Peregrina Avenido vs Tecla Avenido

Facts:

This case involves a contest between two women claiming to have been married to
the same man, now deceased.

Tecla instituted a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage against Peregrina,

alleging that she, Tecla, is the lawful wife of Eustaquio Avenido, the latter also being
the father of their four children.

After Eustaquio left his family, Tecla learned that he married another woman named
Peregrina.

Trial ensued.

Tecla presented testimonial and documentary evidence consisting, among others, of

a copy of Certificate of Marriage, a Certification that the Civil Registry records
submitted to the Office of the Civil Registrar General, from 1932 to the early part of
1945, were totally destroyed during the liberation of Manila, a Certification of
Loss/Destruction of Record of Marriage, and an electronic copy of the Marriage
Contract between Eustaquio and Peregrina.

Peregrina on the other hand presented, among others, a Marriage Contract, an

affidavit by Eustaquio declaring himself single when he married the petitioner,
although he had a common law wife, Tecla Hoybia, and four children with her.

The RTC rendered a decision denying Tecla’s petition, as well as Peregrina’s

counter-claim. In the absence of the marriage contract, the trial court did not give
credence to the testimony of Tecla and her witnesses as it considered the same as
mere self-serving assertions. Superior significance was given to the fact that Tecla
could not even produce her own copy of the said proof of marriage. Relying on
Section 3(a) and Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the trial court declared
that Tecla failed to prove the existence of the first marriage.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Tecla, holding that the due
execution and loss of marriage contract, both constituting the condition sine qua
non, for the introduction of secondary evidence of its contents, were shown by the
very evidence the trial court disregarded. The CA concluded that there was a
presumption of lawful marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio as they deported
themselves as husband and wife and begot four children. Such presumption,
supported by documentary evidence consisting of the same certifications
disregarded by the trial court, as well as the testimonial evidence, created, according
tot eh CA, sufficient proof of the fact of marriage. Contrary to the trial court’s ruling,
the CA found that its appreciation of the evidence presented by Tecla is well in
accord with Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Peregrine now questions the said ruling, assigning as error, among others, the
failure of the CA to appreciate the validity of her marriage to Eustaquio.
Issue:

Whether or not secondary evidence may be considered and/or taken cognizance of

by reason of the unavailability of the best evidence

Held:

The ruling of the CA is upheld.

Secondary evidence is admissible even in the absence of best evidence provided due
execution and the loss of the marriage contract are duly proved.

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.

The celebration of marriage between Tecla and Equtaquio was established by the
testimonial evidence furnished by living witnesses to the event; the unrebutted fact
of birth within the cohabitation of Tecla and Eustaquio of four children coupled with
certificates of the children’s birth and baptism; and the certificates of marriage
issued by the parish priest.

Wherefore, petition is denied and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed. The marriage between petitioner Peregrina and deceased Eustaquio
Avenido is hereby declared null and void.

Facts:

Respondent Tecla Hoybia Avenido (Tecla) instituted on 11 November 1998, a

Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Peregrina Macua Vda. de
Avenido (Peregrina) on the ground that she (Tecla), is the lawful wife of the
deceased Eustaquio Avenido (Eustaquio). 

In her complaint, Tecla alleged that her marriage to Eustaquio was solemnized on
30 September 1942 in Talibon, Bohol in rites officiated by the Parish Priest of the
said town.  According to her, the fact of their marriage is evidenced by a Marriage
Certificate recorded with... the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Talibon,
Bohol.  However, due to World War II, records were destroyed. Thus, only a
Certification[3] was issued by the LCR.

During the existence of Tecla and Eustaquio's union, they begot four (4) children

In 1979, Tecla learned that her husband Eustaquio got married to another woman
by the name of Peregrina, which marriage she claims must be declared null and void
for being bigamous an action she sought to protect the rights of her children over
the properties acquired by

Eustaquio.
On 12 April 1999, Peregrina filed her answer to the complaint with counterclaim,[4]
essentially averring that she is the legal surviving spouse of Eustaquio who died on
22 September 1989 in Davao City, their marriage having been celebrated on 30
March 1979... at St. Jude Parish in Davao City. She also contended that the case was
instituted to deprive her of the properties she owns in her own right and as an heir
of Eustaquio.

Trial ensued.

Tecla presented testimonial and documentary evidence... to substantiate her alleged

prior existing and valid marriage with (sic) Eustaquio

Peregrina likewise set forth documentary evidence to substantiate her allegations

and to prove her claim for damages... the RTC rendered a Decision[21] denying
Tecla's petition, as well as Peregrina's counter-claim.

Not convinced, Tecla appealed to the CA raising as error the trial court's alleged
disregard of the evidence on the existence of her marriage to Eustaquio.

the CA ruled in favor of Tecla by declaring the validity of her marriage to Eustaquio,
while pronouncing on the other hand, the marriage between Peregrina and
Eustaquio to be bigamous, and thus, null and void.

The

CA ruled:

The court a quo committed a reversible error when it disregarded (1) the
testimonies of [Adelina], the sister of EUSTAQUIO who testified that she personally
witnessed the wedding celebration of her older brother EUSTAQUIO and [Tecla] on
30 September 1942 at

Talibon, Bohol; [Climaco], the eldest son of EUSTAQUIO and [Tecla], who testified
that his mother [Tecla] was married to his father, EUSTAQUIO, and [Tecla] herself;
and (2) the documentary evidence mentioned at the outset.  It should be stressed
that the due execution and... the loss of the marriage contract, both constituting the
condition sine qua non, for the introduction of secondary evidence of its  contents,
were shown by the very evidence the trial court has disregarded.[

Peregrina now questions the said ruling

Issues:
whether or not the evidence presented during the trial proves the existence of the
marriage of Tecla to Eustaquio.

Ruling:

The trial court, in ruling against Tecla's claim of her prior valid marriage to
Eustaquio relied on Tecla's failure to present her certificate of marriage to
Eustaquio. Without such certificate, the trial court considered as useless the
certification of the Office of the Civil

Registrar of Talibon, Bohol, that it has no more records of marriages during the
period 1900 to 1944.  The same thing was said as regards the Certification issued by
the National Statistics Office of Manila.

In the absence of the marriage contract, the trial court did not give credence to the
testimony of Tecla and her witnesses as it considered the same  as mere self-serving
assertions. Superior significance was given to the fact that Tecla could not even
produce her own copy... of the said proof of marriage.  Relying on Section 3 (a) and
Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the trial court declared that Tecla failed to
prove the existence of the first marriage.

The CA, on the other hand, concluded that there was a presumption of lawful
marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio as they deported themselves as husband and
wife and begot four (4) children.  Such presumption, supported by documentary
evidence consisting of the same

Certifications disregarded by the trial court, as well as the testimonial evidence

especially that of Adelina Avenido-Ceno, created, according to the CA, sufficient
proof of the fact of marriage.  Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the CA found that
its appreciation of... the evidence presented by Tecla is well in accord with Section 5,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

We uphold the reversal by the CA of the decision of the trial court.

Quite recently, in Añ onuevo v. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni,[28] we said,

citing precedents, that:

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. Jurisprudence
teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the
marriage... certificate.  Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be recognized as
competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.
The error of the trial court in ruling that without the marriage certificate, no other
proof of the fact can be accepted, has been aptly delineated in Vda de Jacob v. Court
of Appeals.[29]  Thus: