Tomasa Vda. de Jacob vs.

CA (Presumption of Marriage) Nature of the Case: This is a Petition for Review assailing the decision of the CA denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration Facts: Petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special Administratix for the various estates of the deceased by virtue of a reconstructed Marriage Contract between herself and the deceased. Respondent Pedro Pilapil on the other hand, claimed to be the legally-adopted son of Alfredo, purportedly supported by an Order issued by then Presiding Judge Jose L. Moya, CFI, Camarines Sur, granting the petition for adoption filed by deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil. Pedro sought to intervene during the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Alfredo, claiming his share of the deceaseds estate as Alfredo's adopted son and sole surviving heir. Pedro likewise questioned the validity of the marriage between Appellant Tomasa and his adoptive father Alfredo. Appellant claims that the marriage between her and Alfredo was solemnized by one Msgr. Florencio C. Yllana, CBCP, Intramuros, Manila sometime in 1975. She could not however present the original copy of the Marriage Contract stating that the original document was lost when Msgr. Yllana allegedly gave it to Mr. Jose Centenera for registration. In lieu of the original, Tomasa presented as secondary evidence a reconstructed Marriage Contract issued in 1978. Several irregularities on the reconstructed Marriage Contract were observed by the court such as: (1) no copy of the Marriage Contract was sent to the local civil registrar by the solemnizing officer; (2) a mere thumbmark was purportedly placed by the late Alfredo Jacob on said reconstructed marriage contract on 16 September 1975 (date of the marriage), instead of his customary signature as affixed in their Sworn Affidavit; (3) inconsistencies in the circumstances and personalities surrounding the lost Marriage Contract mentioned in the affidavit executed by Msgr. Yllana and in the testimony admitted by the appellant; and (4) appellant admitted that there was no record of the purported marriage entered in the book of records in San Agustin Church where the marriage was allegedly solemnized. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court ruled for defendant-appellee Pilapil, sustaining his claim as the legally adopted child and sole heir of deceased Alfredo and declaring the reconstructed Marriage Contract as spurious and non-existent. The Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the trial court. Issues: 1. WON the marriage between the plaintiff Tomasa Vda. De Jacob and deceased Alfredo E. Jacob was indeed valid Held: Yes. The marriage between appellant and the deceased was valid. Ratio: Pilapils claim that the marriage was void due to absence of a marriage license was misplaced. An affidavit executed by the appellant and the late Dr. Jacob that they lived together as husband and wife for at least five years exempted them from the marriage license requirement (Article 76 of the Civil Code). Also misplaced was Pilapils argument that the marriage was void because of the absence of a marriage contract and the absence of entry of such in the Books of Marriage of the Local Civil Registrar and in the National Census and Statistics Office. A marriage contract is the best evidence of a marriage ceremony. However, the contents of a document may be proven by competent evidence other than the document itself, provided that the offeror establishes its due execution and its subsequent loss or destruction. Accordingly, the fact of marriage may be shown by extrinsic evidence other than the marriage contract. In the instant case, appellant provided competent evidence to prove that a marriage ceremony was solemnized between her and the late Dr. Jacob. Such evidence was supplied by appellant Tomasa, witness Adela Pilapil and the solemnizing officer Msgr. Yllana through their sworn testimonies both in open court and in writing, and through the photographs taken during the ceremony. The absence of an entry pertaining to 1975 in the Books of Marriage of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and in the National Census and Statistics Office (NCSO) does not invalidate the marriage. It is primary duty of the solemnizing officer, not the petitioner, to send a copy of the marriage certificate to these offices in order to be duly recorded. In the absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. As the fact that Dr. Jacob and appellant Tomasa lived together as husband and wife was not disputed in this case, but was in fact even accepted, it would follow that the presumption of marriage was not likewise rebutted.