Avenido v. Avenido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Tecla Hoybia Avenido (Tecla) filed a complaint for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage against petitioner Peregrina Macua Vda. de Avenido (Peregrina), claiming to be the lawful wife of the deceased Eustaquio Avenido (Eustaquio). Tecla alleged her marriage to Eustaquio was solemnized on September 30, 1942, in Talibon, Bohol, evidenced by a Marriage Certificate, but records were destroyed due to World War II, leaving only a Certification from the Local Civil Registrar (LCR). They had four children. Eustaquio left in 1954 and later lived with Buenaventura Sayson. In 1979, Tecla learned Eustaquio married Peregrina and sought to declare this marriage void due to bigamy to protect her children's rights to Eustaquio's properties. Procedural History: Peregrina answered, asserting she was the legal surviving spouse, married to Eustaquio on March 30, 1979, in Davao City. She claimed the case was filed to deprive her of properties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8 of Davao City, denied Tecla's petition and Peregrina's counterclaim. Tecla appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC decision, declaring Tecla's marriage to Eustaquio valid and Peregrina's marriage to Eustaquio bigamous and void. The Petition: Peregrina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA decision. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) raised issues regarding the presumption of marriage, admissibility of secondary evidence without proof of unavailability of the best evidence, and the probative value of a church-issued Certificate of Marriage without presenting the priest.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court can validly rely on the "presumption of marriage" to overturn the validity of a subsequent marriage. Whether secondary evidence may be considered without proof of the execution or existence and the cause of the unavailability of the best evidence, the original document. Whether a Certificate of Marriage issued by the church has probative value to prove the existence of a valid marriage without the priest who issued the same being presented to the witness stand. Whether the evidence presented proves the existence of the marriage of Tecla to Eustaquio.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 79444 is AFFIRMED. The marriage between petitioner Peregrina Macua Avenido and the deceased Eustaquio Avenido is declared NULL and VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On the presumption of marriage: The Court upheld the CA's reliance on the presumption of lawful marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio, based on their cohabitation as husband and wife and the birth of four children. The Court cited Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, stating that "every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony" and that "persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed... to be in fact married." This presumption, supported by testimonial evidence (Adelina, Climaco, and Tecla) and documentary evidence (certifications of marriage issued by the parish priest), was deemed sufficient to establish the fact of marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio, thereby invalidating the subsequent marriage to Peregrina as bigamous. On the admissibility of secondary evidence: The Court found that the trial court committed a reversible error in disregarding the testimonial evidence of Adelina Avenido-Ceno, Climaco Avenido, and Tecla herself, as well as the documentary evidence consisting of certifications regarding the destruction of records and a marriage certificate issued by a parish priest. The Court reiterated the principle that the due execution and loss of the marriage contract must be shown as a foundation for introducing secondary evidence of its contents. In this case, the testimonies of witnesses present at the ceremony and the certifications regarding the destruction of records established the due execution and loss, making secondary evidence admissible. The Court cited Hernaez v. Mcgrath to clarify that proofs of execution are not dependent on the existence or non-existence of the document itself and are considered collateral or primary evidence. On the probative value of a church-issued Certificate of Marriage: The Court implicitly affirmed the probative value of the Certificate of Marriage issued by the parish priest, especially when corroborated by testimonial evidence and certifications of loss of official records. While the trial court disregarded it, the CA considered it along with other evidence. The Supreme Court's affirmation of the CA's decision, which relied on this evidence, indicates its acceptance as competent proof of marriage, particularly in situations where official civil registry records are unavailable due to destruction. The Court's reliance on PUGEDA v. TRIAS further supports that testimony by parties or witnesses to a marriage, or the officiating priest, is admissible to prove the fact of marriage. On the issue of proving the fact of marriage without a marriage certificate: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's reversal of the RTC decision. The Court reiterated that while a marriage certificate is primary evidence, it is not the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate, such as a birth certificate of a child. The Court clarified that the trial court erred in considering the certifications of loss/destruction of records from the LCR and NSO, along with testimonial evidence, as insufficient. The Court emphasized that the due execution and loss of the marriage contract, which are conditions sine qua non for the introduction of secondary evidence, were sufficiently shown by the evidence presented, including testimonies of witnesses present at the ceremony and the officiating priest's affidavit (as per Vda de Jacob v. Court of Appeals). Therefore, secondary evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was admissible to prove the fact of marriage.
Main Doctrine
The fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate, and the presumption of marriage applies when parties deport themselves as husband and wife.