FACTS:

Tecla Hoybia Avenido filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Peregrina Macua Vda. de Avenido, claiming to be the lawful wife of Eustaquio Avenido. Tecla alleged that their marriage was solemnized in 1942 and presented a Certification from the Local Civil Registrar as evidence. They had four children together. In 1979, Tecla discovered that Eustaquio got married to Peregrina and sought to have the marriage declared null and void. Peregrina argued that she was the legal surviving spouse and accused Tecla of initiating the case in bad faith. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Tecla's petition and dismissed Peregrina's counterclaim. Tecla appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled in her favor and declared her marriage to Eustaquio as valid while pronouncing the marriage between Peregrina and Eustaquio as bigamous and null and void. Peregrina and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) challenged the CA's ruling, raising various legal issues including the validity of relying on the presumption of marriage and the probative value of a Certificate of Marriage issued by the church.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the absence of the marriage certificate is fatal to Tecla's claim of her prior valid marriage to Eustaquio.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly reversed the trial court's decision and found sufficient proof of the fact of marriage.

3. Whether secondary evidence testimonial and documentary may be admitted to prove the fact of marriage, despite the absence of the original marriage contract.

RULING:

1. The trial court erred in ruling that the absence of the marriage certificate is fatal to Tecla's claim of her prior valid marriage to Eustaquio. The Supreme Court held that a marriage certificate is not the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage, and that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.

2. The CA correctly reversed the trial court's decision and found sufficient proof of the fact of marriage. The CA considered the presumption of lawful marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio based on their conduct as husband and wife and the fact that they had four children together. The CA also considered the documentary evidence, including the certifications disregarded by the trial court, as well as the testimonial evidence. The CA's appreciation of the evidence is in accordance with the Rules of Court.

3. Yes, secondary evidence testimonial and documentary may be admitted to prove the fact of marriage, when the due execution and loss of the marriage contract is clearly shown by the evidence presented.

PRINCIPLES:

• A marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, but it is not the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. The fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. (Añonuevo v. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni)

• The absence of a marriage certificate does not bar the introduction of evidence of the execution of the document. Evidence of the execution of a document may consist of parol testimony, extrinsic papers, or other competent evidence. Failure to produce the document, when available, may affect the weight of the evidence but not its admissibility. (Vda de Jacob v. Court of Appeals; Hernaez v. Mcgrath; Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete)

• Marriage can be proven by any competent and relevant evidence, including the testimonies of parties involved and witnesses to the marriage.

• The person who officiated the marriage is competent to testify as an eyewitness to the fact of marriage.

• The due execution and loss of the marriage contract are essential conditions for the introduction of secondary evidence to prove the contents of the contract.

• The presumption of marriage is applied when persons are dwelling together in apparent matrimony, and the presumption leans towards legalizing matrimony.

• The basis of human society is marriage, and it is an institution in which the public is deeply interested.