Hoon had four legitimate children, a twin born in 1942, and two others born in 1949 and 1965, all
presently residing in Hong Kong. Tee Hoon died in 1966 and as a result of which the partnership
was dissolved and what corresponded to him were all given to his legitimate wife and children.

Tan Put prior of her alleged marriage with Tee Hoon on 1949, was engaged in the drugstore
business; that not long after her marriage, upon the suggestion of the latter sold her drugstore for
P125,000.00 which amount she gave to her husband as investment in Glory Commercial Co.
sometime in 1950; that after the investment of the above-stated amount in the partnership its
business flourished and it embarked in the import business and also engaged in the wholesale and
retail trade of cement and GI sheets and under huge profits.

Defendants interpose that Tan Put knew and was are that she was merely the common-law wife of
Tee Hoon. Tan Put and Tee Hoon were childless but the former had a foster child, Antonio Nunez.

ISSUE: Whether Tan Put, as she alleged being married with Tee Hoon, can claim from the
company of the latter’s share.

HELD:

Under Article 55 of the Civil Code, “the declaration of the contracting parties that they take each
other as husband and wife "shall be set forth in an instrument" signed by the parties as well as by
their witnesses and the person solemnizing the marriage. Accordingly, the primary evidence of a
marriage must be an authentic copy of the marriage contract”. While a marriage may also be
proved by other competent evidence, the absence of the contract must first be satisfactorily
explained. Surely, the certification of the person who allegedly solemnized a marriage is not
admissible evidence of such marriage unless proof of loss of the contract or of any other
satisfactory reason for its non-production is first presented to the court. In the case at bar, the
purported certification issued by a Mons. Jose M. Recoleto, Bishop, Philippine Independent
Church, Cebu City, is not, therefore, competent evidence, there being absolutely no showing as to
unavailability of the marriage contract and, indeed, as to the authenticity of the signature of said
certifier, the jurat allegedly signed by a second assistant provincial fiscal not being authorized by
law, since it is not part of the functions of his office. Besides, inasmuch as the bishop did not testify,
the same is hearsay.
An agreement with Tee Hoon was shown and signed by Tan Put that she received P40,000 for her
subsistence when they terminated their relationship of common-law marriage and promised not to
interfere with each other’s affairs since they are incompatible and not in the position to keep living
together permanently. Hence, this document not only proves that her relation was that of a
common-law wife but had also settled property interests in the payment of P40,000.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is granted. All proceedings held in respondent
court in its Civil Case No. 12328 subsequent to the order of dismissal of October 21, 1974 are
hereby annulled and set aside, particularly the ex-parte proceedings against petitioners and the
decision on December 20, 1974. Respondent court is hereby ordered to enter an order extending
the effects of its order of dismissal of the action dated October 21, 1974 to herein petitioners
Antonio Lim Tanhu, Dy Ochay, Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua and Co Oyo. And respondent court is
hereby permanently enjoined from taking any further action in said civil case gave and except as
herein indicated. Costs against private respondent.

Vda de Chua vs. CA

GR No. 70909, January 5, 1994

FACTS:

Roberto Lim Chua, during his lifetime, lived out of wedlock with private respondent Florita A. Vallejo
from 1970-1981. The couple had two illegitimate children, Roberto Rafson Alonzo and Rudyard
Pride Alonzo, all surnamed Chua. Roberto died intestate in Davao City on May 28, 1992. Vallejo
filed on July 2, 1992 with RTC-Cotabato a petition for declaration of guardianship of the two child
and their properties worth P5,000,000.00.

Antonietta Garcia Vda De Chua, the petitioner, filed a motion alleging that she was the true wife of
Roberto. However, according to Vallejo, she is not the surviving spouse of the latter but a
pretender to the estate since the deceased never contracted marriage with any woman and died a
bachelor.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner is indeed the true wife of Roberto Chua.

HELD:

The court ruled that petitioner was not able to prove her status as wife of the decedent. She could
not produce the original copy or authenticated copy of their marriage certificate. Furthermore, a
certification from the Local Civil Registrar was presented that no such marriage contract between
petitioner and Roberto Chua was ever registered with them, attested by Judge Augusto Banzali,
the alleged person to have solemnized the alleged marriage, that he has not solemnized such
alleged marriage.

Hence, it is clear that petitioner failed to establish the truth of her allegation that she was the lawful
wife of the decedent. The best evidence is a valid marriage contract which she failed to produce.

Republic vs. Dayot

GR No. 175581, March 28, 2008

FACTS:

Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on November 24, 1986. In lieu of a
marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5years.
On August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual. They were both
employees of the National Statistics and Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an
action for bigamy against Jose and an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.
On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint on July 1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity
of marriage where he contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham and his consent was
secured through fraud.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jose’s marriage with Felisa is valid considering that they executed a sworn
affidavit in lieu of the marriage license requirement.
HELD:

CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the time
they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. Jose and Felisa started living
together only in June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration of their marriage on
November 1986. Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and invalidates
a marriage. Furthermore, “the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of
Jose and Felisa’s cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the
requirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential
fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath”.
Hence, Jose and Felisa’s marriage is void ab initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity of
marriage is imprescriptible. The right to impugn marriage does not prescribe and may be raised
any time.