G.R. No. 135216 - Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals

Tomasa Vda. de Jacob claimed to be surviving spouse of deceased Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special Administratatrix of his estate by virtue of a reconstructed marriage contract.
Pedro Pilapil claimed to be the legally adopted son and sole heir of deceased Alfredo and sought to intervene in the estate settlement.
The principal factual issues were the validity of the marriage between Tomasa Vda. de Jacob and Alfredo Jacob and the validity of the alleged adoption of Pedro Pilapil by Alfredo Jacob.

Petitioner relied on a reconstructed marriage contract issued in 1978; the original marriage contract alleged to have been executed in 1975 was not produced.
Petitioner and Alfredo executed an affidavit stating they had lived together as husband and wife for five years; petitioner presented photographs and affidavits, and Monsignor Florencio C. Yllana executed an affidavit concerning the marriage and the loss of the certificate.
The reconstructed marriage contract contained alleged irregularities: absence of local church record in San Agustin Church, absence of a copy sent to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, Alfredo’s purported “thumbmark” on the contract despite his signature appearing in an affidavit dated the day before, and the typed name of Jose Centenera on the reconstructed contract being signed by another person.
Respondent produced an Order dated 18 July 1961 issued by then Presiding Judge Jose L. Moya, CFI, Camarines Sur, purportedly granting adoption of Pedro Pilapil, and certified copies from Bureau of Records Management and Local Civil Registrar indicating no local adoption records.

Tomasa Vda. de Jacob filed Civil Case No. T-83 for injunction with damages and the trial court entertained issues of marriage validity and legality of adoption.
The trial court took the deposition of Judge Jose L. Moya and commissioned two handwriting experts: NBI Document Examiner Bienvenido C. Albacea and former NBI Chief Document Examiner Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui.
Examiner Albacea concluded the questioned signature on the adoption Order was not Judge Moya’s; Atty. Pagui reached the opposite conclusion and declared the signature genuine.
The trial court accepted Atty. Pagui’s findings, sustained the adoption Order as genuine, declared the reconstructed marriage contract excluded under the best evidence rule and spurious, lifted an injunction, and awarded attorney’s fe...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the marriage was valid despite absence of a marriage license and the non-production of the original marriage contract.
Whether secondary and testimonial evidence sufficed to prove due execution and loss of the original marriage contract and thus to prove the fact of marriage.

(Subscriber-Only)