De Cardenas vs. Cardenas

A marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a minister gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had been complied with, and the party alleging lack of authority of the officiating minister bears the burden of proving such lack of authority. The marriage license requirement under article 53, paragraph 4 of the new Civil Code and section 7 of the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613) did not apply to a marriage solemnized on July 10, 1927, because General Orders No. 68, the law in force at that time, did not require a marriage license.

The case involves a first wife, Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas, seeking to annul the second marriage of her husband, Leoncio Cardenas, to Florencia Riñen on the ground of bigamy. The first marriage was solemnized on July 10, 1927, under General Orders No. 68, which was the governing law at that time and did not require a marriage license. The second marriage was contracted on April 19, 1948, under the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613). The applicable legal framework required the Court to determine the validity of the first marriage under the law in force at the time it was celebrated, not under subsequently enacted statutes.

Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas and Leoncio Cardenas were married at Malate, Manila on July 10, 1927, before Minister George W. Wright, as evidenced by the original marriage contract marked as Exhibit A. The marriage certificate indicated that Leoncio was 32 years old, a Scout from Santa, Ilocos Sur, and that Eulogia was 24 years old, from Bangued, Abra. The certificate stated that the minister had ascertained the truth of the statements from the sworn testimony of the parties and witnesses, and that the parties were lawfully joined together in matrimony in the presence of attesting witnesses.

On April 19, 1948, Leoncio Cardenas married Florencia Riñen at Badoc, Ilocos Norte, before Justice of the Peace Vicente R. Campos, as evidenced by a certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of said municipality dated July 27, 1951. The certification indicated that Leoncio stated he had no former marriage, and that Florencia was a municipal teacher.

Leoncio Cardenas admitted in a sworn affidavit dated August 17, 1945, that he was legally married to Eulogia Bigornia on July 10, 1927, at Malate, Manila, before Rev. George W. Wright, minister. The U.S. Veterans Administration found from records on file that Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas was the legal wife of Leoncio Cardenas, as evidenced by a letter dated March 11, 1952.

The parties stipulated that there had been no divorce, separation, dissolution, or annulment of the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant Leoncio Cardenas up to the present. The stipulation also revealed that the authorization of Rev. George W. Wright to solemnize marriage did not appear in the records of the Bureau of Public Libraries; the minister was no longer at his residence as mentioned in the marriage contract; and the office of the Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila had no record of the marriage license of plaintiff and defendant Leoncio Cardenas.

Upon this stipulation, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage between the defendants null and void ab initio, with costs against them. The defendants appealed, insisting that there was nothing in the stipulation showing that Minister George W. Wright had authority to solemnize the marriage, and that it did not appear that a marriage license was issued to enable them to marry.

• Validity of First Marriage: The plaintiff sought to annul the second marriage of Leoncio Cardenas to Florencia Riñen on the ground that when said marriage was entered into on April 1948, the plaintiff, to whom Leoncio had been married on 10 July 1927, was still alive.

• Lack of Proof of Minister's Authority: The appellants insisted that there is nothing in the stipulation which shows that Minister George W. Wright had authority to solemnize the marriage between Leoncio Cardenas and Eulogia Bigornia.
• Absence of Marriage License: The appellants contended that it does not appear in the stipulation of facts that a marriage license was issued to enable them to marry.

• Validity of the First Marriage: Whether the marriage between Leoncio Cardenas and Eulogia Bigornia, solemnized on July 10, 1927, by Minister George W. Wright, is valid despite the absence of proof of the minister's authority to solemnize the marriage and the absence of a marriage license.
• Applicability of Article 88 of the New Civil Code: Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment upon a stipulation of facts, given article 88 of the new Civil Code which provides that "No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts."

• Validity of the First Marriage: Yes. The marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a minister gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had been complied with, and the burden was on the defendants to show the minister's lack of authority. A marriage license was not required by General Orders No. 68, the law in force on 10 July 1927.
• Applicability of Article 88 of the New Civil Code: No. Article 88 contemplates annulment of a marriage where the parties might secure the annulment by collusion, which is remote in this case because the interests of the two wives are conflicting. The marriage certificates attached to the stipulation of facts are evidence and cannot be deemed to be a stipulation of facts.

• Validity of the First Marriage: The Court reasoned that a marriage license as provided for in article 53, paragraph 4, of the new Civil Code and in section 7 of the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613) was not required by General Orders No. 68, the law in force on 10 July 1927 when the marriage was entered into by and between Cardenas and Bigornia. The marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a minister named George W. Wright gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had been complied with and fulfilled. If the minister was not authorized to perform such marriage ceremony, it was incumbent upon the defendants to show such lack of authority on the part of the minister. The defendants failed to discharge this burden.
• Applicability of Article 88 of the New Civil Code: The Court stated that article 88 of the new Civil Code, which provides that "No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts," and article 101 on legal separation of the same Code contemplate the annulment of a marriage or legal separation where the parties might secure the annulment of their marriage or their legal separation by collusion. In this case, the possibility of such collusion is remote, because the interest of the two wives are conflicting. Apart from this, the marriage certificates attached to the stipulation of facts are evidence and cannot be deemed to be a stipulation of facts.

• Presumption of regularity in the solemnization of marriage — A marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a minister gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had been complied with and fulfilled. The Court applied this presumption to uphold the validity of the 1927 marriage, placing the burden on the party alleging lack of authority of the officiating minister to prove such lack of authority.
• Applicability of the law in force at the time of marriage — The validity of a marriage is governed by the law in force at the time the marriage was solemnized. The Court applied General Orders No. 68, the law in force on 10 July 1927, which did not require a marriage license, rather than the subsequently enacted Marriage Law (Act No. 3613) or the new Civil Code.
• Collusion exception to the prohibition on judgment upon stipulation of facts — Article 88 of the new Civil Code, prohibiting judgment annulling a marriage upon a stipulation of facts, contemplates situations where the parties might secure the annulment by collusion. Where the interests of the parties are conflicting, as where two wives have opposing interests, the possibility of collusion is remote, and the prohibition does not apply.

• "The marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a minister named George W. Wright gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had been complied with the fulfilled. If the minister was not authorized to perform such marriage ceremony it was incumbent upon the defendants to show such lack of authority on the part of the minister." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi: the presumption of regularity arising from the marriage certificate and the allocation of the burden of proof to the party challenging the marriage.
• "A marriage license as provided for in article 53, paragraph 4, of the new Civil Code and in section 7 of the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613), which took effect on 30 August 1950 and 4 December 1929, respectively, was not required by General Orders No. 68, the law in force on 10 July 1927 when the marriage was entered into by and between Cardenas and Bigornia." — This passage establishes the principle that the law in force at the time of the marriage governs its validity, not subsequently enacted statutes.
• "In this case the possibility of such collusion is remote, because the interest of the two wives are conflicting. Apart from this, the marriage certifiates attached to the stipulation of facts are evidence and cannot be deemed to be a stipulation of facts." — This passage explains the Court's interpretation of article 88 of the new Civil Code, distinguishing between a stipulation of facts and documentary evidence attached thereto.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Article 53, paragraph 4, of the new Civil Code — The Court noted that this provision required a marriage license, but held that it did not apply to the 1927 marriage because it took effect on 30 August 1950, after the marriage was solemnized.
• Section 7 of the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613) — The Court noted that this provision required a marriage license, but held that it did not apply to the 1927 marriage because it took effect on 4 December 1929, after the marriage was solemnized.
• General Orders No. 68 — The Court held that this was the law in force on 10 July 1927 when the marriage was entered into, and that it did not require a marriage license.
• Article 88 of the new Civil Code — The Court interpreted this provision, which provides that "No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts," as contemplating collusion between the parties, which was remote in this case because the interests of the two wives were conflicting.
• Article 101 of the new Civil Code — The Court referred to this provision on legal separation as similarly contemplating collusion between the parties.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.