De Loria v. Felix

A marriage in articulo mortis is valid even if the marriage contract was not signed and the marriage was not registered, provided the essential requisites—legal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent declared before the solemnizing officer and two witnesses of legal age—are present, the signing and registration requirements being formal in nature and addressed primarily to the officiating official rather than to the contracting parties.

Matea de la Cruz and Felipe Apelan Felix lived together as wife and husband at Cabrera Street, Pasay City, long before and during the Pacific War, acquiring properties but having no children. The petitioners, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria, are grandchildren of Adriana de la Cruz, sister of Matea, and claim to be the only surviving forced heirs of the deceased. The applicable legal framework is the Marriage Law of 1929 (Act No. 3613) as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 114, particularly sections 1, 3, 20, and 21.

Matea de la Cruz and Felipe Apelan Felix lived together as wife and husband at Cabrera Street, Pasay City, long before and during the Pacific War. They acquired properties but had no children. In the early part of the liberation of Manila and surrounding territory, Matea became seriously ill. Two young ladies of legal age dedicated to the service of God, Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vicarra, visited and persuaded her to go to confession. They fetched Father Gerardo Bautista, Catholic parish priest of Pasay. Upon learning that the penitent had been living with Felipe without benefit of marriage, Fr. Bautista asked both parties to ratify their union according to the rites of his Church. Both agreed. The priest heard Matea's confession, gave her Holy Communion, administered the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and then solemnized her marriage with Felipe in articulo mortis on January 29 or 30, 1945, with Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra acting as sponsors or witnesses. In the priest's presence, Matea and Felipe expressed mutual consent to be thenceforward husband and wife.

After a few months, Matea recovered from her sickness, but death was not to be denied. In January 1946, she was interred in Pasay, the same Fr. Bautista performing the burial ceremonies.

On May 12, 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria filed a complaint to compel Felipe to render an accounting and to deliver the properties left by the deceased. They are grandchildren of Adriana de la Cruz, sister of Matea, and claimed to be the only surviving forced heirs of the latter. Felipe resisted the action, setting up his rights as widower. The petitioners obtained a favorable judgment in the Court of First Instance, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint.

The Court of Appeals found that Fr. Bautista had solemnized the marriage in articulo mortis on January 29 or 30, 1945, and credited his testimony that Matea's condition at the time was bad—she was bed-ridden, and according to his observation, she might die at any moment, so apprehensive was he about her condition that he administered the sacrament of extreme unction after hearing her confession. The greatest objection of the plaintiffs and the trial court against the validity of the marriage was the admitted fact that it was not registered. The Court of Appeals found the marriage to be a fact, the only question being whether the failure of Fr. Bautista to send copies of the certificate of marriage to the Local Civil Registrar and to register the marriage in the Record of Marriages of the Pasay Catholic Church rendered the marriage invalid.

• Absence of Signed Marriage Contract: Petitioners contended that there was no "marriage contract" signed by the wedded couple, the witnesses, and the priest, as required by section 3 of the Marriage Law, and that this omission rendered the marriage void.
• Non-Registration and Lack of Affidavit: Petitioners argued that the priest filed no affidavit nor recorded the marriage with the local civil registry, as required by sections 20 and 21 of the Marriage Law, and that this failure invalidated the marriage.
• Not in Articulo Mortis: Petitioners contended that the marriage was not in articulo mortis because Matea de la Cruz was not then on the point of death.

• Rights as Widower: Respondent resisted the action, setting up his rights as widower of the deceased Matea de la Cruz, asserting the validity of their marriage in articulo mortis solemnized by Fr. Bautista.

• Validity Despite Non-Signing of Marriage Contract: Whether the failure to sign the marriage contract constitutes a cause for nullity of the marriage.
• Validity Despite Non-Registration and Lack of Affidavit: Whether the priest's failure to make and file the affidavit required by sections 20 and 21 of the Marriage Law and to register the marriage renders it invalid.
• Articulo Mortis Character: Whether the marriage was properly celebrated in articulo mortis.

• Validity Despite Non-Signing of Marriage Contract: No. The signing of the marriage contract is a formal requirement of evidentiary value, the omission of which does not render the marriage a nullity, the essential requisites being legal capacity and consent duly declared before the solemnizing officer and two witnesses.
• Validity Despite Non-Registration and Lack of Affidavit: No. The priest's failure to make and file the affidavit and to register the marriage does not invalidate it, the affidavit being a substitute for the marriage license, the absence of which does not render a marriage voidable under Act No. 3613.
• Articulo Mortis Character: Yes. The marriage was properly celebrated in articulo mortis, the Court of Appeals having found that Matea was bed-ridden and might die at any moment, which justified the administration of extreme unction.

• Validity Despite Non-Signing of Marriage Contract: The essential requisites for marriage under section 1 of the Marriage Law are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent, the latter being manifested by the declaration of the parties in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife—which declaration actually occurred in this case. The signing of the marriage contract or certificate was required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the act and preventing fraud. The Marriage Law itself, in sections 28, 29, and 30, enumerates the causes for annulment of marriage, and failure to sign the marriage contract is not among them. Section 27 expressly provides that "no marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several formal requirements of this Act." Furthermore, the law imposes on the priest the duty to furnish copies of the marriage certificate to the parties (section 16) and punishes him for its omission (section 41), implying his obligation to see that the certificate is executed accordingly. It would not be fair to visit upon the wedded couple, in the form of annulment, the priest's omission, which apparently had been caused by the prevailing disorder during the liberation of Manila and its environs.

