Menciano vs. Neri San Jose

A marriage evidenced by official and public documents can be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony, and neither old age, physical infirmities, nor feebleness of mind is sufficient to show incapacity to contract marriage when there is evidence of a clear mind at the time of the ceremony. A child born within 180 days after the marriage of his parents, whose father is not impotent, is indisputably presumed legitimate under Rule 123, Section 68(c), and this conclusive presumption cannot be overthrown by inconclusive evidence of sterility.

This case arises from Special Proceedings No. 6-A for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. The deceased left a will dated December 19, 1940, designating Rodolfo Pelaez as universal heir and appointing Paz Neri San Jose as executrix. Matilde Menciano, claiming to be the widow of the deceased, filed a motion for declaration of heirs in her behalf and in behalf of the minors Carlo Magno Neri and Faustino Neri, Jr., asserting her status as lawful wife and the legitimacy of the children.

The deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano were married on September 28, 1944, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, before Rev. Father Isaias Edralin, S. J. Before the marriage, the couple had lived together as husband and wife, and their child Carlo Magno Neri was born on March 9, 1940, and later baptized. A second child, Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 24, 1945, which was 208 days after the marriage but less than 300 days after the death of Faustino Neri San Jose, who died on October 11, 1944.

The marriage was evidenced by four official and public documents: Exhibit 1-C, an application for a marriage license dated September 28, 1944, signed by Faustino Neri San Jose; Exhibit 1-B, a similar application signed by Matilde Menciano; Exhibit 1-D, a certificate for immediate issuance of the marriage license; and Exhibit 1-A, the marriage contract signed by both parties, the solemnizing officer, and witnesses L. B. Castaños and Samson Pañgan.

Paz Neri San Jose, then executrix, and Rodolfo Pelaez, the designated universal heir, denied the substantial allegations of the motion for declaration of heirs. They alleged that the deceased, from 1943, suffered from senile dementia caused by anemia, which worsened after September 9, 1944, when the province was bombarded by American planes. They claimed the marriage was in violation of legal requisites because the deceased was deprived of free will due to age, sickness, and bombardment, and that Matilde Menciano, taking advantage of his condition, forced him by deceit and threat of abandonment to marry her. They further alleged the deceased was sterile, impotent, and congenitally sterile, like his brothers and sister who had no children. They also filed a counterclaim for P286,000 in cash, jewels, and properties allegedly retained and illegally disposed of by Matilde Menciano.

The defendants' witnesses testified that the deceased was so weak and sick that he could not talk coherently and intelligently. However, Father Edralin testified that he did not solemnize the marriage on a certain date because of the weak condition of Faustino Neri and waited about two days to perform the ceremony when the old man, although somewhat weak, had a clear mind. The Court observed that the signatures of the deceased in the exhibits were complicated, containing many flourishes, practically uniform, and showed no sign of trembling, which could not have been accomplished by a man who was unconscious or physically and intellectually incapacitated.

Regarding the counterclaim, Rodolfo Pelaez testified that the deceased delivered P250,000 to him in 1939 to be exchanged in a bank in Manila for larger denominations, and that in July 1944, he saw the sum in a wooden aparador, though he admitted on cross-examination that he was only informed of the money by his uncle. His testimony was contradicted by that of Paz Neri San Jose, his own mother and co-defendant, who stated that the deceased was not living in the house on Calle Del Mar, that he used to carry his money, jewels, and documents in a sack wherever he went to play monte, and that he left the sack in the house during an air raid but returned to fetch it afterward. Clotilde Galarrita de Labitad testified that Matilde Menciano showed her P284,000 and counted the money in her presence, which the Court found unbelievable.

• Invalidity of Marriage: The appellants argued that the marriage between the deceased and Matilde Menciano was invalid because the deceased was deprived of his free will due to his age, sickness, and the bombardment, and that Matilde Menciano forced him to marry her by means of deceit and threat of abandoning him.
• Impotency and Sterility: The appellants alleged that the deceased was sterile, unable to procreate, and impotent, being congenitally sterile like his brothers and sister, and thus could not have fathered the children.
• Misappropriation of Funds: The appellants claimed that Matilde Menciano retained and illegally disposed of P286,000 in cash, jewels, and certain properties belonging to the deceased, and filed a counterclaim for their recovery.

