VIRGINIA D. CALIMAG, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SILVESTRA N.

MACAPAZ, REPRESENTED BY
ANASTACIO P. MACAPAZ, JR., Respondents.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) promulgated on October 20, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90907 which
affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated September 28, 2007 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 147, in Civil Case No. 06-173, an action for
annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of title with damages. The CA
Resolution4 dated April 5, 2010 denied the motion for reconsideration thereof.

The Facts

Virginia D. Calimag (petitioner) co-owned the property, the subject matter of this
case, with Silvestra N. Macapaz (Silvestra).

On the other hand, Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. (Anastacio, Jr.) and Alicia
Macapaz-Ritua (Alicia) (respondents) are the children of Silvestra's brother,
Anastacio Macapaz, Sr. (Anastacio, Sr.) and Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de Macapaz
(Fidela).

The subject property, with a total area of 299 square meters, is located at No. 1273
Bo. Visaya Street, Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, and was duly registered
in the names of the petitioner (married to Demetrio Calimag) and Silvestra under
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 183088.5 In said certificate of title, appearing
as Entry No. 02671 is an annotation of an Adverse Claim of Fidela asserting rights
and interests over a portion of the said property measuring 49.5 sq m. 6

On November 11, 2002, Silvestra died without issue. On July 7, 2005, TCT No.
183088 was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No. 221466,7 was issued in
the name of the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Sale 8 dated January 18, 2005
whereby Silvestra allegedly sold her 99-sq-m portion to the petitioner for
P300,000.00. Included among the documents submitted for the purpose of
cancelling TCT No. 183088 was an Affidavit9 dated July 12, 2005 purportedly
executed by both the petitioner and Silvestra. It was stated therein that the affidavit
of adverse claim filed by Fidela was not signed by the Deputy Register of Deeds of
Makati City, making the same legally ineffective. On September 16, 2005, Fidela
passed away.10

On December 15, 2005, Anastacio, Jr. filed a criminal complaint for two counts of
falsification of public documents under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal
Code against the petitioner.11 However, said criminal charges were eventually
dismissed.

On March 2, 2006, the respondents, asserting that they are the heirs of Silvestra,
instituted the action for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No.
221466 with Damages against the petitioner and the Register of Deeds of Makati
City.12

In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,13 the petitioner averred that the
respondents have no legal capacity to institute said civil action on the ground that
they are illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr. As such, they have no right over
Silvestra's estate pursuant to Article 992 of the Civil Code which prohibits
illegitimate children from inheriting intestate from the legitimate children and
relatives of their father and mother.

After trial, the RTC found for the respondents and rendered its Decision on
September 28, 2007.14 The fallo of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered as

follows:

1. Declaring the Deed of Sale purportedly executed by

[Silvestra] in favor of [the petitioner] on January 18,
2005 over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 183088
of the Registry of Deeds of Makati City, as Null and
Void;

2. Ordering the Registrar of Deeds of Makati City to

cancel TCT No. 221466 issued in the name of [the
petitioner], the same having been issued on the basis
of a fraudulent/falsified Deed of Sale, and thereafter
to reinstate TCT No. 183088 issued in the name of [the
petitioner] and [Silvestra] with all the liens and
encumbrances annotated thereon, including the adverse
claim of [Fidela]; [and]

3. Ordering [the petitioner] to pay the [respondents] the

sum of PI00,000.00 as moral damages and another
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, P50,000.00 as and by
way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.

[The petitioner's] counter-claim is dismissed for lack of

merit.

15
SO ORDERED.

The RTC found that the Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 presented for the cancellation of TCT No.
183088 was a forgery considering that Silvestra, who purportedly executed said deed of sale died on
November 11, 2002, about three years before the execution of the said Deed of Sale.16 Respecting the
respondents' legal capacity to sue, the RTC favorably ruled in this wise:

Demetrio Calimag, Jr. sought, but failed, to impugn the

personality of the [respondents] to initiate this action as
the alleged heirs of [Silvestra]. The marriage between
[Anastacio Sr.J and [FidclaJ is evidenced by the Certificate
 of (canonical) Marriage (Exh. "M"). The name 'Fidela Obera
Poblete' is indicated in [the respondents'] respective birth
certificates as the mother's maiden name but Fidela signed
the same as the informant as "Fidela P. Macapaz". In both
birth certificates, "Anastacio Nator Macapaz" is indicated
as the name of the father.17 (Emphasis ours)

Ruling of the CA

Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated her case to the CA resting on the argument that the respondents are
without legal personality to institute the civil action for cancellation of deed of sale and title on the basis
of their claimed status as legitimate children of Anastacio, Sr., the brother and sole heir of the deceased,
Silvestra.18

On October 20, 2009, the CA rendered its Decision affirming the RTC decision with modification as to the
amount of damages. The fallo of the assailed decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby

DISMISSED, for lack of merit. The Decision dated September
28, 2007 of the [RTC] of Makati City, Branch 147 in Civil Case
No. 06-173 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the
award of moral and exemplary damages is hereby reduced from
PI00,000.00 to P50,000.00, respectively.

With costs against the [petitioner].

SO ORDERED.19

The CA sustained the RTC ruling that the cancellation of TCT No. 183088 and the issuance of TCT No.
221466 in the name of the petitioner were obtained through forgery. As to the question of whether the
respondents are legal heirs of Silvestra and thus have the legal capacity to institute the action, the CA
ruled in this wise:

Reviewing the evidence on record, we concur with the trial

court in sustaining the appellees' legitimate filiation to
Silvestra's brother [Anastacio, Sr.] The trial court found
unsuccessful the attempt of Atty. Demetrio Calimag, Jr. to
assail the validity of marriage between [Anastacio, Sr.] and
[Fidela] with a certification from the NSO that their office
has no record of the certificate of marriage of [Anastacio,
Sr.] and [Fidela], and further claiming the absence of a
marriage license.

The best proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage

contract. A certificate of marriage issued by the Most Holy
 Trinity Parish, Alang[-]alang, Leyte (Exh. "M") as well as
a copy of the marriage contract were duly submitted in
evidence by the [respondents].

x x x x

The Marriage Contract (Exh. "U") in this case clearly

reflects a marriage license number and in the absence of a
certification from the local civil registrar that no such
marriage license was issued, the marriage between [Anastacio,
Sr.] and [Fidela] may not be invalidated on that ground.

x x x.

x x x x

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. This jurisprudential
attitude towards marriage is based on the prima
facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage. The Courts look upon this presumption
with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the
contrary, the presumption is of great weight.

Here, the fact of marriage between [Anastacio, Sr.] and

[Fidela] was established by competent and substantial proof.
[The respondents] who were conceived and born during the
subsistence of said marriage are therefore presumed to be
legitimate children of [Anastacio, Sr.], in the absence of
20
any contradicting evidence. (Citations omitted)

The petitioner sought reconsideration,21 but her motion was denied in the Resolution22 dated April 5,
2010.

Hence, this petition.

Notably, even before the CA, the petitioner never assailed the factual finding that forgery was indeed
committed to effect the cancellation of TCT No. 183088 and the consequent transfer of title of the
property in her name. Verily, in this petition, the petitioner continues to assail the legal capacity of the
respondents to institute the present action. Invoking the provisions of Article 992 of the Civil Code,23 the
petitioner insists that the respondents have no legal right over the estate left by Silvestra for being
illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr.
While the petitioner does not question that Anastacio, Sr. is the legal heir of Silvestra, she, however,
claims that the respondents failed to establish their legitimate filiation to Anastacio, Sr. considering that
the marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was not sufficiently proven. According to the petitioner,
the marriage contract24 presented by the respondents is not admissible under the Best Evidence Rule for
being a mere fax copy or photocopy of an alleged marriage contract, and which is not even authenticated
by the concerned Local Civil Registrar. In addition, there is no mark or stamp showing that said document
was ever received by said office. Further, while the respondents also presented a Certificate of (Canonical)
Marriage,25 the petitioner asserts that the same is not the marriage license required under Articles 3 and
4 of the Family Code;26 that said Certificate of (Canonical) Marriage only proves that a marriage
ceremony actually transpired between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela.27 cralawred

Moreover, the petitioner contends that the certificates of live birth of the respondents do not conclusively
prove that they are legitimate children of Anastacio, Sr.

In their Comment,28 the respondents reiterate the finding and ruling of the CA that the petitioner's
argument has no leg to stand on considering that one's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct
action seasonably filed by a party who is related to the former either by consanguinity or affinity. 29

Thereupon, the resolution of this case rests upon this fundamental issue: whether or not the respondents
are legal heirs of Silvestra.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is bereft of merit.

While it is true that a person's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed by the
proper party, as held in Spouses Fidel v. Hon. CA, et al.,30 this Court however deems it necessary to pass
upon the respondents' relationship to Silvestra so as to determine their legal rights to the subject
property. Besides, the question of whether the respondents have the legal capacity to sue as alleged
heirs of Silvestra was among the issues agreed upon by the parties in the pre-trial.

At first blush, the documents presented as proof of marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela, viz: (1)
fax or photo copy of the marriage contract, and (2) the canonical certificate of marriage, cannot be used
as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage without running afoul with the Rules on Evidence of the
Revised Rules of Court. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules on Evidence provides that: "When the subject of
the inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself, x x x." Nevertheless, a reproduction of the original document can still be admitted as
secondary evidence subject to certain requirements specified by law. In Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr.,31 it
was held that:

A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with

Rule 130, Section 5, which states that: when the original has
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part,
may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated. Accordingly, the offeror of
the secondary evidence is burdened to satisfactorily prove
the predicates thereof, namely: (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, x x
x.32 (Citation omitted)

On the other hand, a canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document. As early as in the case
of United States v. Evangelista,33 it has been settled that church registries of births, marriages, and
deaths made subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190
are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials.34 They are private
writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved as are all other private writings in accordance
with the rules of evidence.35 Accordingly, 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.

