Facts
On March 23, 1990, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, Tarlac. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by a certain Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia). Their union produced three children.
Throughout their marriage, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted her lawyer, Atty. Eduardo Cunanan (Atty. Cunanan), regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against Amancio. Eloisa showed her marriage certificate to Atty. Cunanan, who claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia.
Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to Atty. Cunanan, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures. According to Atty. Cunanan, the person who appeared to be the solemnizing officer was a certain Rosalio Florendo (Florendo), whom he allegedly also knew as a co-member of the Rotary Club of Tarlac City.
Eloisa explained to Atty. Cunanan that although she arranged the wedding, neither she nor anyone else knew Judge De Gracia. She thought that the person who solemnized their marriage was the judge himself.
Consequently, on January 5, 2018, Eloisa filed a petition with the RTC to declare her marriage to Amancio as void on the ground of lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. Eloisa, during the trial, submitted the three pictures of her marriage ceremony as evidence. She claimed that the person wearing a white polo shirt with stripes, and who officiated her marriage, was Florendo and not Judge De Gracia.
Meanwhile, Atty. Cunanan testified that he personally knew Judge De Gracia as a municipal court judge in the 1990s because he used to visit him in his chambers. When Eloisa showed him a picture of her marriage ceremony, he identified the solemnizing officer as Rosalio Florendo, whom he also personally knew as a co-member of the Rotary Club in Tarlac City. He also noted that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, however, denied the petition for failure to present clear and convincing evidence since the marriage contract creates a prima facie presumption of the contents thereof, and Eloisa failed to rebut this presumption.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts are wrong for denying the petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of authority of the solemnizing officer?
Ruling
NO. The identities of either Judge De Gracia or Florendo could have been established by numerous documentary or testimonial evidence of various competent and disinterested persons. Atty. Cunanan could have secured the presence of Judge De Gracia himself, his court staff (considering that he was a judge in Tarlac City), or any other competent person who could personally identify him; yet they failed to do so. Similarly, Atty. Cunanan claimed that he belonged to the same organization as Florendo, and yet, he failed to produce competent evidence, aside from his own testimony, as to the identity of Florendo.
On the other hand, Judge De Gracia’s name and signature appeared in the marriage contract as the solemnizing officer. The authenticity of his signature was never assailed. The marriage contract, being a public document, is not only a prima facie proof of marriage, but is also a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Hence, as against the petitioners’ self-serving allegations, the marriage contract must prevail.
More importantly, it is settled in jurisprudence that an officer or clergyman who officiated the marriage is presumed to have legal authority to do so, absent sufficient contrary evidence. Thus, since the petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer, the marriage is valid. The legal presumption accorded to public documents, in favor of the authority of the solemnizing officer, and towards the validity of marriage, must be upheld.
Moreover, Article 35(2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by a person with no legal authority are considered void, except if one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage.
Here, the records show that the petitioner had always believed in good faith, since the inception of her marriage in the year 1990, that the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia, a person who had the legal authority to solemnize the marriage. She had never doubted the authority of the solemnizing officer. It was only in 2017 that she sought legal advice on how to be legally separated from her husband, wherein she was notified by her lawyer that Judge De Gracia was not the actual person who officiated the marriage.