Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestra Macapaz, G.R. No. 191936, June 01, 2016, RULE 130, SECTION 4. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE (BEST EVIDENCE RULE)

 RULE 130, SECTION 4. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE (BEST EVIDENCE RULE)

Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestra Macapaz, G.R. No. 191936, June 01, 2016

P: REYES, J.:

FACTS: Calimag co-owned the property with Silvestra Macapaz (Silvestra).
Silvestra died. Allegedly, Silvestra sold her portion to Calimag for 300k. The heirs filed for the Annulment of the sale. Calimag claimed that the heirs have no legal capacity because they are illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr (Silvestra’s brother). That the marriage contract presented is not admissible under the Best Evidence Rule for being a mere fax copy or photocopy of the marriage contract, and which is not even authenticated or received by the concerned Local Civil Registrar. While the heirs also presented a Certificate of Canonical Marriage, Calimag asserts that the same is not the marriage license required under the Family Code; 

RTC held the Sale as Null and Void as Silvestra died 3 years before the Sale. The marriage between Anastacio Sr. and Fidela is proven by the Certificate of canonical Marriage. The name of Fidela is indicated in heirs’ birth certificates as the mother's maiden name but Fidela signed the same as the informant Fidela Macapaz. In both birth certificates, Anastacio is indicated as the name of the father. CA affirmed RTC. The best proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage contract. A certificate of marriage issued by the Parish as well as a copy of the marriage contract were duly submitted in evidence by the heirs. The fact of marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was established by competent and substantial proof. The heirs who were born during the subsistence of said marriage are presumed to be legitimate children of Anastacio, Sr.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.

HELD: Yes. The documents presented as proof of marriage cannot be used as proof to establish the marriage without running violating the Rules on original document. However, a reproduction of the original document can still be admitted as secondary evidence subject to certain requirements. The offeror is burdened to prove: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror. Proof of the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the basis for the introduction of secondary evidence.

A canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document. They are private and their authenticity must be proved.  Since there is no showing that the authenticity and due execution of the canonical certificate of marriage of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was duly proven, it cannot be admitted in evidence.

Marriage, however, 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. Thus, the heirs presented their Certificates of Live Birth.

A certificate of live birth is a public document that consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil Registrar)." Thus, being public documents, the heirs' certificates of live birth are presumed valid, and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them.

Verily, under Act No. 3753, the declaration of either parent of the new-born legitimate child shall be sufficient for the registration of his birth in the civil register, and only in the registration of birth of an illegitimate child does the law require that the birth certificate be signed and sworn to jointly, or only by the mother if the father refuses to acknowledge the child.

The heirs’ certificates of live birth also intimate that Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela had openly cohabited as husband and wife for a number of years, as a result of which they had 2 children, such fact is admissible proof to establish the validity of marriage.  

In Trinidad vs. CA, proof of marriage may be presented: a) testimony of a witness to the matrimony; b) the couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock; c) the birth and baptismal certificate of children born during such union; and d) the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents.