THIRD DIVISION

On November 11, 2002, Silvestra died without issue. On July 7, 2005, TCT
G.R. No. 191936, June 01, 2016 No. 183088 was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No.
VIRGINIA D. CALIMAG, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SILVESTRA N. MACAPAZ, 221466,7 was issued in the name of the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of
REPRESENTED BY ANASTACIO P. MACAPAZ, JR., Respondents. Sale8 dated January 18, 2005 whereby Silvestra allegedly sold her 99-sq-m
portion to the petitioner for P300,000.00. Included among the documents
DECISION submitted for the purpose of cancelling TCT No. 183088 was an
Affidavit9 dated July 12, 2005 purportedly executed by both the petitioner
REYES, J.:
and Silvestra. It was stated therein that the affidavit of adverse claim filed
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 of the Court by Fidela was not signed by the Deputy Register of Deeds of Makati City,
of Appeals (CA) promulgated on October 20, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90907 making the same legally ineffective. On September 16, 2005, Fidela passed
which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated September 28, 2007 away.10
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 On December 15, 2005, Anastacio, Jr. filed a criminal complaint for two
with damages. The CA Resolution4 dated April 5, 2010 denied the motion for counts of falsification of public documents under Articles 171 and 172 of the
reconsideration thereof. Revised Penal Code against the petitioner.11 However, said criminal charges
were eventually dismissed.
The Facts
On March 2, 2006, the respondents, asserting that they are the heirs of
Silvestra, instituted the action for Annulment of Deed of Sale and
Virginia D. Calimag (petitioner) co-owned the property, the subject matter
Cancellation of TCT No. 221466 with Damages against the petitioner and the
of this case, with Silvestra N. Macapaz (Silvestra).
Register of Deeds of Makati City.12

On the other hand, Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. (Anastacio, Jr.) and Alicia
In her  Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,13 the petitioner averred that
Macapaz-Ritua (Alicia) (respondents) are the children of Silvestra's brother,
the respondents have no legal capacity to institute said civil action on the
Anastacio Macapaz, Sr. (Anastacio, Sr.) and Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de
ground that they are illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr. As such, they
Macapaz (Fidela).
have no right over Silvestra's estate pursuant to Article 992 of the Civil Code
which prohibits illegitimate children from inheriting intestate from the
The subject property, with a total area of 299 square meters, is located at
legitimate children and relatives of their father and mother.
No. 1273 Bo. Visaya Street, Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, and
was duly registered in the names of the petitioner (married to Demetrio
After trial, the RTC found for the respondents and rendered its Decision on
Calimag) and Silvestra under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
September 28, 2007.14 The fallo of the RTC decision reads:
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 WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered as follows:
a portion of the said property measuring 49.5 sq m.6
 1. Declaring the Deed of Sale purportedly executed by [Silvestra] in "Fidela P. Macapaz". In both birth certificates, "Anastacio Nator Macapaz"
favor of [the petitioner] on January 18, 2005 over a parcel of land is indicated as the name of the father.17 (Emphasis ours)
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. Ruling of the CA
221466 issued in the name of [the petitioner], the same having
been issued on the basis of a fraudulent/falsified Deed of Sale, and Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated her case to the CA resting on the
thereafter to reinstate TCT No. 183088 issued in the name of [the argument that the respondents are without legal personality to institute the
petitioner] and [Silvestra] with all the liens and encumbrances civil action for cancellation of deed of sale and title on the basis of their
annotated thereon, including the adverse claim of [Fidela]; [and] claimed status as legitimate children of Anastacio, Sr., the brother and sole
3. Ordering [the petitioner] to pay the [respondents] the sum of heir of the deceased, Silvestra.18
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, 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
plus costs of suit.
assailed decision reads:
[The petitioner's] counter-claim is dismissed for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED,
SO ORDERED.15 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
The RTC found that the Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 presented for hereby reduced from PI00,000.00 to P50,000.00, respectively.
the cancellation of TCT No. 183088 was a forgery considering that Silvestra,
who purportedly executed said deed of sale died on November 11, 2002, With costs against the [petitioner].
about three years before the execution of the said Deed of
Sale.16 Respecting the respondents' legal capacity to sue, the RTC favorably SO ORDERED.19
ruled in this wise:

Demetrio Calimag, Jr. sought, but failed, to impugn the personality of the The CA sustained the RTC ruling that the cancellation of TCT No. 183088 and
[respondents] to initiate this action as the alleged heirs of [Silvestra]. The the issuance of TCT No. 221466 in the name of the petitioner were obtained
marriage between [Anastacio Sr.J and [FidclaJ is evidenced by the through forgery. As to the question of whether the respondents are legal
Certificate of (canonical) Marriage (Exh. "M"). The name 'Fidela Obera heirs of Silvestra and thus have the legal capacity to institute the action, the
Poblete' is indicated in [the respondents'] respective birth certificates as CA ruled in this wise:
the mother's maiden name but Fidela signed the same as the informant as
The best proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage contract. A Hence, this petition.
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 Notably, even before the CA, the petitioner never assailed the factual
submitted in evidence by the [respondents]. 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
x x x x name. Verily, in this petition, the petitioner continues to assail the legal
capacity of the respondents to institute the present action. Invoking the
The Marriage Contract (Exh. "U") in this case clearly reflects a marriage provisions of Article 992 of the Civil Code, 23 the petitioner insists that the
license number and in the absence of a certification from the local civil respondents have no legal right over the estate left by Silvestra for being
registrar that no such marriage license was issued, the marriage between illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr.
[Anastacio, Sr.] and [Fidela] may not be invalidated on that ground.
While the petitioner does not question that Anastacio, Sr. is the legal heir of
x x x. Silvestra, she, however, claims that the respondents failed to establish their
legitimate filiation to Anastacio, Sr. considering that the marriage between
x x x x Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was not sufficiently proven. According to the
petitioner, the marriage contract24 presented by the respondents is not
Every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons admissible under the Best Evidence Rule for being a mere fax copy or
dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of photocopy of an alleged marriage contract, and which is not even
any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact authenticated by the concerned Local Civil Registrar. In addition, there is no
married. This jurisprudential attitude towards marriage is based on mark or stamp showing that said document was ever received by said office.
the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves Further, while the respondents also presented a Certificate of (Canonical)
as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. The Marriage,25 the petitioner asserts that the same is not the marriage license
Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly required under Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code;26 that said Certificate of
repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. (Canonical) Marriage only proves that a marriage ceremony actually
transpired between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela.27cralawred
Here, the fact of marriage between [Anastacio, Sr.] and [Fidela] was
established by competent and substantial proof. [The respondents] who Moreover, the petitioner contends that the certificates of live birth of the
were conceived and born during the subsistence of said marriage are respondents do not conclusively prove that they are legitimate children of
therefore presumed to be legitimate children of [Anastacio, Sr.], in the Anastacio, Sr.
absence of any contradicting evidence.20 (Citations omitted)
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
The petitioner sought reconsideration,21 but her motion was denied in the one's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed
Resolution22 dated April 5, 2010. 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: existence of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or its
whether or not the respondents are legal heirs of Silvestra. 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
Ruling of the Court execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the
basis for the introduction of secondary evidence, x x x.32 (Citation omitted)
The petition is bereft of merit.
On the other hand, a canonical certificate of marriage is not a public
While it is true that a person's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct document. As early as in the case of United States v. Evangelista,33 it has
action seasonably filed by the proper party, as held in Spouses Fidel v. Hon. been settled that church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
CA, et al.,30 this Court however deems it necessary to pass upon the subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage
respondents' relationship to Silvestra so as to determine their legal rights to of Act No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly
the subject property. Besides, the question of whether the respondents authorized public officials.34 They are private writings and their authenticity
have the legal capacity to sue as alleged heirs of Silvestra was among the must therefore be proved as are all other private writings in accordance
issues agreed upon by the parties in the pre-trial. 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
At first blush, the documents presented as proof of marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was duly proven, it cannot be admitted in
Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela, viz: (1) fax or photo copy of the marriage contract, evidence.
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 Notwithstanding, it is well settled that other proofs can be offered to
Evidence of the Revised Rules of Court. Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules on establish the fact of a solemnized marriage.36 Jurisprudence teaches that the
Evidence provides that: "When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original marriage certificate. Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be
document itself, x x x." Nevertheless, a reproduction of the original recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.37
document can still be admitted as secondary evidence subject to certain
requirements specified by law. In Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr.,31 it was held Thus, in order to prove their legitimate filiation, the respondents presented
that: their respective Certificates of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics
A secondary evidence is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Office38 where Fidela signed as the Informant in item no. 17 of both
Section 5, which states that: when the original has been lost or destroyed, documents.
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, A perusal of said documents shows that the respondents were apparently
may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some born to the same parents — their father's name is Anastacio Nator
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. Macapaz, while their mother's maiden name is Fidela Overa Poblete. In item
Accordingly, the offeror of the secondary evidence is burdened to no. 24 thereof where it asks: "24. DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF
satisfactorily prove the predicates thereof, namely: (1) the execution or PARENTS (For legitimate birth)" it was stated therein that respondents'
parents were married on "May 25, 1955 in Alang-alang, Leyte."39
Verily, under Section 5 of Act No. 3753,46 the declaration of either parent of
The petitioner asserts that said documents do not conclusively prove the the new-born legitimate child shall be sufficient for the registration of his
respondents' legitimate filiation, albeit, without offering any evidence to the birth in the civil register, and only in the registration of birth of an
contrary. The certificates of live birth contain no entry stating whether the illegitimate child does the law require that the birth certificate be signed
respondents are of legitimate or illegitimate filiation, making said and sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant, or only by the mother if
documents unreliable and unworthy of weight and value in the the father refuses to acknowledge the child.
determination of the issue at hand.
The pertinent portion of Section 5 of Act No. 3753 reads:
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 Sec. 5. Registration and Certification of Birth. - The declaration of the
physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the
Anastacio, Sr. She argues that the birth certificate must be signed by the
father in order to be competent evidence to establish filiation, whether declaration of cither parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the
registration of a birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt
legitimate or illegitimate, invoking Roces v. Local Civil Registrar of
Manila40 where it was held that a birth certificate not signed by the alleged 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
father is not competent evidence of paternity.41
attendance at the birth or by either parent of the newly born child.
The petitioner's contentions are untenable.
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;
"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 (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
performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil Registrar)." 42 Thus, being
public documents, the respondents' certificates of live birth are presumed infant was born; if) and such other data as may be required in the
regulations to be issued.
valid, and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them.43

x x x x
"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
In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed and
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 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
The petitioner's assertion that the birth certificate must be signed by the 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
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 identified, x x x (Emphasis Ours)
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.
 contract of marriage.' Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio  — Always
Forsooth, the Court finds that the respondents' certificates of live birth were presume marriage."50
duly executed consistent with the provision of the law respecting the
registration of birth of legitimate children. The fact that only the signatures Furthermore, as the established period of cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and
of Fidela appear on said documents is of no moment because Fidela only Fidela transpired way before the effectivity of the Family Code, the strong
signed as the declarant  or informant of the respondents' fact of birth as presumption accorded by then Article 220 of the Civil Code in favor of the
legitimate children. validity of marriage cannot be disregarded. Thus:

Nonetheless, the respondents' certificates of live birth also intimate that 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,
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 the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the
community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over their
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 children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of
unlawful aggression.
marriage. Court Resolution dated February 13, 2013 in GR. No. 183262
entitled Social Security System (SSS) v. Lourdes S. Enobiso 47 had the occasion
to state: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The
Sarmiento v. CA is instructive anent the question of what other proofs can 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.
be offered to establish the fact of a solemnized marriage, viz:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
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; Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta,  and  Perez,  JJ., concur.
b) the couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the Jardeleza, J., on official leave.chanroblesvi
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