Case Digest: Macua vda. de Avenido v. Hoybia Avenido

PEREGRINA MACUA VDA. DE AVENIDO, Petitioner, vs. TECLA HOYBIA AVENIDO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 173540, 22 January 22 2014.

PEREZ, J.:

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

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 Tecla is the lawful wife of the deceased Eustaquio Avenido (Eustaquio).

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. While the a marriage certificate was recorded with the local civil registrar, the records of the LCR were destroyed during World War II. Tecla and Eustaquio begot four children, but Eustaquio left his family in 1954.

In 1979, Tecla learned that Eustaquio got married to another woman by the name of Peregrina, which marriage she claims must be declared null and void for being bigamous. In support of her claim, Tecla presented eyewitnesses to the ceremony, the birth certificate of their children and certificates to the fact that the marriage certificate/records were destroyed.

Peregrina, on the other hand averred that she is the legal surviving spouse of Eustaquio who died on 22 September 1989, their marriage having been celebrated on 30 March 1979 and showed the marriage contract between her and Eustaquio.

RTC ruled in favor of Peregrina. It relied on Tecla’s failure to present her certificate of marriage to Eustaquio. Without such certificate, RTC considered as useless the certification of the Office of the Civil Registrar of Talibon over the lack of records.

The CA, on appeal, ruled in favor of Tecla. It held 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 RTC, and testimonial evidence created sufficient proof of the fact of marriage. 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.

ISSUE: Between Tecla and Peregrina, who was the legal wife of Eustaquio?

RULING: TECLA

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 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.

It is an error on the part of the RTC to rule that without the marriage certificate, no other proof can be accepted.

The execution of a document may be proven by the parties themselves, by the swearing officer, by witnesses who saw and recognized the signatures of the parties; or even by those to whom the parties have previously narrated the execution thereof.

In this case, due execution was established by the eyewitness testimonies and of Tecla herself as a party to the event. The subsequent loss was shown by the testimony of the officiating priest. Since the due execution and the loss of the marriage contract were clearly shown by the evidence presented, secondary evidence–testimonial and documentary–may be admitted to prove the fact of marriage.

The starting point then, is the presumption of marriage.

Every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law.

Case Digest: Matugas v. COMELEC

ENGR. ERNESTO T. MATUGAS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROBERT LYNDON S. BARBERS, respondents.

G.R. No. 151944.  January 20, 2004

TINGA, J.:


On 28 February 28 2001, Private Respondent Robert Lyndon Barbers filed his certificate of candidacy as governor of Surigao del Norte for 2001 elections. Petitioner Ernesto T. Matugas, who is also a candidate for governor, filed with COMELEC a Petition to Disqualify Barbers as candidate.

His main contention is that Barbers is not a Filipino citizen. To support his claim, Matugas presented the following documents:

1. Photocopy of a letter-request of a certain Jesus Agana, a “confidential agent” of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), addressed to one George Clarke, purportedly of the United States Embassy regarding the US citizenship of Barbers;
2. A notation on the letter request allegedly made by George Clarke, stating that Barbers was naturalized on 11 October 1991;
3. Photocopy of a Certification from the BID containing Barbers' travel records and indicating in some documents that he is American;
4. Certification from the Office of the Solicitor General's Special Committee on Naturalization stating that there is no pending petition by, or grant of repatriation to, Barbers.

Meanwhile, Barbers won the gubernatorial race on 17 May 2001. Matugas then filed a Motion for Suspension/Annulment of Proclamation of Barbers. However, Barbers was proclaimed the duly elected governor of Surigao del Norte on 28 May 2001.

COMELEC then dismissed the Petition to Disqualify. It found “little or no probative value” in the notation of George Clarke to Agana’s letter-request.While noting that the BID certification involving the travel records of Barbers stated that he was an American, it held that there is no other independent evidence to justify Matugas's claim that Barbers has renounced his allegiance to the Philippines.

Matugas filed a Motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, and presented the following additional documents:

1. Photocopy of a document purportedly coming from the US Dirstrict Court of California showing the Naturalization of Barbers signed by its Deputy Clerk;
2. Photocopy of a purported Authentication attached to the previous document coming from the Philippine Consul in Los Angeles, California stating the following: "The annexed document is an Information of Naturalization Re: Robert Lyndon Barbers executed by United States District Court, Central District of California."

Subsequently, petitioner filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Admit Original Documents, appending the originals of the above documents.

Issue: W/N Barbers should have been disqualified.

Ruling: No.

One who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Matugas did not overcome his burden of presenting substantial evidence with the documents he presented.

For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents include the written official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country. The record of such public documents may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record.

If the record is not kept in the Philippines, the attested copy should be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has custody thereof. Said certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office.

The grant of United States citizenship by naturalization is an official act of the United States. The document containing the record of this act is a public document, so this document can only be evidenced by its official publication or a copy duly attested by the officer having legal custody thereof.

The George Clarke's notation in the letter-request of Jesus Agana is neither an official publication of the document that contains the record of private respondent’s naturalization, nor a copy attested by the officer who has legal custody of the record. Matugas also did not show if Clarke is the officer charged with the custody of such record.

Furthermore, Matugas only presented photocopies of the letter-request and notation, as well as the BID certification, in contravention of the above-cited rule.

In any case, the BID certification contains inconsistent entries regarding the “nationality” of Barbers. While some entries indicate that he is “American,” other entries state that he is “Filipino.”

The new documents presented in the Petition for Certiorari cannot also be admitted in evidence.  In this case, the Authentication executed the Philippine Consul in Los Angeles does not state that the Deputy Clerk who signed the document has the custody of the document being authenticated.

Lastly, the Petitioner's calls to consider alleged new evidence not presented before the COMELEC is clearly beyond the the Supreme Courts’ certiorari powers. Doing so would be tantamount to holding a new investigation.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and it cannot be asked to substitute its own judgment and discretion for that of the COMELEC.

The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual question may not be raised for the first time on appeal,and documents forming no part of the proofs before the appellate court will not be considered in disposing of the issues of an action. Piecemeal presentation of evidence is simply not in accord with orderly justice.

The same rules apply with greater force in certiorari proceedings. It would be absurd to hold COMELEC guilty of grave abuse of discretion for not considering evidence not presented before it. The patent unfairness of Matugas’s plea militates against the admission and consideration of the subject documents.

Book Review: Antonio Bautsista's Basic Evidence

Atty Antonio Bautista's Basic Evidence features a topical discussion of the rules on Evidence. It is mainly an academic discussion of the subject. The discussion generally go into the spirit of the rules. The book discusses the wisdom, the pros and cons of a particular rule.

U.S. caselaws and American authorities like Wigmore, Lilly and Kirkpatrick are extensively quoted to shed light on the various topics. And while our rules on Evidence are based on common law, some discussions may not apply in our jurisdiction on all fours.

The book is recommended if you want to know about the rationale of our rules on Evidence. But if you are studying for the bar, I won't recommend this book.

Word of the Week: Equipoise

Photo: Mario, Creative Commons, Openphoto.net

If the evidence pertinent to a disputed fact is equally balanced or does not produce a rational belief of its existence, the party holding the affirmative as to such fact must fail (People v. Ordoña).

or

When there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other, the court will find for the defendant(Municipality of Candijay v. CA)

or

Under this rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking. And in this case, the petitioner must be declared innocent and set free (Maria Tin v. People).


Note: The equipoise rule is also known as the equiponderance of evidence rule.