Notwithstanding, it is well settled that other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of a solemnized
marriage.36 Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage 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.37

Thus, in order to prove their legitimate filiation, the respondents presented their respective Certificates
of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office38 where Fidela signed as the Informant in item no. 17
of both documents.

A perusal of said documents shows that the respondents were apparently born to the same parents —
their father's name is Anastacio Nator Macapaz, while their mother's maiden name is Fidela Overa
Poblete. In item no. 24 thereof where it asks: "24. DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARENTS (For
legitimate birth)" it was stated therein that respondents' parents were married on "May 25, 1955 in
Alang-alang, Leyte."39

The petitioner asserts that said documents do not conclusively prove the respondents' legitimate filiation,
albeit, without offering any evidence to the contrary. The certificates of live birth contain no entry stating
whether the respondents are of legitimate or illegitimate filiation, making said documents unreliable and
unworthy of weight and value in the determination of the issue at hand.

Moreover, the petitioner states that in the respondents' certificates of live birth, only the signature of
Fidela appears, and that they were not signed by Anastacio, Sr. She argues that the birth certificate must
be signed by the father in order to be competent evidence to establish filiation, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, invoking Roces v. Local Civil Registrar of Manila40 where it was held that a birth certificate
not signed by the alleged father is not competent evidence of paternity.41

The petitioner's contentions are untenable.

"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)."42Thus, being public documents, the respondents' certificates of live birth are presumed valid,
and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them.43

"Prima facie evidence is defined as evidence good and sufficient on its face. Such evidence as, in the
judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the
party's claim or defense and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient." 44

The petitioner's assertion that the birth certificate must be signed by the father in order to be a
competent evidence of legitimate filiation does not find support in law and jurisprudence. In fact, the
petitioner's reliance on Roces45 is misplaced considering that what was sought to be proved is the fact of
paternity of an illegitimate child, and not legitimate filiation.

Verily, under Section 5 of Act No. 3753,46 the declaration of either parent of the new-born legitimate
only in the
child shall be sufficient for the registration of his birth in the civil register, and
registration of birth of an illegitimate child does the law require that the
birth certificate be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant,
or only by the mother if the father refuses to acknowledge the child.

The pertinent portion of Section 5 of Act No. 3753 reads:

 Sec. 5. Registration and Certification of Birth. - The
declaration of the physician or midwife in attendance at the
birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either
parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the
registration of a birth in the civil register. Such
declaration shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax
and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than
thirty days after the birth, by the physician, or midwife in
attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newly born
child.

In such declaration, the persons above mentioned shall

certify to the following facts: (a) date and hour of birth;
(b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship,
and religion of parents or, in case the father is not known,
of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place
where the infant was born; if) and such other data as may be
required in the regulations to be issued.

x x x x

In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall

be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant
or only the mother if the father refuses. In the latter case,
it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document
the name of the father who refuses to acknowledge the child,
or to give therein any information by which such father could
be identified, x x x (Emphasis Ours)

Forsooth, the Court finds that the respondents' certificates of live birth were duly executed consistent
The fact that
with the provision of the law respecting the registration of birth of legitimate children.
only the signatures of Fidela appear on said documents is of no moment
because Fidela only signed as the declarant or informant of the
respondents' fact of birth as legitimate children .

Nonetheless, the respondents' 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 two children
— the second child, Anastacio, Jr. being born more than three years after their first child, Alicia. Verily,
such fact is admissible proof to establish the validity of marriage. Court Resolution dated February 13,
2013 in GR. No. 183262 entitled Social Security System (SSS) v. Lourdes S. Enobiso47 had the occasion
to state:

Sarmiento v. CA is instructive anent the question of what

other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of a
solemnized marriage, viz:
chanRobl esvirt ualLaw librar y
 In Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, et al., this
Court ruled that as 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.48 (Citations omitted and emphasis
ours)
Moreover, in a catena of cases,49 it has been held that, "[p]ersons dwelling together in apparent
matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption 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. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is 'that a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.' Semper
praesumitur pro matrimonio — Always presume marriage."50

Furthermore, as the established period of cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela transpired way before
the effectivity of the Family Code, the strong presumption accorded by then Article 220 of the Civil Code
in favor of the validity of marriage cannot be disregarded. Thus:

Art. 220. In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the

solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or
facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the
indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of
children, the community of property during marriage, the
authority of parents over their children, and the validity
of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful
aggression.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated October 20,
2009 and Resolution dated April 5, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90907 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.