Vda.

de Jacob v Court of Appeals

312 SCRA 772

PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER: Tomasa Vda. De Jacob

DEFENDANT / RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, Pedro Pilapil, and Juan F. Trivino

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

PONENTE: Panganiban, J.

FACTS:
Tomasa Vda. De Jacob, alleged surviving spouse of deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob, has been
appointed Special Administratrix of the various estates of her late husband by virtue of a
reconstructed marriage contract between her and the deceased. Defendant Pilapil intervened,
claiming to be the legally adopted son of Alfredo and demanding his share of the deceased’s
estate, being the sole surviving heir. In so doing, Pilapil also questions the validity of the
Tomasa-Alfredo marriage. The trial court declared the reconstructed marriage contract false
while it sustained the defendant’s claim of being the legally adopted son and sole surviving heir
of Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob. The Court of Appeals ruled in the same manner and affirmed the trial
court’s decision. It is from this decision that the petition filed a petition for review before the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether the marriage between plaintiff Tomasa Vda. De Jacob and deceased Dr.
Alfredo E. Jacob was valid; and
(2) Whether defendant Pedro Pilapil is the legally adopted son of Alfredo E. Jacob.

HELD:
(1) Yes; (2) No. Petition granted; decision reversed.

RATIO:
(1) a. Alfredo Jacob and Tomasa had lived together as husband and wife for 5 years. Under
Article 76 of the Civil Code, this qualifies the marriage as exceptional and a marriage
license is not deemed necessary. The Civil Code takes precedence over the Family
Code in this case since the marriage in issue occurred before the FC took effect.

Art 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman, who have
attained the age of majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband
and wife for at least five years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall
state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law or
administer oath. The official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also
state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of
the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.

b. Evidence regarding the due execution and loss of the marriage contract have been
presented, but these were erroneously excluded by the trial court and the Court of
Appeal:
1. testimony of Adelia Pilapil, a witness to the marriage ceremony
2. testimony of the petitioner herself as a party to the event
3. testimony and affidavit of the officiating priest, Msr. Yllana
 Following such rejection, secondary evidence such as photographs of the wedding
ceremony and documentary evidence as to the loss of the marriage certificate were also
unfairly disregarded.

In doing so, the lower courts confused the aforementioned evidence to show due
execution and loss as secondary evidence of the marriage.

(2) The desposition of Judge Jose L. Moya himself, who allegedly granted the petition for
adoption, clearly and positively declares that he could not recall issuing such petition,
and that the signature over his name was not his.

The burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming such
relationship, in this case, Pedro Pilapil. Having failed to produce such evidence, the
alleged adoption is concluded to be a sham.

*****