Contributor: Jake Zhan C.

Adriano
Case Title: Luis Uy vs SPS. Jose Lacsamana and Rosauro Mendoza; GR No. 206220,
August 19, 2015
Doctrine: Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio – always presume marriage. However,
this presumption may be contradicted by a party and overcome by other evidence.
Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant evidence. In Pugeda vs
Trias, we held that testimony by one of the parties to the marriage, or by one of the
witnesses to the marriage, as well as the person who officiated at the solemnization of
the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage.
Question: H and W was married from 1944 until 1973 and was separated. They acquired
several properties, one of the properties which is registered under her name was sold by
W with X without the consent of her husband. Then, H questioned the transaction made
by W contending that he did not consented to the sale of the property. In her answer, W
contends that said property was her paraphernal property and she is not married with H.
Is H and W validly married? If no, can W sell her paraphernal properties without the
consent of H?
Suggested Answer: NO. H and W are not validly married.
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio – Always presume marriage. However, this
presumption may be contradicted by a party and overcome by other evidence. Marriage
may be proven by any competent evidence. In Pugeda vs Trias, we held that testimony
by one of the parties to the marriage, as well as the person who officiated at the
solemnization of the marriage, has been held to the admissible to prove the fact of
marriage. Documentary evidence may also be shown. In Villanueva vs Court of Appeals,
we held that the best documentary evidence of a marriage is a marriage contract itself.
Under Act No. 3613 or the Marriage Law of 1929, as amended by Commonwealth Act
No. 114, which is applicable to the present case being the marriage law in effect at the
time H and W cohabited, the marriage certificate, where the contracting parties state that
they take each other as husband and wife, must be furnished by the person solemnizing
the marriage to either of the contracting parties, and the clerk of Municipal Court of Manila
or the municipal secretary of the municipality where the marriage was solemnized. The
third copy of the marriage contract, the marriage license and the affidavit of the interested
party regarding the solemnization of the marriage other than those mentioned in Section
5 of the same Act shall be kept by the official, priest, or minister who solemnized the
marriage.
In the present case, H was not able to present any copy of the marriage certificate
which he could have sourced from his own personal records, the solemnizing officer, or
the municipal office where the marriage allegedly took place. Even the findings of the
RTC revealed that H did not show a single relevant evidence that he was actually married
to W. On the contrary, the documents H submitted showed that he and W were not legally
married to each other.
In Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, the property subject of the mortgage was registered in
the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married to Rogelio Ruiz, Filipinos." This Court
ruled that the title is registered in the name of Corazon alone because the phrase "married
to Rogelio Ruiz" is merely descriptive of the civil status of Corazon and should not be
construed to mean that her husband is also a registered owner.
Based on the evidence she presented, W was able to sufficiently overcome the
presumption that any property acquired while living together shall be owned by the couple
in equal shares. The house and lot were clearly W's paraphernal properties and she had
every right to sell the same even without H's consent.