G.R. No.

L-4904

February 5, 1909

ROSALIA MARTINEZ vs. ANGEL TAN. WILLARD, J.: Facts: On the 25th of September, 1907, signed by the p aintiff and the defendant, in !hich they state that they have m"t"a y agreed to enter into a contract of marriage before the #"stice of the peace, and as$ that the #"stice so emni%e the marriage. o &acarias 'smero and (acita )a ori !ere the ones !ho !ere made as !itnesses.

*o!ever, +artine% c aims that there !as no marriage to spea$ of as she never appeared before the #"stice of peace and mere y signed the doc"ment thin$ing that it !as on y a doc"ment !hich a"thori%ed ,an to as$ her parent-s consent to marriage. o .dmitted y she says that she never read the said doc"ment

.s for the ,an-s side, his testimony that he and +artine% appeared before the #"stice of peace a ong !ith their !itnesses !as presented. .dditiona y the testimony of 'smero that he, the defendant, p aintiff and )a ori appeared before the #"stice of peace and signed the doc"ment !as of the same effect as that of the testimony of )a ori. Fina y the testimony of the bai iff of co"rt stated that defendant, appe ant, #"stice of peace and t!o !itnesses !ere a present d"ring the ceremony. .s opposed to the one testimony of +artine%, the o!er co"rt decided the case in favor of ,an, hence the c"rrent petition.

/ss"e: 0ere 1osa ia and .nge married on the 25th of September 19072 *e d: 3es, the evidence strong y preponderates in favor of the decision of the co"rt be o! to the effect that the p aintiff appeared before the #"stice of the peace at the time named. ( aintiff c aimed that /t !hat too$ p ace before the #"stice of the peace, even admitting a that the !itnesses for the defendant testified to, did not constit"te a ega marriage. 4enera orders, 5o. 67, section 6, is as fo o!s: 5o partic" ar form from the ceremony of marriage is re8"ired, b"t the parties m"st dec are in the presence of the person so emni%ing the marriage, that they ta$e each other as h"sband and !ife. .gain ho!ever, the petition signed the p aintiff and defendant contained a positive statement that they had m"t"a y agreed to be married and they as$ed the #"stice of the peace to so emni%e the marriage.

,he doc"ment signed by the p aintiff, the defendant, and the #"stice of the peace, stated that they ratified "nder oath, before the #"stice, the contents of the petition and that !itnesses of the marriage !ere prod"ced. . mortgage too$ p ace as sho!n by the certificate of the #"stice of the peace, signed by both contracting parties, !hich certificates gives rise to the pres"mption that the officer a"thori%ed the marriage in d"e form, the parties before the #"stice of the peace dec aring that they too$ each other as h"sband and !ife, "n ess the contrary is proved, s"ch pres"mption being corroborated in this case by the admission of the !oman to the effect that she had contracted the marriage certified to in the doc"ment signed by her, !hich admission can on y mean the parties m"t"a y agreed to "nite in marriage !hen they appeared and signed the said doc"ment !hich so states before the #"stice of the peace !ho a"thori%ed the same. o /t !as proven that both the p aintiff and the defendant !ere ab e to read and !rite the Spanish ang"age, and that they $ne! the contents of the doc"ment !hich they signed9 and "nder the circ"mstances in this partic" ar case !ere satisfied, and so ho d, that !hat too$ p ace before the #"stice of the peace on this occasion amo"nted to a ega marriage.

:isposition: ,he #"dgment of the co"rt be o! ac8"itting the defendant of the comp aint is affirmed, !ith the costs of this instance against the appe ant.