• Validity Despite Non-Registration and Lack of Affidavit: Identical reasoning applies to the priest's failure to make and file the affidavit required by sections 20 and 21. It was the priest's obligation, and non-compliance should bring no serious consequences to the married pair, especially where, as in this case, it was caused by the emergency. The law permits marriages in articulo mortis without a marriage license but requires the priest to make the affidavit and file it, the affidavit containing the data usually required for the issuance of a marriage license and thus practically substituting for the latter. If a marriage celebrated without a license is not voidable under Act No. 3613, then this marriage should not be voidable for lack of such affidavit. This conclusion is consistent with the policy, expressed in section 22 of Act No. 3613, to encourage the legalization of the union of men and women who have lived publicly in a state of concubinage. The ruling in Jones vs. Hortiguela was relied upon, which held that the mere fact that the parish priest failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary does not invalidate a marriage in articulo mortis where all requisites for validity were present.

• Articulo Mortis Character: The Court of Appeals found as a matter of fact that Matea's condition at the time was bad—she was bed-ridden, and according to Fr. Bautista's observation, she might die at any moment, so apprehensive was he about her condition that he administered the sacrament of extreme unction after hearing her confession. This factual finding was accepted by the Supreme Court, which noted that Fr. Bautista was a respectable old priest with no reason to favor one side or the other.

• Essential vs. Formal Requisites of Marriage — The essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent, the latter manifested by the declaration of the parties before the solemnizing officer and two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. Formal requirements—such as signing the marriage contract, registration, and filing of affidavits—are directed to the officiating official for purposes of evidence, publicity, and record, and their omission does not affect the validity of the marriage. Section 27 of the Marriage Law provides that "no marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several formal requirements of this Act." The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the priest's failure to sign the marriage contract and to register the marriage did not void the union, all essential requisites having been present.

• Marriage in Articulo Mortis; Substitution of Affidavit for License — A marriage in articulo mortis may be celebrated without a marriage license, but the solemnizing priest must make and file an affidavit containing the data usually required for a marriage license. The affidavit practically substitutes the license. Since a marriage celebrated without a license is not voidable under Act No. 3613, a marriage in articulo mortis should not be voidable for lack of the affidavit. The Court relied on this principle to uphold the validity of the marriage despite the priest's failure to file the required affidavit.

• Omission of the Solemnizing Officer Not Visited Upon the Contracting Parties — Where the law imposes upon the solemnizing officer the duty to execute, furnish, and file the marriage certificate or affidavit and punishes him for non-compliance, his omission should not be visited upon the wedded couple in the form of annulment, particularly where the omission was caused by circumstances beyond the parties' control, such as the disorder during the liberation period.

• "The fact of marriage is one thing; the proof by which it may be established is quite another." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi distinguishing the essential fact of marriage from the evidentiary formalities by which it is proved, forming the analytical foundation for the Court's holding that non-signing and non-registration do not affect validity.

• "It would not be fair to visit upon the wedded couple in the form of annulment, Father Bautista's omission, if any, which apparently had been caused by the prevailing disorder during the liberation of Manila and its environs." — This statement establishes the equitable principle that the solemnizing officer's statutory omissions should not invalidate the marriage to the prejudice of the contracting parties, particularly where caused by extraordinary circumstances.

• "Now then, if a marriage celebrated without the license is not voidable (under Act 3613), this marriage should not also be voidable for lack of such affidavit." — This passage sets forth the analogous reasoning by which the Court equated the affidavit required in articulo mortis marriages with the marriage license, concluding that the absence of the former should be no more fatal than the absence of the latter.

• Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179 — Followed as controlling precedent. The Court quoted its holding that the parish priest's failure to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary does not invalidate a marriage in articulo mortis where all requisites for validity were present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of the requisites.

• Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1 — Cited alongside Jones vs. Hortiguela as supporting authority for the proposition that formal omissions by the solemnizing officer do not invalidate an otherwise valid marriage.

• Section 3, Act No. 3613 (Marriage Law of 1929) — Requires that the parties' declaration of taking each other as husband and wife be set forth in an instrument in triplicate signed by the contracting parties, two witnesses, and attested by the solemnizing officer. The Court held that the signing requirement is formal and evidentiary, not essential to validity.

• Sections 20 and 21, Act No. 3613 — Require the solemnizing priest in an articulo mortis marriage to make and file an affidavit containing the data usually required for a marriage license. The Court held that the priest's failure to comply does not invalidate the marriage, the affidavit being a substitute for the license.

• Section 27, Act No. 3613 — Provides that "no marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several formal requirements of this Act." This provision was central to the Court's ruling that non-signing and non-registration do not void the marriage.

• Sections 28, 29, and 30, Act No. 3613 — Enumerate the causes for annulment of marriage. The Court noted that failure to sign the marriage contract is not among them.

• Section 16, Act No. 3613 — Imposes on the priest the duty to furnish copies of the marriage certificate to the parties, implying his obligation to ensure its execution.

• Section 41, Act No. 3613 — Punishes the priest for omission of duty regarding the marriage certificate, reinforcing that the obligation falls on the solemnizing officer, not the contracting parties.

• Section 22, Act No. 3613 — Expresses the policy to encourage legalization of unions of persons living in concubinage, which the Court invoked in support of its holding.

• Article 952, Civil Code — Provides that in the absence of brothers, sisters, or nephews/nieces of the deceased, the surviving spouse succeeds to the entire estate. The Court applied this provision to confirm the widower's superior rights over the petitioners.

• Commonwealth Act No. 114 — Amended the Marriage Law of 1929 (Act No. 3613), which, as amended, governed the legal framework for the marriage in question.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concurred.