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 Teclas 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 persons 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
evidencetestimonial and documentarymay 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 counterpresumption 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.