Case Summary (G.R. No. 204494)
Parties’ positions on marital status and ownership
Spouses Salgado contested the validity of the alleged marriage, asserting Severina and Luis were common‑law partners who executed a Partition Agreement in November 1980 (implemented in April 1981) that divided properties and described the parties as single and acknowledging prior common‑law cohabitation. They argued properties were Severina’s exclusive acquisitions and titles listed her as single. Spouses Maya corroborated that Luis and Severina lived as common‑law spouses who partitioned their properties, and presented a Certificate of No Record of Marriage from the Civil Registrar.
Trial evidence and procedural history in the RTC
Luis presented a certified true copy of his marriage contract with Severina and testified. The Spouses Salgado and Spouses Maya filed demurrers to evidence, arguing insufficiency of proof of a valid marriage license; the RTC denied the demurrers in February 2006, explaining evidentiary sufficiency is to be judged on the whole record. The Spouses Salgado waived presentation of evidence by failing to attend scheduled hearings. Portions of the record show the CA initially remanded or instructed the RTC to resolve demurrers with more specificity under Section 3, Rule 16 (1997 Rules). The RTC, after compliance, denied the demurrers and, on July 23, 2007, rendered a decision holding the marriage valid and declaring the properties disposed to Jo‑Ann as conjugal and therefore void dispositions without the husband’s consent.
RTC findings supporting validity of marriage and reliefs granted
The RTC treated the marriage contract as a public document enjoying a presumption of regularity and upheld marriage despite the absence of a marriage license number on the contract (relying in part on Geronimo v. CA). The RTC annulled the three unilateral deeds of sale of January 23, 2002, ordered cancellation of new TCTs issued to Jo‑Ann for those properties, and later (November 17, 2008 decision) annulled Maria Luisa’s extra‑judicial settlement and ordered cancellation of the corresponding TCTs.
Court of Appeals disposition
The CA, by decision dated August 6, 2012, affirmed the RTC decision in toto and dismissed the Spouses Salgado’s appeal, noting the Spouses Salgado did not present testimonial or documentary evidence to controvert Luis’s evidence. The CA observed that to prove absence of a marriage license the best evidence is a certification from the Local Civil Registrar that no license was issued or that a diligent search revealed no record, which the Spouses Salgado failed to produce.
Issue before the Supreme Court
The central legal question presented was whether the absence of a marriage license may be proven on the basis of a marriage contract that states no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer because the marriage was purportedly of an “exceptional character” under Article 77 of the Civil Code, and whether, on that basis and the record, the marriage was void for lack of a valid marriage license.
Governing substantive law on marriages and exceptions
Because the marriage alleged was solemnized on December 28, 1966, the Civil Code governed validity. Article 53 requires a marriage license except in marriages of exceptional character; Article 80(3) declares marriages solemnized without a marriage license void ab initio, save those of exceptional character. Chapter 2 (Articles 72–79) enumerates marriages of exceptional character, including ratification of marital cohabitation and religious ratification of an existing civil marriage. Article 77 (civilly ratified religious ceremonies) applies where a prior valid civil marriage exists and the subsequent religious ceremony merely ratifies it; the rule dispenses with license requirements for that religious ratification only.
Legal effect of the marriage contract and burden of proof
A marriage contract is a public record and under Section 44, Rule 130 is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The marriage contract in this case expressly stated no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer because the marriage was of an exceptional character under Article 77. Because the specific exception (Article 77) was inapplicable—Article 77 requires prior civil marriage and a subsequent religious ratifying ceremony—the express averment created a prima facie showing that no license was exhibited. Where the marriage contract itself indicates absence of a license, the burden shifted to Luis to prove issuance of a valid license; he did not present the license, a certification from the local civil registrar, nor adequate testimony to establish its existence.
Evidence from witness testimony and credibility considerations
Luis’ testimony revealed uncertainty about a marriage license application: he admitted he did not apply for a license, was uncertain where affidavits or applications were filed, and did not present other witnesses proving a license existed. The RTC and CA were found to have overlooked the specific language in the marriage contract asserting exceptional character. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of validity of marriage cannot override a prima facie public document affirming absence of a license based on an inapplicable exception.
Analogous precedents and legal principles applied
The Court relied on precedents (including Republic v. Dayot) that condemn fabricated or false claims of exceptional character or of cohabitation intended to circumvent the license requirement; a false affidavit or contrary statement cannot substitute for a marriage license. The Court noted doctrine that certificates from the local civil registrar evidencing non‑issuance are admissible evidence of non‑issuance, but are not the sole possible evidence; here, the marriage contract’s explicit statement and lack of counterproof sufficed.
Property relations and partition agreement validity
Because the marriage was found void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license, the Court applied Civil Code and Family Code provisions governing property relations of parties who lived together as husband and wife but were not validly married (Article 144 Civil Code as carried into Article 147 Family Code). These provisions govern co‑ownership presumptions for property acqui
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 204494)
Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court Third Division, G.R. No. 204494, reported at 791 Phil. 481; decision rendered in the case identified in the source as dated July 27, 2016, with related entries received August 30, 2016.
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 6, 2012 and CA Resolution dated November 26, 2012 in CA-G.R. CV No. 92989.
- Petitioners: Jo-Ann Diaz-Salgado and husband Dr. Gerard C. Salgado (collectively, Spouses Salgado).
- Respondent: Luis G. Anson (Luis).
- Proceedings below: Complaint filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 155, Pasig City (Civil Case No. 69611); RTC Decisions dated July 23, 2007 and November 17, 2008; appeals and petitions to the CA; CA Decision of August 6, 2012 dismissing the Spouses Salgado’s appeal and affirming RTC; CA Resolution denying reconsideration dated November 26, 2012.
