Fuentes v Roca, G.R. No.

178902, April 21, 2010

Facts:

Sabina Tarroza owned a land in Canelar, Zamboanga City and she sold it to her son, Tarciano T. Roca
(Tarciano) under a deed of absolute sale. Six years later in 1988, Tarciano offered to sell the lot to
petitioners Manuel and Leticia Fuentes (the Fuentes spouses) and eventually they entered into an
agreement. After 6 months, a new title was issued in the name of the spouses who immediately
constructed a building on the lot. Thereafter Tarciano passed away, followed by his wife Rosario who
died nine months afterwards. Eight years later in 1997, the children of Tarciano and Rosario, namely,
respondents (collectively, the Rocas), filed an action for annulment of sale and re-conveyance of the
land against the Fuentes spouses before the RTC. The Rocas claimed that the sale to the spouses was
void since Tarciano’s wife, Rosario, did not give her consent to it. Her signature on the affidavit of
consent had been forged. They thus prayed that the property be reconvened to them upon
reimbursement of the price that the Fuentes spouses paid Tarciano.The spouses denied the Rocas’
allegations. They presented Atty. Plagata who testified that he personally saw Rosario sign the affidavit
at her residence. All the same, the Fuentes spouses pointed out that the claim of forgery was personal
to Rosario and she alone could invoke it. Besides, the four-year prescriptive period for nullifying the sale
on ground of fraud had already lapsed.

Issues:

a) Whether or not the signature of Rosario representing her consent was forged. b) Whether or not the
Rocas’ action for the declaration of nullity of that sale to the spouses already prescribed? c) Whether or
not only Rosario, the wife whose consent was not had, could bring the action to annul that sale?

Ruling:

Yes it was forged as the Supreme Court ruled. A defective notarization will merely strip the document of
its public character and reduce it to a private instrument that falsified jurat, taken together with the
marks of forgery in the signature, dooms such document as proof of Rosario’s consent to the sale of the
land. That the Fuentes spouses honestly relied on the notarized affidavit as proof of Rosario’s consent
does not matter. The sale is still void without an authentic consent. No. Although Tarciano and Rosario
got married in 1950, Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes spouses on January 11, 1989, a
few months after the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. The Family Code applied for this case.
The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. Its Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains expressly
superseded Title VI, Book I of the Civil Code on Property Relations between Husband and Wife. Further,
the Family Code provisions were also made to apply to already existing conjugal partnerships without
prejudice to vested rights. Article 124 of the Family Code does not provide a period within which the
wife who gave no consent may assail her husband’s sale of the real property. It simply provides that
without the other spouse’s written consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same would be void.
Here, the Rocas filed an action against the Fuentes spouses in 1997 for annulment of sale and re-
conveyance of the real property that Tarciano sold without their mother’s (his wife’s) written consent.
The passage of time did not erode the right to bring such an action. Yes. As stated above, that sale was
void from the beginning. Consequently, the land remained the property of Tarciano and Rosario despite
that sale. When the two died, they passed on the ownership of the property to their heirs.
ROSARIO BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT, Petitioner, v. WENIFREDA BALCOM-TAMBUYAT, Respondent. G.R.
No. 202805, March 23, 2015

FACTS:

Adriano M. Tambuyat and respondent Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat were married on September 16,
1965. During their marriage, Adriano acquired several real properties, including a 700-square meter
parcel of land located at Barangay Muzon, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan (the subject property),7 which
was bought on November 17, 1991. The deed of sale over the said property was signed by Adriano alone
as vendee; one of the signing witnesses to the deed of sale was petitioner Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat ,
who signed therein as “Rosario Banguis.” 9 When (TCT T145321) covering the subject property was
issued, however, it was made under the name of “ADRIANO M. TAMBUYAT married to ROSARIO E.
BANGUIS.” On June 7, 1998, Adriano died intestate. Subsequently, Wenifreda filed a Petition for
Cancellation of TCT T-145321. She alleged therein that she was the surviving spouse of Adriano; and that
the TCT was erroneously registered and made in the name of “ADRIANO M. TAMBUYAT married to
ROSARIO E. BANGUIS;” that per annexed Marriage Contract, Banguis was still married to Nolasco; that
Banguis could not have been married to Adriano; that the issuance of the title in Banguis’s name as
Adriano’s spouse was due to “an insidious machination by her and the person who brokered the sale of
the subject property, allegedly a cousin or relative of hers;” In her defense, Banguis denied specifically
that the subject property was acquired by Adriano and Wenifreda during their marriage. She claimed
that on the other hand, she alone bought the subject property using her personal funds; that she and
Adriano were married on September 2, 1988 and thereafter lived together as a married couple; that
their union produced a son, who was born on April 1, 1990; that the trial court has no jurisdiction over
the petition for cancellation, which is merely a summary proceeding – considering that a thorough
determination will have to be made as to whether the property is conjugal or exclusive property, and
since she and Adriano have a child whose rights will be adversely affected by any judgment in the case.
The RTC decided in favor of Wenifreda and directed the RD of Meycauyan to cancel the TCT of Banguis,
and in lieu thereof to issue a new certificate of title in the name of Adriano Tambuyat married to
Winifreda Tambuyat.

RTC justified its decision by using Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529) or the Property
Registration Decree – court authorization is required for any alteration or amendment of a certificate of
title when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon, or on any duplicate certificate, or when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or
alteration of the title. The CA sustained the trial court’s decision noting that Banguis name was included
in the TCT be error or mistake. It held that the evidence adduced that Winifreda not Banguis is the
lawful wife of Adriano; that there was a valid and subsisting marriage of between Nolasco and Banguis;
and the latter admitted to such fact during the course of the proceedings in the trial court; and that
Banguis’s opposition to Wenifreda’s petition for cancellation of TCT T-145321 is not real and genuine as
to place the latter’s title to the subject property in doubt.

ISSUE: Whether the cancellation of the TCT by Winifreda be granted by the court.
HELD:

Yes. Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a
certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1) when registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (2) when
new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3) when any error,
omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate
certificate; (4) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (5) when the
registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no
right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (6) when a corporation, which owned
registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its
dissolution; and (7) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title. 44 The
present case falls under (3) and (7), where the Registrar of Deeds of Bulacan committed an error in
issuing TCT T-145321 in the name of “Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. Banguis” when, in
truth and in fact, respondent Wenifreda – and not Banguis – is Adriano’s lawful spouse.

Facts:

During their marriage, Adriano Tambuyat and Respondent Wenifreda Tambuyat acquired several real
properties including a parcel of land in Bulacan, which was bought by Adriano. On the deed of sale over
this property, one of the witnesses was herein Petitioner Rosario Banguis- Tambuyat who signed
thereon as Rosario Banguis. All this time, Petitioner Banguis remained married to Eduardo Nolasco and
at all stages of the instant case, Nolasco was alive and his marriage to Banguis subsisted and was never
annulled. On June 7, 1998, Adriano died intestate. On October 19, 1999, Wenifreda filed a petition
seeking the cancellation of TCT-145321 for its defect showing his spouse as married to Petitioner
Banguis. Banguis opposed this petition, saying that she alone bought the subject property and that she
and adriano were married on September 2, 1988. After due trial, the RTC issued a judgment finding
Respondent Wenifreda as having the lawful title over the property and the same be cancelled the defect
stated therein. The trial court held that it has the sufficient authority under the Property Registration
Decree to rectify errors appearing on certificates of title. Further, the evidence of Wenifreda is
preponderant on the point that she and deceased Adriano were legally married and the latter acquired
the subject property. The CA sustained the ruling the RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court was invested with proper authority to cause the cancellation of the
certificate of title on the ground that it shows a defect or error

Ruling:

YES, the Court is not convinced with the contentions of Petitioner Banguis. The OMB contends that the
CA should have dismissed Rigor’s Petition forCertiorari The trial court in [the subject land registration
case] was not precluded from resolving the objections raised by Banguis in her opposition to the petition
for cancellation; a separate action need not be filed in a different court exercising general jurisdiction.
Banguis should be considered to have acquiesced and freely submitted the case to the trial court for
complete determination on her opposition, when she went to trial and adduced and submitted all her
relevant evidence to the court.“The active participation of the party against whom the action was
brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where
the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by
the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body’s
jurisdiction.”

 Based on the foregoing provisions, a marriage license is an essential requisite for the validity of
marriage. The marriage between Carmelita and Jaime is of no exception.

 The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the document
does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite diligent search.
Such certification shall be sufficient proof of lack or absence of record as stated in Section 28, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court.  The Court said that the first two certifications (issued by the Local Civil Registry) bear
the statement that "hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the
above problem." It could be easily implied from the said statement that the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine the existence of Marriage License No.
2770792 due to its "loaded work." Likewise, both certifications failed to state with absolute certainty
whether or not such license was issued.  This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the
representative from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated
that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had
already retired. Further, the testimony of the said person was not presented in evidence. It does not
appear on record that the former custodian of the logbook was deceased or missing, or that his testimony
could not be secured. This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material
contents therein, had been exerted.  The Court said that the presumption of regularity of performance
of official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is effectively rebutted.
Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of Marriage License No.
2770792. It can also mean, that the logbook just cannot be found. In the absence of showing of diligent
efforts to search for the said logbook, the Court cannot easily accept that absence of the same also means
non-existence or falsity of entries therein.  Finally, the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or
fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. 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.  The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen
the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus,
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
JAIME O. SEVILLA vs. CARMELITA N. CARDENAS G.R. No. 167684 July 31, 2006

Facts:

On 19 May 1969, through machinations, duress and intimidation employed upon him by Carmelita N.
Cardenas and the latter's father, retired Colonel Jose Cardenas of the Armed forces of the Philippines,
Jaime and Carmelita went to the City Hall of Manila and they were introduced to a certain Reverend
Cirilo D. Gonzales, a supposed Minister of the Gospel. On the said date, the father of Carmelita caused
Jaime and Carmelita to sign a marriage contract before the said Minister of the Gospel. According to
Jaime, he never applied for a marriage license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita and never did they
obtain any marriage license from any Civil Registry, consequently, no marriage license was presented to
the solemnizing officer.

On March 28, 1994, a complaint was filed by Jaime O. Sevilla before the RTC. In its Decision dated
January 25, 2002, the RTC declared the nullity of the marriage of the parties for lack of the requisite
marriage license. Carmelita filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 20 December
2004, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court. Jaime filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated
6 January 2005 which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated 6 April 2005.

This denial gave rise to the present Petition filed by Jaime.

Issue: Whether or not a valid marriage license was issued in accordance with law to the parties herein
prior to the celebration of the marriages in question?

Ruling:

Given the documentary and testimonial evidence to the effect that utmost efforts were not exerted to
locate the logbook where Marriage License No. 2770792 may have been entered, the presumption of
regularity of performance of official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is
effectively rebutted. Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of nonissuance of
Marriage License No. 2770792. It can also mean, as we believed true in the case at bar, that the logbook
just cannot be found. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the said logbook, we
cannot easily accept that absence of the same also means non-existence or falsity of entries therein.
Finally, the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the
marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. 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. Therefore, the
instant petition is denied.
BIGAMOUS/ POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES

VICTORIA S. JARILLO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 164435 September 29, 2009

Facts:

On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding ceremony. On May
4, 1975, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo again celebrated marriage in a church wedding ceremony.
Appellant Victoria Jarillo thereafter contracted a subsequent marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy.
In 1999, Emmanuel Uy filed against the appellant Civil Case No. 99-93582 for annulment of marriage
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Thereafter, appellant Jarillo was charged with bigamy before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the same court. On appeal to the CA, petitioner’s
conviction was affirmed in toto. In the meantime, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 140, rendered a
Decision dated March 28, 2003, declaring petitioner’s 1974 and 1975 marriages to Alocillo null and void
ab initio on the ground of Alocillo’s psychological incapacity. Said decision became final and executory
on July 9, 2003. In her motion for reconsideration, petitioner invoked said declaration of nullity as a
ground for the reversal of her conviction. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in rendering their decision.

Ruling:

Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared
otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that
his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting
before the first marriage was annulled.

Petitioner’s conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial declaration of
nullity of petitioner’s two marriages to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of
bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been
judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of
the celebration of the second marriage, petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been
declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting. Neither
would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioner’s marriage to Uy make any difference. Petitioner’s
defense of prescription is likewise doomed to fail.

Finally, petitioner avers that the RTC and the CA imposed an erroneous penalty under the Revised Penal
Code. Again, petitioner is mistaken. The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that the accused shall be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum of
which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Code for the
offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime.
However, for humanitarian purposes, and considering that petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo has after all
been declared by final judgment to be void ab initio on account of the latter’s psychological incapacity,
by reason of which, petitioner was subjected to manipulative abuse, the Court deems it proper to
reduce the penalty imposed by the lower courts.

Thus, petitioner should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2)
years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of
prision mayor, as maximum.