G.R. No. L-9005 - De Loria vs. Felix

During the turbulent period of the liberation of Manila in January 1945, Matea de la Cruz, who had been living with Felipe Apelan Felix as husband and wife during the War of the Pacific, fell seriously ill.
In light of her critical condition, two young ladies in the service of God, Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra, visited her and persuaded her to go to confession.

Father Gerardo Bautista, the Catholic parish priest of Pasay, was dispatched to hear Matea’s confession as urged by the visitors.
Upon learning that Matea had been cohabiting with Felipe Apelan Felix without a formal marriage, Father Bautista requested that both parties confirm their union according to the rites of the Church.
Both Matea and Felipe expressed mutual consent in the presence of Father Bautista and the two witnesses, thereby effecting a marriage in articulo mortis.
The solemnization occurred on January 29 or 30, 1945, with Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra acting as sponsors and witnesses.

After the solemnization, Matea initially recovered from her illness; however, she eventually passed away in January 1946. Father Bautista conducted her burial ceremonies.
Although the marriage was celebrated with the essential personal declarations and religious rites, certain formalities such as the signing of a marriage contract and proper registration were not complied with.

On May 12, 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria, who are the only surviving forced heirs and grandchildren of Adriana de la Cruz (Matea’s sister), filed a complaint against Felipe Apelan Felix to compel an accounting and delivery of the properties left by Matea.
Felipe Apelan Felix defended his rights as the widower, contending that the marriage, albeit celebrated under emergency conditions, conferred upon him the rights over Matea’s estate.
Though the trial court rendered a favorable judgment to the petitioners, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, dismissing the complaint.

Does the celebration of a marriage in articulo mortis, amid an emergency where the contracting party was critically ill, satisfy the legal requisites for a valid marriage under the Marriage Law of 1929 and its subsequent amendments?
Does the essential demonstration of mutual consent in the presence of an authorized priest and two witnesses suffice to validate the marriage even in the absence of the formal signing of the marriage contract?

Is the failure to execute a marriage contract (instrument in triplicate) and to subsequently file the prescribed affidavit with the local civil registry a valid ground for declaring the marriage null and void?
In light of the emergency circumstances during which the marriage was solemnized, does such non-compliance affect the substantive validity of the marriage?