150

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW

Arts.22-25

Arts.22-25

R=

authentic copy ofthe records in his office, such certified photostat copy is admissible as evidence. Likewise,

107801, Nlarch 26, 1997.

the accused-appellant to t
established by the Suprer
monies of the witnesses. t

xxx Transfer Certificates of Title, Residence Certifrcates,

passports and other similar documents cannot prove marriage especially so when the petitioner has submitted a
certification from the Local Civil Registrar eoncerned that

Here, apellant not on}1'

her fourth husband bur

the alleged marriage was not registered and a letter from the
judge alleged to have solemnized the marriage that he has
not solemnized said alleged marriage (Vda. De Chua vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. ttOggS, March 5, 1998).

ried before a judge in

testifred that his fathe
wife in much the same
Milagros, held the victii
lant's admission that s

It has been declared that a certificate of marriage made many

years after the marriage is inadmissible, especially where there
was no register of the marriage in the official records (Gaines vs.
Relf, 13 US tl.Edl 1071). Relevantly, dny officer, priest, or
rninister failing to delivergo either of the contracting parties one
of the copies of the marriage contract or to forward the other
copy to the authorities within thg pgrio{_fiXed bv 1aw for said
purpose, shall be
tm risonment for not more than
one month or by ffiee
hundred. pesos, or
both, in the discretion of the court (Section 41 of the Marriage
Law of 1929).

confirmation of t},e

into a lawful contract

AIso, public and ope

after the alleged marriag,
children borne by the alle
marriage in subsequent d
prove the fact of marriag,
solemn statement in the .,

marriage certificate because as he explained it, the marriage

records for L942 were burned during the war. Even so, he
could still rely on the presumption of marriage since it is not
denied that Venancio Rivera and Maria Jocson lived together as husband and wife and for many years, begetting
seven children in all during that time.

marriage is also admissibli

Guepangco, 22 Phil. 276 t.

However, it has beer

direct proof of marriage.
documents or by oral tes'
(Santiago vs. Cruz, 19 Ph

\--

A marriage, like any other contract, may be provpd bv parql_

evidencp (Watson vs. Lawrence, l.34La. 48). Testimony by one of
the parties or witnesses to the marriage, or by the person who
solemnized the same, is admissible (Pugeda vs. Trias, 4 SCRA
849) and cornfefant to Frorze rnaryiag'(Balogbog vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997, 80 SCAD 229). The
testimonies must themselves be credible and must proceed from a
witness who is likewise credible. In People vs. Ignacio, G.R. No.

215). Thus, it has been hel

riage there may have bee

share in the estate ofthe d
based upon their cohabit
considered destroyed. irr r
evidence of marriage h'' '-'
l

L-

o:

With respect to a ma
eyewitness to be sufficient
ance of the ceremony by sc
attending it were such as
vs. Hodgskins, 19 Me. 15i
however that the fact that
rise to the presumption
marital vows (Balogbog r
March 7,1997,80 SCAD,

However, failure to present a marriage certifrcate i{not-_r

,in a case where a marriage is 1n- dispgte, as the partiesc-iT
on the presuryption of marriage. Thus, in Riuera us.
IAC^," LBz SCRA 322, it w as

sem.

the presumption that a