FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 178221 : December 1, 2010

MAY D. AÑONUEVO, ALEXANDER BLEE DESANTIS and JOHN DESANTIS NERI, Petitioners,
v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF RODOLFO G. JALANDONI, represented by BERNARDINO G. JALANDONI as Special Administrator, Respondent.

D E C I S I ON

PEREZ, J.:

On appeal¹ is the Decision² dated 31 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00576. In the said decision, the Court of Appeals nullified, on certiorari , the Orders³ of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, of Negros Occidental (intestate court) allowing herein petitioners and their siblings⁴ to intervene in the estate proceedings of the late Rodolfo G. Jalandoni.⁵ The decretal portion of the decision of the appellate court reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ACCORDINGLY, the petition forcertiorari is hereby GRANTED, theassailed Orders dated July 2, 2004 and January 26, 2005, of the Regional TrialCourt in Spec. Proc. No. 338 are hereby SETASIDE and NULLIFIED, and apermanent injunction is hereby issuedenjoining respondents [petitioners], their agents and anyone acting for and intheir behalves, from enforcing the assailed Orders. No costs.^6cra

The antecedents are:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

RodolfoG. Jalandoni (Rodolfo) died intestate on 20 December 1966.⁷ He died without issue.^8cra

On 28 April 1967, Bernardino G.Jalandoni (Bernardino), the brother of Rodolfo, filed a petition for theissuance of letters of administration⁹ with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, to commence the judicialsettlement of the latter's estate. Thepetition was docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 338 and is currently pending beforethe intestate court.^10cra

On 17 January 2003, the petitionersand their siblings filed a Manifestation¹¹ before the intestate court. In theManifestation, they introduced themselves as the children of Sylvia BleeDesantis (Sylvia)-who, in turn, was revealed to be the daughter of Isabel Blee(Isabel) with one John Desantis.^12cra

The petitioners and their siblingscontend that their grandmother-Isabel-was, at the time of Rodolfo's death, thelegal spouse of the latter.¹³ For which reason, Isabel is entitled to ashare in the estate of Rodolfo.

Seeking to enforce the right ofIsabel, the petitioners and their siblings pray that they be allowed tointervene on her behalf in the intestate proceedings of the late Rodolfo G.Jalandoni.¹⁴ As it was, by the time the Manifestation wasfiled, both Sylvia and Isabel have already passed away with the formerpredeceasing the latter.^15cra

Tosupport their cause, the petitioners and their siblings appended in theirManifestation, the following documents:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

a.) Two (2) marriage certificates betweenIsabel and Rodolfo;^16cra

b.) The birth certificate of theirmother, Sylvia;¹⁷ and

c.) Their respective proof of births.^18cra

It is the assertion of thepetitioners and their siblings that the foregoing pieces of evidencesufficiently establish that Isabel was the spouse of Rodolfo, and that they areher lawful representatives.

Therespondent intestate estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, now represented byBernardino as its Special Administrator, however, begged to differ. It opposed the intervention on the groundthat the petitioners and their siblings have failed to establish the status ofIsabel as an heir of Rodolfo. The veryevidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings showed that Isabel hada previous and subsisting marriage with John Desantis at the time she waspurportedly married to Rodolfo.

Inits Comment to the Manifestation,¹⁹the respondent called attention to the entries in the birth certificate ofSylvia, who was born on 14 February 1946.²⁰ As it turned out, the record of birth ofSylvia states that she was a "legitimate"child of Isabel and John Desantis.²¹ The document also certifies the status ofboth Isabel and John Desantis as "married."²² The respondent posits that the foregoingentries, having been made in an official registry, constitute prima facie proof of a prior marriagebetween Isabel and John Desantis.^23cra

According to the respondent, Isabel'sprevious marriage, in the absence of any proof that it was dissolved, made hersubsequent marriage with Rodolfo bigamous and void ab initio.^24cra

On2 July 2004, the intestate court issued an order allowing the petitioners andtheir siblings to take part in the settlement proceedings.²⁵ The intestate court was convinced that theevidence at hand adequately establish Isabel's status as the legal spouse ofRodolfo and, by that token, permitted the petitioners and their siblings tointervene in the proceedings on her behalf.^26cra

Theintestate court also held that the birth certificate of Sylvia was insufficientto prove that there was a previous marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.²⁷ It ventured on the possibility that the entriesin the birth record of Sylvia regarding her legitimacy and the status of herparents, may have been made only in order to save Isabel and her family fromthe social condemnation of having a child out of wedlock.^28cra

The respondent sought for reconsideration,but was denied by the intestate court in its order dated 26 January 2006.²⁹ Undeterred, the respondent hoisted a petitionfor certiorari before the Court ofAppeals.

On 31 May 2007, the Court of Appealsgranted the petition and nullified the orders of the intestate court.^30cra

Incoming to its conclusion, the Court of Appeals found that it was an error onthe part of the intestate court to have disregarded the probative value ofSylvia's birth certificate.³¹ The appellate court, siding with the respondent,held that Sylvia's birth certificate serves as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated-which includes thecivil status of her parents.³² Hence, the previous marriage of Isabel withJohn Desantis should have been taken as established.

TheCourt of Appeals added that since the petitioners and their siblings failed tooffer any other evidence proving that the marriage of Isabel with John Desantishad been dissolved by the time she was married to Rodolfo, it then follows thatthe latter marriage-the Isabel-Rodolfo union-is a nullity for being bigamous.³³From that premise, Isabel cannot be considered as the legal spouse ofRodolfo. The petitioners and theirsiblings, therefore, failed to show that Isabel has any interest in the estateof Rodolfo.

Hence, the instant appeal.^34cra

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred when it nullified the orders of the intestate court allowing the petitioners and their siblings to intervene in the settlement proceedings.

The petitioners answer in the affirmative. They proffer the following arguments:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

One. The Court of Appeals exceeded the limits of review under a writ of certiorari .³⁵ In nullifying the intestate court's order,the appellate court did not confine itself to the issue of whether the same wasissued with grave abuse of discretion.³⁶ Rather, it chose to re-assess the evidenceand touch upon the issue pertaining to Isabel's right to inherit from Rodolfo.^37cra

Had the appellate court limiteditself to the issue of whether grave abuse of discretion exists, it would havefound that the intestate court did not act whimsically or capriciously inissuing its assailed orders.³⁸ Grave abuse of discretion on the part of theintestate court is belied by the fact that the said orders may be supported bythe two (2) marriage certificates between Isabel and Rodolfo.^39cra

Second. Assuming ex-gratia argumentithat the Court of Appeals was correct in addressing the issue of whether therewas sufficient evidence to prove that Isabel has a right to inherit fromRodolfo, it nevertheless erred in finding that there was none.⁴⁰ A proper evaluation of the evidence at handdoes not support the conclusion that Isabel had a previous marriage with JohnDesantis.^41cra

To begin with, the respondent was notable to produce any marriage certificate executed between Isabel and JohnDesantis.⁴² The conspicuous absence of such certificatecan, in turn, only lend credibility to the position that no such marriage evertook place.

Moreover, the entries in the birthcertificate of Sylvia do not carry the necessary weight to be able to prove amarriage between Isabel and John Desantis.⁴³ In assessing the probative value of suchentries, the Court of Appeals should have taken note of a "typical" practice among unwed Filipino couples who, in order to "save face" and "not to embarrass their families," concoct the illusion of marriageand make it appear that a child begot by them is legitimate.^44cra

Since the alleged previous marriage of Isabel with John Desantis was not satisfactorily proven, the Court of Appeals clearly erred in finding that her marriage with Rodolfo is bigamous.

We are not impressed.

First Argument

The first argument raised by the petitioners is specious at best. The question of whether the intestate court gravely abused its discretion is intricately linked with the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Isabel's status as the legal spouse of Rodolfo.

A court's power to allow or deny intervention, albeit discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the basic demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in an action or proceeding may be allowed to intervene.⁴⁵ Otherwise stated, a court has no authority to allow a person, who has no interest in an action or proceeding, to intervene therein.^46cra

Consequently, when a court commits a mistake and allows an uninterested person to intervene in a case-the mistake is not simply an error of judgment, but one of jurisdiction. In such event, the allowance is made in excess of the court's jurisdiction and can only be the product of an exercise of discretion gravely abused. That kind of error may be reviewed in a special civil action for certiorari .

Verily, the Court of Appeals was acting well within the limits of review under a writ of certiorari , when it examined the evidence proving Isabel's right to inherit from Rodolfo. The sufficiency or insufficiency of such evidence determines whether the petitioners and their siblings have successfully established Isabel's interest in Rodolfo's estate-which, as already mentioned, is an indispensable requisite to justify any intervention. Ultimately, the re-assessment of the evidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings will tell if the assailed orders of the intestate court were issued in excess of the latter's jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

We now proceed to the second argument of the petitioners.

Second Argument

The second argument of the petitioners is also without merit. We agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that the petitioners and their siblings failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that Isabel was the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The very evidence of the petitioners and their siblings negates their claim that Isabel has interest in Rodolfo's estate.

Contrary to the position taken by the petitioners, the existence of a previous marriage between Isabel and John Desantis was adequately established. This holds true notwithstanding the fact that no marriage certificate between Isabel and John Desantis exists on record.

While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage.⁴⁷ Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.⁴⁸ Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.^49cra

In the present case, the birth certificate of Sylvia precisely serves as the competent evidence of marriage between Isabel and John Desantis. As mentioned earlier, it contains the following notable entries: (a) that Isabel and John Desantis were "married" and(b) that Sylvia is their "legitimate" child.⁵⁰ In clear and categorical language, Sylvia's birth certificate speaks of a subsisting marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.

Pursuant to existing laws,⁵¹ the foregoing entries are accorded prima facie weight. They are presumed to be true. Hence, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, they can, and will, stand as proof of the facts attested.⁵² In the case at bench, the petitioners and their siblings offered no such rebuttal.

The petitioners did no better than to explain away the entries in Sylvia's birth certificate as untruthful statements made only in order to "save face."⁵³ They urge this Court to take note of a "typical" practice among unwed Filipino couples to concoct the illusion of marriage and make it appear that a child begot by them is legitimate. That, the Court cannot countenance.

The allegations of the petitioners, by themselves and unsupported by any other evidence, do not diminish the probative value of the entries. This Court cannot, as the petitioners would like Us to do, simply take judicial notice of a supposed folkway and conclude therefrom that the usage was in fact followed. It certainly is odd that the petitioners would themselves argue that the document on which they based their interest in intervention contains untruthful statements in its vital entries.

Ironically, it is the evidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings themselves which, properly appreciated, supports the finding that Isabel was, indeed, previously married to John Desantis. Consequently, in the absence of any proof that such marriage had been dissolved by the time Isabel was married to Rodolfo, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter marriage is bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.

The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to present evidence to prove that Isabel's prior marriage was dissolved results in a failure to establish that she has interest in the estate of Rodolfo. Clearly, an intervention by the petitioners and their siblings in the settlement proceedings cannot be justified. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the decision dated 31 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00576 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

JOSEPORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO*
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA**
Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD***
Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice