TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the Deceased ALFREDO E. JACOB,
petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. 88602 April 6, 1990.
Facts:
TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special Administratix for the various estates of the deceased by virtue of a reconstructed Marriage Contract between herself and the deceased.
During the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Alfredo, Pedro Pilapil, claiming to be the legally-adopted son of Alfredo, sought to intervene to claim his share of the estate as Alfredo’s adopted son and sole surviving heir. In support of his claim, he presented an Order issued by then Presiding Judge Jose L. Moya, CFI, granting the petition for adoption filed by Alfredo in favor of him. He also questioned the validity of the marriage between appellant Tomasa and his adoptive father Alfredo. Tomasa claimed that the marriage between her and Alfredo was solemnized by one Msgr. Florencio C. Yllana, CBCP, Intramuros, Manila sometime in 1975. She could not however present the original copy of the Marriage Contract stating that the original document was lost when Msgr. Yllana allegedly gave it to Mr. Jose Centenera for registration. In lieu of the original, Tomasa presented as secondary evidence a reconstructed Marriage Contract issued in 1978.
During the trial, the following irregularities in the execution of the reconstructed Marriage Contract were observed:
1. No copy of the Marriage Contract was sent to the local civil registrar by the solemnizing officer;
2. In signing the Marriage Contract, the late Alfredo Jacob merely placed his “thumbmark” on said contract purportedly on 16 September 1975 (date of the marriage). However, on a Sworn Affidavit executed between appellant Tomasa and Alfredo a day before the alleged date of marriage or on 15 September 1975 attesting that both of them lived together as husband and wife for five (5) years, Alfredo [af]fixed his customary signature. Thus the trial court concluded that the “thumbmark” was logically “not genuine”;
3. Contrary to appellant’s claim, in his Affidavit stating the circumstances of the loss of the Marriage Contract, the affiant Msgr. Yllana never mentioned that he allegedly “gave the copies of the Marriage Contract to Mr. Jose Centenera for registration”;
4. Appellant admitted that there was no record of the purported marriage entered in the book of records in San Agustin Church where the marriage was allegedly solemnized.
On the issue of the adoption of Pedro, Tomasa questioned the authenticity of the signature of Judge Moya. According to Judge Moya, he could no longer remember the facts in judicial proceedings taken about twenty-nine (29) years ago when he was then presiding judge since he was already 79 years old and was suffering from “glaucoma”. According Bienvenido Albacea, NBI Document Examiner, the questioned and the standard signatures “JOSE L. MOYA” were NOT written by one and the same person. On the other hand, Pedro presented comparative findings of former NBI Chief Document Examiner Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui that the signature of Judge Moya granting the petition for adoption was indeed genuine. The trial court sustained the findings of Atty. Pagui and declared the reconstructed Marriage Contract as spurious and non-existent. The Court of Appeal’s affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issues:
1) Whether or not the marriage between the plaintiff Tomasa Vda. De Jacob and deceased Alfredo E. Jacob was valid.
2) Whether defendant Pedro Pilapil is the legally adopted son of Alfredo E. Jacob.
Ruling:
Pedro Pilapil argues that the marriage was 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 wife for at least five years.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when they (1) excluded the testimonies of petitioner, Adela Pilapil and Msgr. Florencio Yllana and (2) disregarded the following: (a) photographs of the wedding ceremony; (b) documentary evidence, such as the letter of Monsignor Yllana stating that he had solemnized the marriage between Dr. Jacob and petitioner, informed the Archbishop of Manila that the wedding had not been recorded in the Book of Marriages, and at the same time requested the list of parties to the marriage; (c) the subsequent authorization issued by the Archbishop — through his vicar general and chancellor, Msgr. Benjamin L. Marino — ordaining that the union between Dr. Jacob and petitioner be reflected through a corresponding entry in the Book of Marriages; and (d) the Affidavit of Monsignor Yllana stating the circumstances of the loss of the marriage certificate.
The trial court pointed out that on the face of the reconstructed marriage contract were certain irregularities suggesting that it had fraudulently been obtained. Even if we were to agree with the trial court and to disregard the reconstructed marriage contract, we must emphasize that this certificate is not the only proof of the union between Dr. Jacob and petitioner. Testimony by one of the parties to the marriage, or by one of the witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage. The person who officiated at the solemnization is also competent to testify as an eyewitness to the fact of marriage. Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented to prove marriage.
Likewise, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is “that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.” Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — Always presume marriage.
Central to the present question is the authenticity of Judge Moya’s signature on the questioned Order of Adoption. To enlighten the trial court on this matter, two expert witnesses were presented, one for petitioner and one for Respondent Pilapil. The trial court relied mainly on respondent’s expert and brushed aside the Deposition of Judge Moya himself. Respondent Pilapil justifies the trial judge’s action by arguing that the Deposition was ambiguous. He contends that Judge Moya could not remember whether the signature on the Order was his .Judge Moya could not recall having ever issued the Order of Adoption. More importantly, when shown the signature over his name, he positively declared that it was not his. Furthermore, Pilapil’s conduct gave no indication that he recognized his own alleged adoption, as shown by the documents that he signed and other acts that he performed thereafter. In the same vein, no proof was presented that Dr. Jacob had treated him as an adopted child. Likewise, both the Bureau of Records Management in Manila and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Tigaon, Camarines Sur,issued Certifications that there was no record that Pedro Pilapil had been adopted by Dr. Jacob. Taken together, these circumstances inexorably negate the alleged adoption of respondent.
The burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming such relationship. This Respondent Pilapil failed to do. Moreover, the evidence presented by petitioner shows that the alleged adoption is a sham.
WHEREFORE, the marriage between Petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob and the deceased Alfredo E. Jacob is hereby recognized and declared VALID and the claimed adoption of Respondent Pedro Pilapil is DECLARED NONEXISTENT.
