THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016
JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO, Petitioners, v. LUIS G. ANSON, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated August 6, 2012 and the Resolution3 dated November 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92989. The CA affirmed the Decision4 dated July 23, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 155, in Civil Case No. 69611.
1. TCT No. 20618/T-104 (now TCT No. 11105-R),According to Luis, because there was no marriage settlement between him and Severina, the above-listed properties pertain to their conjugal partnership. But without his knowledge and consent, Severina executed three separate Unilateral Deeds of Sale on January 23, 2002 transferring the properties covered by TCT Nos. 20618, 60069 and 5109 in favor of Jo-Ann, who secured new certificates of title over the said properties.10 When Severina died on September 21, 2002,11 Maria Luisa executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Severina de Asis on October 25, 2002, adjudicating herself as Severina's sole heir. She secured new TCTs over the properties covered by TCT Nos. 8478-R, 44637 and 8003.12chanrobleslaw
2. TCT No. 60069/T-301 (now TCT No. 11106-R),
3. TCT No. 5109/T-26 (now TCT No. 11107),
4. TCT No. 8478-R/T-43 (now TCT No. 11076-R),
5. TCT No. 44637/T-224-II (now TCT No. 11078-R), and
6. TCT No. 8003/T-41 (now TCT No. 11077-R).9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [Luis] and against [the Spouses Salgado] ordering as follows:On November 17, 2008, the RTC rendered another Decision44 which ordered the "ANNULMENT, VOIDING, SETTING ASIDE and DECLARING OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of the Deceased Severina De Asis executed by [Maria Luisa] dated October 25, 2002 x x x."45 The RTC also ordered the cancellation of new TCTs issued by virtue of the said Deeds.46chanrobleslaw
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. ANNULMENT, VOIDING, SETTING ASIDE and DECLARING OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT of the three (3) Unilateral Deeds of Sale, all dated January 23, 2002 executed by [Severina] in favor of [Jo-Ann];
2. ANNULMENT, VOIDING, SETTING ASIDE and DECLARING OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT of the three (3) [TCT] Nos. 11107-R, 11105-R and 11106-R covering the subject properties, all issued in the name of [Jo-Ann] by the Registry of Deeds for San Juan, Metro Manila;
3. RESTITUTION of all properties covered by TCT Nos. 11107-R, 11105-R and 11106-R (formerly TCT Nos. 5109, 20618 and 60069, respectively) to the conjugal community of properties between [Luis] and [Severina].
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.43chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal interposed by [the Spouses Salgado] is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 23, 2007 of the [RTC] of Pasig is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.The CA sustained the ruling of the RTC for the simple reason that the Spouses Salgado did not present and formally offer any testimonial and documentary evidence to controvert the evidence presented by Luis.57 The CA further explained that "the best evidence to establish the absence of a marriage license is a certification from the Local Civil Registrar that the parties to the Marriage Contract did not secure a marriage license or at the very least a certification from the said office that despite diligent search, no record of application for or a marriage license was issued on or before December 28, 1966 in favor of Luis and Severina. Again, Spouses Salgado failed to prove the same by their failure to secure the said certification and present evidence during the trial."58chanrobleslaw
SO ORDERED.56chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: x x x x"Under the Civil Code, marriages of exceptional character are covered by Chapter 2, Title III, comprising Articles 72 to 79. To wit, these marriages are: (1) marriages in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or war, (2) marriages in remote places, (3) consular marriages, (4) ratification of marital cohabitation, (5) religious ratification of a civil marriage, (6) Mohammedan or pagan marriages, and (7) mixed marriages."71 To reiterate, in any of the aforementioned marriages of exceptional character, the requirement of a valid marriage license is dispensed with.
(3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character;
x x x x. (Emphasis ours)
[A]nd I further certify that Marriage License No. x x x issued at x x x on x x x, 19 x x x in favor of, said parties, was exhibited to me or no marriage license was exhibited to me, this marriage being of an exceptional character performed under Art. 77 of Rep. Act 386; x x x.72chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe reference to Article 77 of the Civil Code in the marriage contract is not dismissible. Being a public document, the marriage contract is not only a prima facie proof of marriage, but is also a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. This is pursuant to Section 44, Rule 130 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec. 44. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.Consequently, the entries made in Luis and Severina's marriage contract me prima facie proof that at the time of their marriage, no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer for the reason that their marriage is of an exceptional character under Article 77 of the Civil Code.
Art. 77. In case two persons married in accordance with law desire to ratify their union in conformity with the regulations, rites, or practices of any church, sect, or religion, it shall no longer be necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 of this Title and any ratification made shall merely be considered as a purely religious ceremony.The foregoing provision pertains to a religious ceremony performed with the purpose of ratifying a marriage which was solemnized civilly. In the eyes of the law, the marriage already exists; the subsequent ceremony is undertaken merely to conform to religious practices. Thus, the parties are exempted from complying with the required issuance of marriage license insofar as the subsequent religious ceremony is concerned. For this exemption to be applicable, it is sine qua non that: (1) the parties to the religious ceremony must already be married to each other in accordance with law (civil marriage); and (2) the ratifying ceremony is purely religious in nature.
Being that the ceremony held on December 28, 1966 was the only marriage ceremony between the parties and this was not solemnized pursuant to any ratifying religious rite, practice or regulation but a civil one officiated by the mayor, this marriage does not fall under the purview of Article 77 of the Civil Code. It is evident that the twin requirements of the provision, which are: prior civil marriage between the parties and a ratifying religious ceremony, were not complied with. There is no prior ceremony to ratify. Thus, this marriage is not of an exceptional character and a marriage license is required for Luis and Severina's marriage to be valid.
Atty. Francisco: Q- You testified that you have a Marriage Contract marked as Exhibit A certifying that you were married to the late [Severina]. A- Yes, sir. Q- Do you recall when this marriage took place? A- As far as I can recall it was sometime two (2) days before my daughter get (sic) one (1) year old. That was 1966 December something like 28, because she was born December 30, the death of Jose Rizal. I can remember 1965. So, before she turned one (1) year old two (2) days before we got married here in San Juan. Q- So, when was she born if you can recall? A- Maria Luisa was born on December 30, 1965. Q- If it is two (2) days before, it should be 1966? A- Yes, sir. Q- If you can recall who solemnized the marriage? A- It was the late Mayor Ebona of San Juan.73 x x x x [Atty. Valenton:] x x x You alleged during your direct examination that you were married to [Severina]? A: Yes sir. Q: When do you say you marrfied] her? A: Two (2) days before our daughter turned one year old, so that is December 28, 1966.74 (Emphasis ours)
In upholding the supposed validity of the marriage, the RTC and the CA failed to consider the glaring statements in the marriage contract that no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer and that the marriage is of an exceptional character under Article 77 of the Civil Code, the latter statement being fallacious. Both the RTC and CA upheld the fact of marriage based on the marriage contract but simply glossed over the part stating that the marriage is of an exceptional character. It is inevitable to deduce that this is not a case of mere non-recording of the marriage license number on the marriage contract, as was in Geronimo.78chanrobleslaw
ATTY. VALENTON: Q- How did you prepare for the alleged wedding that took place between you and [Severina]? ATTY. FRANCISCO: May I know the materiality, Your Honor? ATTY. VALENTON: We are exploring as to whether there was really a wedding that took place, Your Honor. COURT: Answer. What preparations were done? A- There was no preparation because we were just visitors of the Mayor during that time and the Mayor is a close friend of ours. So, when he knew that we are traveling, we are going to Thailand with the invitation of a friend to work with him in Thailand, he told us you better get married first before you travel because your daughter will be illegitimate.75 x x x x ATTY. VALENTON: Q- Do you remember having applied for a marriage license? A- We did not. Q- So, you are telling us that there is no marriage license? A- No. CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS BY THE COURT TO THE WITNESS [Q-] There was no marriage license? A- Well, when you get married you have to get a marriage license. COURT: Not necessarily. A- But, I don't know whether there was an application for the license because it was at the house of the Mayor. COURT: But in this particular case before you went to the house of the Mayor for the solemnization of your marriage, did you apply for a marriage license? A- No.76 x x x x RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF [LUIS]: Q- Mr. Anson, a while ago during your cross-examination you were asked by counsel as well as a question was raised by the Honorable Court whether or not you applied for a marriage license when you got married on December 28, 1966 allegedly with [Severina]. Can you tell the Court what you meant by that? COURT: By what? ATTY. FRANCISCO: When he was asked, Your Honor, by the Honorable Court. COURT: Whether he applied? ATTY. FRANCISCO: Whether he applied for a marriage license prior to the solemnization of the marriage, you answered no. WITNESS: I did not apply for such, all what I know is to sign something affidavit or application before we went to the house of the Mayor to get marry (sic) but that was about - - I cannot recall if that past (sic) a week or 2 days or 3 days ago. ATTY. FRANCISCO: Q- You mentioned, we signed an affidavit or application, when you used we, whom are you referring to? A- [Severina]. Q- And, yourself? A- Yes. Q- In your recollection, where did you file those affidavits with [Severina] before the solemnization of the marriage? A- It was in the Municipal Hall. I do not know whether that was the Registrar, Office of the [M]ayor or Office of the Chief of Police. I cannot recall. It is inside the Munisipyo of San Juan. Q- Who made you sign that Affidavit? A- The Chief of Police whom we get (sic) to be (sic) witness for our marriage. They let us signed (sic) an application or affidavit. I cannot recall what it is.77 (Emphasis ours)
We cannot accept the insistence of the Republic that the falsity of the statements in the parties' affidavit will not affect the validity of marriage, since all the essential and formal requisites were complied with. The argument deserves scant merit. Patently, it cannot be denied that the marriage between Jose and Felisa was celebrated without the formal requisite of a marriage license. Neither did Jose and Felisa meet the explicit legal requirement in Article 76, that they should have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, so as to be excepted from the requirement of a marriage license.The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the statements made in the marriage contract because these refer to the absence of a formal requisite of marriage. "The parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a pre-conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception."82 "The requirement and issuance of marriage license is the State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. This interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to the family as a basic 'autonomous social institution."83chanrobleslaw
x x x x
Similarly, we are not impressed by the ratiocination of the Republic that as a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by a fabricated statement that the parties have cohabited for at least five years as required by law. The contrast is flagrant. The former is with reference to an irregularity of the marriage license, and not to the absence of one. Here, there is no marriage license at all. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisa's cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all.81chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.As there is no showing that Luis and Severina were incapacitated to marry each other at the time of their cohabitation and considering that their marriage is void from the beginning for lack of a valid marriage license, Article 144 of the Civil Code,89 in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code, are the pertinent provisions of law governing their property relations. Article 147 of the Family Code "applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void for other reasons, like absence of a marriage license."90 "Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's 'efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household.'"91chanrobleslaw
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.88 (Emphasis ours)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-72.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Florito S. Macalino concurring; CA rollo, pp. 569-597.