- Final disposition by the Supreme Court: petition granted; CA Decision dated August 6, 2012 and CA Resolution dated November 26, 2012 reversed and set aside; Complaint in Civil Case No. 69611 dismissed. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concurred.
Factual Background: Parties, Marriage Allegation and Properties
- Luis alleged he was the surviving spouse of the late Severina de Asis-Anson (Severina), married civilly to Severina on December 28, 1966; they had a daughter, Maria Luisa, born December 30, 1965. Jo-Ann is Severina’s daughter from a previous relationship.
- During the marital union (or cohabitation) Luis and Severina acquired several real properties in San Juan, Metro Manila, originally covered by TCT Nos. 20618/T-104 (now 11105-R), 60069/T-301 (now 11106-R), 5109/T-26 (now 11107), 8478-R/T-43 (now 11076-R), 44637/T-224-II (now 11078-R), and 8003/T-41 (now 11077-R).
- Luis claimed no marriage settlement existed; he asserted these properties pertained to the conjugal partnership.
- Severina, without Luis’s knowledge or consent, allegedly executed three separate Unilateral Deeds of Sale dated January 23, 2002 transferring properties covered by TCT Nos. 20618, 60069 and 5109 in favor of Jo-Ann; Jo-Ann secured new certificates of title for those properties.
- Severina died on September 21, 2002. Maria Luisa executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate dated October 25, 2002, adjudicating herself sole heir, and secured new TCTs over properties covered by TCT Nos. 8478-R, 44637 and 8003.
- Luis claimed divestment of his lawful share in the conjugal properties and loss of his inheritance as compulsory heir.
Pleadings, Answers and Key Allegations of Respondents
- Jo-Ann’s Answer (treated as Gerard’s answer by the trial court) denied knowledge of a marriage between Severina and Luis, asserted that Severina and Luis had a common-law relationship mutually terminated by a notarized Partition Agreement executed November 1980 and implemented April 1981, and maintained that the properties transferred to Jo-Ann were Severina’s exclusive properties, with TCTs showing Severina described as single.
- Spouses Maya (Maria Luisa and Gaston Maya) corroborated the Spouses Salgado’s position: Maria Luisa was unaware of any marriage; Luis and Severina lived as common-law spouses who executed a Partition Agreement and Luis already received his apportioned share, making him estopped from denying the same.
- The Spouses Maya obtained a Certificate of No Record of Marriage from the Office of the Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office (as indicated in the records).
Trial Proceedings, Evidence and Demurrers to Evidence
- Trial ensued; Luis testified and presented documentary evidence, including a certified true copy of his marriage contract with Severina.
- The Spouses Salgado and Spouses Maya filed Demurrers to Evidence after Luis’s presentation.
- The Spouses Salgado challenged the validity of the marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license as borne by the marriage contract; they pointed to Luis’s admission on cross-examination that he did not procure a marriage license.
- Luis admitted the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Partition Agreement.
- On February 16, 2006, the trial court denied both demurrers, noting sufficiency of Luis’s evidence and that factual sufficiency was for the trier of facts.
- The Spouses Salgado and Spouses Maya filed motions for reconsideration which were denied; both filed certiorari petitions with the CA. The Spouses Salgado were deemed to have waived presentation of their evidence for failure to attend scheduled hearings; the CA ordered the RTC to specifically resolve the demurrer to evidence in accordance with Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
RTC Rulings: Validity of Marriage and Annulment of Conveyancing Acts
- In compliance with the CA order, the RTC issued an order (July 16, 2007) denying the twin demurrers for lack of merit and held Luis’s evidence sufficient.
- RTC Decision dated July 23, 2007:
- Held the marriage between Luis and Severina valid.
- Reasoned that the marriage contract is a public document enjoying the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the fact of marriage; relied on Geronimo v. CA regarding the validity of marriage where the marriage license number was absent from the contract.
- Declared the properties covered by the Unilateral Deeds of Sale (dated January 23, 2002) to be conjugal properties which Severina could not dispose of without Luis’s consent.
- Ordered annulment, voiding and setting aside of the three Unilateral Deeds of Sale (Jan 23, 2002), annulment of TCT Nos. 11107-R, 11105-R and 11106-R (issued in Jo-Ann’s name), and restitution of these properties to the conjugal community of Luis and Severina; no pronouncement as to costs.
- RTC Decision dated November 17, 2008:
- Ordered annulment, voiding, setting aside and declaring of no force and effect the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement executed by Maria Luisa dated October 25, 2002 and ordered cancellation of TCTs issued by virtue of those deeds.
- Motions for reconsideration to both RTC decisions were denied in an Omnibus Order dated October 30, 2007.
CA Proceedings and Rulings
- The Spouses Maya eventually entered into a Compromise Agreement with Luis which the CA approved in its Decision dated October 26, 2011, terminating the Maya appeal.
- The Spouses Salgado appealed to the CA; on August 6, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing the Spouses Salgado’s appeal and affirming the RTC Decision of July 23, 2007 in toto.
- The CA’s principal basis for affirmance:
- The Spouses Salgado did not present or formally offer any testimonial or documentary evidence to controvert the evidence produced by Luis.
- The CA observed that the best evidence to establish the absence of a marriage license is a certification from the Local Civil Registrar that no marriage license was issued or that despite diligent search no record of application or marriage license was found; the Spouses Salgado did not secure such certification or present equivalent proof at trial.
- CA denied motions for reconsideration on November 26, 2012.