Calimag vs. Heirs of Macapaz

A certificate of live birth, as a public document, is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, including the marriage of the parents and the legitimate filiation of children born during such union, and the signature of the father is not required for the registration of a legitimate child's birth under Section 5 of Act No. 3753. The presumption of validity of marriage (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio) applies where parties openly cohabited as husband and wife, and such presumption, combined with birth certificates declaring the parents' marriage date and place, suffices to establish legitimate filiation even without the marriage certificate itself.

Virginia D. Calimag co-owned a 299-square-meter property in Makati City with Silvestra N. Macapaz under TCT No. 183088. Silvestra died without issue on November 11, 2002. The respondents—Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. and Alicia Macapaz-Ritua—are the children of Silvestra's brother, Anastacio Macapaz, Sr., and Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de Macapaz. An adverse claim by Fidela over a 49.5-square-meter portion of the property was annotated on the title. The dispute centers on whether the respondents, as heirs of Silvestra's brother, have legal standing to annul a deed of sale that petitioner used to cancel the co-owned title and consolidate ownership in her name, and whether Article 992 of the Civil Code—which bars illegitimate children from inheriting intestate from the legitimate relatives of their parents—applies to them.

Virginia D. Calimag co-owned a 299-square-meter property located at No. 1273 Bo. Visaya Street, Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, with Silvestra N. Macapaz. The property was registered in their names under TCT No. 183088, which also bore an annotation of an Adverse Claim filed by Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de Macapaz, asserting rights over a 49.5-square-meter portion. The respondents—Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. and Alicia Macapaz-Ritua—are the children of Silvestra's brother, Anastacio Macapaz, Sr., and Fidela.

Silvestra died without issue on November 11, 2002. On July 7, 2005, TCT No. 183088 was cancelled and a new certificate of title, TCT No. 221466, was issued solely in petitioner's name. This was effected through a Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005, whereby Silvestra allegedly sold her 99-square-meter portion to petitioner for ₱300,000.00. Among the documents submitted for the cancellation was an Affidavit dated July 12, 2005, purportedly executed by both petitioner and Silvestra, stating that Fidela's adverse claim was not signed by the Deputy Register of Deeds of Makati City and was therefore legally ineffective. Fidela passed away on September 16, 2005.

On December 15, 2005, Anastacio, Jr. filed a criminal complaint for two counts of falsification of public documents against the petitioner under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code, though the charges were eventually dismissed. On March 2, 2006, the respondents, asserting their status as heirs of Silvestra, instituted an 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. Petitioner, in her answer, countered that the respondents lacked legal capacity to sue because they were illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr., and thus had no right over Silvestra's estate under Article 992 of the Civil Code.

The RTC found that the Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 was a forgery, since Silvestra had died on November 11, 2002—approximately three years before the deed's purported execution. The RTC likewise upheld the respondents' legal capacity to sue, finding that the marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was evidenced by a Certificate of (Canonical) Marriage, and that both respondents' birth certificates identified Anastacio Nator Macapaz as their father and Fidela as their mother, with Fidela signing as informant. The CA affirmed these findings, sustaining the respondents' legitimate filiation and reducing the damages award. The petitioner did not contest the finding of forgery before the CA or the Supreme Court.

• Article 992 Bar: Petitioner insisted that the respondents have no legal right over Silvestra's estate because they are illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr., and Article 992 of the Civil Code prohibits illegitimate children from inheriting intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of their father or mother.
• Insufficient Proof of Marriage: Petitioner argued that the marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was not sufficiently proven because the marriage contract presented by the respondents was a mere fax copy or photocopy, not authenticated by the Local Civil Registrar, with no mark or stamp showing receipt by that office, rendering it inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule.
• Canonical Certificate Insufficiency: Petitioner asserted that the Certificate of (Canonical) Marriage presented by the respondents is not the marriage license required under Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, and only proves that a marriage ceremony transpired, not the validity of the marriage.
• Birth Certificates Do Not Establish Legitimate Filiation: Petitioner contended that the respondents' certificates of live birth do not conclusively prove legitimate filiation because they contain no entry stating whether the respondents are legitimate or illegitimate, and because only Fidela's signature appears on them—not Anastacio, Sr.'s—relying on Roces vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila for the proposition that a birth certificate not signed by the father is not competent evidence of paternity.

• Legitimacy Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked: Respondents reiterated the CA's ruling that one's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed by a party related by consanguinity or affinity, and that petitioner's challenge to their filiation was improper in the present action.
• Marriage Duly Proven: Respondents maintained that the marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was established by competent and substantial proof, including a canonical certificate of marriage and a copy of the marriage contract reflecting a marriage license number, and that the presumption in favor of the validity of marriage applies.

• Legal Capacity to Sue: Whether the respondents, as children of Silvestra's brother Anastacio, Sr., have the legal capacity to institute the action for annulment of deed of sale and cancellation of title as heirs of Silvestra.
• Proof of Marriage: Whether the marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was sufficiently established notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the fax/photocopy of the marriage contract and the canonical certificate of marriage.
• Evidentiary Value of Birth Certificates: Whether the respondents' certificates of live birth, signed only by their mother Fidela as informant, are competent evidence of their legitimate filiation to Anastacio, Sr.

• Legal Capacity to Sue: Yes. The respondents are legal heirs of Silvestra, their legitimate filiation to Silvestra's brother having been established, and thus Article 992 of the Civil Code does not apply to bar them from inheriting.
• Proof of Marriage: Yes. Although the fax/photocopy of the marriage contract and the canonical certificate of marriage were inadmissible, the fact of marriage was established through other competent evidence, including the respondents' birth certificates and the presumption favoring the validity of marriage between persons who openly cohabited as husband and wife.
• Evidentiary Value of Birth Certificates: Yes. Certificates of live birth are public documents and prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein; the father's signature is not required for registration of a legitimate child's birth under Section 5 of Act No. 3753, and Roces was distinguished as involving proof of paternity of an illegitimate child.

• Legal Capacity to Sue: While a person's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, as held in Spouses Fidel vs. Hon. CA, et al., the Court deemed it necessary to pass upon the respondents' relationship to Silvestra to determine their legal rights to the subject property. The question of whether respondents had legal capacity to sue as alleged heirs was among the issues agreed upon by the parties in pre-trial. Because the respondents established their legitimate filiation to Anastacio, Sr.—Silvestra's brother and sole heir—Article 992 of the Civil Code, which bars illegitimate children from inheriting intestate from the legitimate relatives of their parents, was inapplicable. The respondents, being legitimate children, could inherit from Silvestra through their father.

• Proof of Marriage: At first glance, the fax/photocopy of the marriage contract could not be admitted without running afoul of the Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130, Section 3), and secondary evidence requires proof of the original's execution or existence, its loss or unavailability, and the absence of bad faith—predicates not satisfactorily established here. The canonical certificate of marriage was likewise inadmissible because, per United States vs. Evangelista, church registries of marriages made after General Orders No. 68 and Act No. 190 are private writings whose authenticity must be proved under the rules of evidence, and no such proof was offered. Nevertheless, jurisprudence establishes that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. The respondents' certificates of live birth stated that their parents were married on May 25, 1955 in Alang-alang, Leyte. The established period of cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela, which produced two children born years apart, constituted admissible proof of marriage. The presumption that persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are in fact married—semper praesumitur pro matrimonio—applies with great weight. Because the cohabitation transpired before the effectivity of the Family Code, the strong presumption under Article 220 of the Civil Code favoring the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children also applied.

• Evidentiary Value of Birth Certificates: A certificate of live birth is a public document consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer, and is therefore presumed valid and prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein. Petitioner's reliance on Roces vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila was misplaced because that case involved proof of paternity of an illegitimate child, not legitimate filiation. Under Section 5 of Act No. 3753, the declaration of either parent of a newborn legitimate child is sufficient for registration of birth; only for illegitimate children does the law require the birth certificate to be signed and sworn to jointly by both parents, or by the mother alone if the father refuses. The fact that only Fidela's signature appeared on the respondents' birth certificates was of no moment because she signed as declarant or informant of the respondents' birth as legitimate children. The birth certificates indicated the same father (Anastacio Nator Macapaz) and mother (Fidela Overa Poblete), and declared the parents' marriage date and place. Petitioner offered no evidence to contradict these entries.

• Presumption of Validity of Marriage (Semper Praesumitur Pro Matrimonio) — Persons 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. This presumption is of great weight and is not to be lightly repelled. The Court applied this doctrine to the established cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela, which produced two children, holding that such cohabitation constituted admissible proof of marriage even without the marriage certificate.

• Presumption of Legitimacy — Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are presumed legitimate. The Court relied on Article 220 of the Civil Code, which provides that in case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family, including the legitimacy of children. Respondents, born during the subsistence of their parents' marriage, were presumed legitimate in the absence of contradicting evidence.

• Prima Facie Evidentiary Value of Public Documents — A certificate of live birth, as a public document consisting of entries in public records made by a public officer in the performance of duty, is presumed valid and constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein. The Court held that the respondents' birth certificates were prima facie evidence of their parents' marriage and their legitimate filiation, and petitioner's bare assertions without contrary evidence were insufficient to rebut this presumption.

• Registration of Birth Under Section 5 of Act No. 3753 — For a legitimate child, the declaration of either parent is sufficient for registration of birth; the father's signature is not required. Only for an illegitimate child must the birth certificate be signed and sworn to jointly by both parents, or by the mother alone if the father refuses. The Court used this provision to reject petitioner's argument that the absence of the father's signature on the birth certificates rendered them incompetent evidence of legitimate filiation.

• Best Evidence Rule and Secondary Evidence — Under Rule 130, Sections 3 and 5 of the Revised Rules of Court, when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, the original must be produced; secondary evidence (a copy, recital in an authentic document, or testimony of witnesses) is admissible only upon proof of the original's execution or existence, its loss or unavailability, and the absence of bad faith on the proponent's part. The Court found that the predicates for secondary evidence were not established for the fax/photocopy of the marriage contract, rendering it inadmissible.

• Church Registries as Private Writings — Per United States vs. Evangelista, church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made after General Orders No. 68 and Act No. 190 are private writings, not public documents, and their authenticity must be proved as with all other private writings. The Court held that the canonical certificate of marriage was inadmissible absent proof of its authenticity and due execution.

• "Persons 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." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the presumption favoring the validity of marriage, which the Court applied to uphold the respondents' legitimate filiation despite the absence of an admissible marriage certificate.

• "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)." — This defines the evidentiary character of birth certificates as public documents, establishing the basis for their prima facie presumptive validity and their competence to prove the facts stated therein, including the parents' marriage and the child's filiation.

• "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." — This quotation from Section 5 of Act No. 3753 clarifies that the requirement of the father's signature applies only to illegitimate children, directly rebutting petitioner's argument that the father's signature was necessary for the respondents' birth certificates to establish legitimate filiation.

• Spouses Fidel vs. Hon. CA, et al., 581 Phil. 160 (2008) — Cited for the rule that a person's legitimacy can only be questioned in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party. The Court acknowledged this doctrine but deemed it necessary to resolve the respondents' filiation because the issue was agreed upon in pre-trial.
• Dantis vs. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 599 — Followed for the requisites of admitting secondary evidence under Rule 130, Section 5: proof of execution or existence of the original, loss or non-production, and absence of bad faith.
• United States vs. Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215 (1915) — Followed for the doctrine that church registries of marriages made after General Orders No. 68 and Act No. 190 are private writings, not public documents, requiring proof of authenticity.
• Roces vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 102 Phil. 1050 (1958) — Distinguished. Petitioner relied on this case for the proposition that a birth certificate not signed by the father is not competent evidence of paternity, but the Court held the reliance was misplaced because Roces involved proof of paternity of an illegitimate child, not legitimate filiation.
• Sarmiento vs. CA, 364 Phil. 613 (1999) — Followed for the rule that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate, including testimony of a witness, the couple's open cohabitation as husband and wife, birth and baptismal certificates of children, and mention of the nuptial in subsequent documents.
• Social Security System (SSS) vs. Lourdes S. Enobiso, G.R. No. 183262, February 13, 2013 — Followed for the enumeration of alternative proofs of marriage and the presumption in favor of matrimony.

• Article 992, Civil Code — Provides that an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of the father or mother, nor shall such relatives inherit from the illegitimate child. Petitioner invoked this provision to argue that respondents, as alleged illegitimate children, could not inherit from Silvestra. The Court rendered it inapplicable because respondents were proven to be legitimate children.
• Article 220, Civil Code — Provides that in case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family, including the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children. The Court applied this provision because the cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela transpired before the effectivity of the Family Code, giving rise to the strong presumption in favor of the validity of their marriage.
• Articles 3 and 4, Family Code — Define the formal requisites of marriage and the effects of their absence or defect. Petitioner invoked these provisions to argue that the canonical certificate of marriage did not constitute a marriage license. The Court did not rely on these provisions in its ruling, having found marriage proven through other evidence.
• Section 5, Act No. 3753 (Law on Registry of Civil Status) — Provides that the declaration of either parent is sufficient for registration of a legitimate child's birth, while an illegitimate child's birth certificate must be signed and sworn to jointly by both parents or by the mother alone if the father refuses. The Court applied this provision to hold that the absence of the father's signature on the respondents' birth certificates did not render them incompetent evidence of legitimate filiation.
• Rule 130, Sections 3 and 5, Revised Rules of Court (Rules on Evidence) — Section 3 embodies the Best Evidence Rule, requiring the original document when the subject of inquiry is its contents; Section 5 governs the admission of secondary evidence upon proof of the original's execution, loss or unavailability, and absence of bad faith. The Court applied these rules to exclude the fax/photocopy of the marriage contract for failure to establish the predicates for secondary evidence.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, and Perez, JJ., concurred. Jardeleza, J., was on official leave.