3 Id. at 698-699.
4 Rendered by Judge Luis R. Tongco; records, Volume IV, pp. 142-152.
5 Records, Vol. I, pp. 3-14.
6 Id. at 16, 18 and 20.
7 Id. at 22-23.
8 Id. at 4.
9 Id. at 5-8.
10 Id. at 9.
11 Id. at 272.
12 Id. at 10.
13 Id. at 11.
14 Id. at 38-47.
15See RTC Order dated May 3, 2004; id. at 88.
16 Id. at 112-114.
17 Id. at 49-50.
18 Id. at 40-41.
19 Id. at 100-111.
20 Id. at 102.
21 Id. at 107.
22 Id. at 103.
23 Id. at 201.
24 Id. at 104.
25cralawred Id. at 146-152.
26 Records, Vol. II, pp. 20-38, 55-83.
27 Id. at 23.
28 Id. at 31.
29 Id. at 34.
30 Id. at 356.
31 Id. at 357-369, 371-392.
32 Id. at 433.
33 Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-32, 169-220.
34See RTC Order dated April 23, 2007; records, Vol. IV, p. 44.
35See CA Decision dated April 30, 2007; id. at 53.
36See CA Decision dated May 16, 2007; id. at 64.
37 Issued by Judge Luis R. Tongco; id. at 140-141.
38 Id. at 142-152.
39 Id. at 150.
40 G.R. No. 105540, July 5, 1993, 224 SCRA 494.
41 Records, Vol. IV, p. 150.
42 Id. at 151-152.
43 Id. at 152.
44 Id. at 313-325.
45 Id. at 325.
46 Id.
47 Id. at 167-188.
48 Id. at 154-164.
49 Id. at 216-217.
50 Id. at 228-229.
51 Id. at 360-361.
52 CA rollo, pp. 517-522.
53 Id. at 524-533.
54See CA Decision dated August 6, 2012; id. at 583.
55 Id. at 569-597.
56 Id. at 596.
57 Id. at 585.
58 Id. at 592-593.
59 Id. at 607-650.
60 Id. at 698-699.
61Rollo, p. 159.
62 Id. at 36.
63 Id. at 596-603.
64 Id. at 598.
65 Id. at 600.
66 (1) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 213 (2005), citing The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004, 401 SCRA 79, 86.
67Superlines Transportation Co., Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company, 548 Phil. 354, 362 (2007).
68Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661, 667 (2000).
69 Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;
(2) Their consent, freely given;
(3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and cralawlawlibrary
(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.
70 Art. 58. Save marriages of an exceptional character authorized in Chapter 2 of this Title, but not those under Article 75, no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides.
71Republic of the Philippines v. Dayot, 573 Phil. 553, 569 (2008).
72Rollo, p. 159.
73 TSN, June 6, 2005, pp. 15-16.
74 TSN, June 7, 2005, p. 30.
75 TSN, June 14, 2005, pp. 15-16.
76 Id. at 17-18.
77 Id. at 46-48.
78 Supra note 40, at 500.
79Alcantara v. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192, 203-204 (2007). (Emphasis ours)
80 573 Phil. 553 (2008).
81 Id. at 573-575.
82Niñal v. Bayadog, supra note 68, at 670.
83 Id. at 667-668.
84 Records, Vol. I, pp. 112-114.
85See Consolidated Appellee's Brief; id. at 519.
86 328 Phil. 1289 (1996).
87 Id. at 1295. (Italics in the original)
88 Id. at 1295-1296.
89 Art. 144. When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
90Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 403 Phil. 861, 872 (2001).
91Valdez v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City, supra note 86, at 1297. (Emphasis ours and italics in the original)
92 TSN, June 17, 2005, pp. 30, 36.
93Abbas v. Abbas, 702 Phil. 578, 593 (2013); Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, supra note 90, at 869; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 257, 262.
94Rollo, p. 502.
95Republic of the Philippines v. Dayot, supra note 80, at 574.