Diaz-Salgado vs. Anson

JO-ANN DIAZ-SALGADO AND HUSBAND DR. GERARD C. SALGADO, Petitioners, 
vs. 
LUIS G. ANSON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 204494
July 27, 2016

FACTS:

Luis Anson filed a Complaint  against Jo-Ann Diaz-Salgado and Gerard Salgado (Spouses Salgado) seeking the annulment of the three Unilateral Deeds of Sale and the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of the Deceased Severina De Asis.

Luis alleged in his complaint that he is the surviving spouse of the late Severina de Asis-Anson. They were married in a civil ceremony on December 28, 1966. Prior to the celebration of their marriage, Severina gave birth to their daughter, Maria Luisa on December 30, 1965 while Jo-Ann is Severina’s daughter from a previous relationship.

During his marital union with Severina, they acquired several real properties, because there was no marriage settlement between him and Severina, the above-listed properties pertain to their conjugal partnership. But without his knowledge and consent, Severina executed three separate Unilateral Deeds of Sale transferring the properties in favor of Jo-Ann, who secured new certificates of title over the said properties.10 When Severina died Maria Luisa executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Severina de Asis adjudicating herself as Severina’s sole heir. She secured new TCTs over the properties.

Luis claimed that because of the preceding acts, he was divested of his lawful share in the conjugal properties and of his inheritance as a compulsory heir of Severina. The Spouses in defense raised the nullity of the marriage which took effect prior the effectively of the family code for lack of marriage license.

RTC and CA rendered its Decision in favor of Luis.

ISSUE: 

Is the marriage celebrated prior the effectivity of the FC valid in the absence of marriage license?

HELD:

No. A cursory examination of the marriage contract of Luis and Severina reveals that no marriage license number was indicated therein. It also appears therein that no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer with Article 77 of Republic Act No. 386 (Civil Code) being cited as the reason therefor. 

The reference to Article 77 of the Civil Code in the marriage contract is not dismissible. Being a public document, the marriage contract is not only a prima facie proof of marriage, but is also a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. 

Consequently, the entries made in Luis and Severina’s marriage contract are prima facie proof that at the time of their marriage, no marriage license was exhibited to the solemnizing officer for the reason that their marriage is of an exceptional character under Article 77 of the Civil Code.

Article 77 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 77. In case two persons married in accordance with law desire to ratify their union in conformity with the regulations, rites, or practices of any church, sect, or religion, it shall no longer be necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 of this Title and any ratification made shall merely be considered as a purely religious ceremony.

The foregoing provision pertains to a religious ceremony performed with the purpose of ratifying a marriage which was solemnized civilly. In the eyes of the law, the marriage already exists; the subsequent ceremony is undertaken merely to conform to religious practices. Thus, the parties are exempted from complying with the required issuance of marriage license insofar as the subsequent religious ceremony is concerned. For this exemption to be applicable, it is sine qua non that: (1) the parties to the religious ceremony must already be married to each other in accordance with law (civil marriage); and (2) the ratifying ceremony is purely religious in nature.

Applied to the present case however, it is clear that Luis and Severina were not married to each other prior to the civil ceremony officiated on December 28, 1966 – the only date of marriage appearing on the records.

Being that the ceremony held on December 28, 1966 was the only marriage ceremony between the parties and this was not solemnized pursuant to any ratifying religious rite, practice or regulation but a civil one officiated by the mayor, this marriage does not fall under the purview of Article 77 of the Civil Code. It is evident that the twin requirements of the provision, which are: prior civil marriage between the parties and a ratifying religious ceremony, were not complied with. There is no prior ceremony to ratify. Thus, this marriage is not of an exceptional character and a marriage license is required for Luis and Severina’s marriage to be valid.