• Validity of Marriage: The appellees contended that the marriage was valid, being evidenced by official and public documents, and that the appellants' evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity.
• Legitimacy of Children: The appellees argued that Faustino Neri, Jr. is conclusively presumed legitimate under Rule 123, Section 68(c), being born more than 180 days after the marriage and less than 300 days after the death of the deceased, and that the evidence of impotency was insufficient to rebut the presumption.
• Denial of Counterclaim: The appellees maintained that the counterclaim for P286,000 and properties was not substantiated by satisfactory evidence, the testimony of the principal witness being hearsay and contradicted by the co-defendant's own testimony.

• Validity of Marriage: Whether the marriage between the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano was valid.
• Legitimacy of Children: Whether Faustino Neri, Jr. and Carlo Magno Neri are the legitimate children of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano.
• Misappropriation of Funds: Whether Matilde Menciano had in her possession and illegally disposed of the cash, jewels, and certain properties as alleged in the counterclaim.

• Validity of Marriage: Yes. The marriage was valid. Being evidenced by official and public documents, its validity can be assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony, which the appellants failed to present. The doctrine on testamentary capacity applies equally to the capacity to contract marriage, which requires the same mental condition.
• Legitimacy of Children: Yes, as to Faustino Neri, Jr. He is conclusively presumed legitimate under Rule 123, Section 68(c), being born 208 days after the marriage and less than 300 days after the death of the deceased, and the evidence of impotency was insufficient to overcome the presumption. As to Carlo Magno Neri, the trial court's finding that he was not acknowledged as a natural child was not reviewed because the plaintiffs did not appeal.
• Misappropriation of Funds: No. The counterclaim was not substantiated. The principal witness's testimony was hearsay and contradicted by the co-defendant's own testimony, and the other testimony was found unbelievable.

• Validity of Marriage: The Court held that the four exhibits evidencing the marriage are official and public documents, and their validity can be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony, citing Arroyo vs. Granada (18 Phil. 484) and Sy Tiangco vs. Pablo and Apao (59 Phil. 119). The defendants' witnesses testified too sweepingly, referring to a general period of sickness. Father Edralin's testimony that he waited about two days for the ceremony until the old man had a clear mind was strongly corroborated by the form of the deceased's signatures, which were complicated, contained many flourishes, were practically uniform, and showed no sign of trembling. The Court applied the doctrine in Torres et al. vs. Lopez (48 Phil. 772) and Sancho vs. Abella (58 Phil. 728) that neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of mind, nor senile debility is sufficient to show incapacity, and that the same mental condition required for testamentary capacity applies to the capacity to contract marriage. Consequently, the court below did not err in declaring the marriage valid.

• Legitimacy of Children: The Court applied Rule 123, Section 68(c), which provides that the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed legitimate if not born within 180 days immediately succeeding the marriage, or after the expiration of 300 days following its dissolution. Faustino Neri, Jr. was born 208 days after the marriage, satisfying the requirement. The only possible exception was the requisite of potency. The Court held that impotency, being an abnormal condition, should not be presumed; the presumption is in favor of potency. The best evidence of potency was Dr. Antonio Garcia's statement that the deceased produced a semen specimen using a condom and a woman, which shows conclusively that he was potent. The Court distinguished impotency from sterility, defining impotency as the physical inability to have sexual intercourse, while sterility is lack of fertility. Even considering the evidence of sterility, the examinations by Drs. Garcia and Marfori in 1940 were inconclusive, as a man may lack spermatozoa at one time but have them previously or subsequently. The Court noted that Dr. Marfori was a nephew-in-law of the deceased and that Cristobal Lopez testified the deceased never went to Cebu in December 1940, undermining Dr. Garcia's testimony. The conclusive presumption could not be overthrown by such inconclusive evidence.

• Misappropriation of Funds: The Court found that the trial court correctly concluded that the allegation of misappropriation was not substantiated. Rodolfo Pelaez's testimony that he saw P250,000 in a wooden aparador was hearsay, as he admitted he was only informed of the money by his uncle. His testimony was contradicted by that of Paz Neri San Jose, his own mother, who stated the deceased was not living in the house on Calle Del Mar, carried his money in a sack, and fetched the sack after the air raid. The Court found it unreasonable that the deceased would want to exchange money for bigger denominations in 1939 when he could have deposited it in a nearby bank. The testimony of Clotilde Galarrita de Labitad that Matilde Menciano counted P284,000 in her presence was found unbelievable, as she could have counted it without witnesses to avoid the danger of theft. No satisfactory evidence was presented regarding the jewels, and Matilde Menciano received only a few jewels given by the deceased for the benefit of the children.

• Conclusive Presumption of Legitimacy — Under Rule 123, Section 68(c), the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed legitimate if not born within the 180 days immediately succeeding the marriage, or after the expiration of 300 days following its dissolution. The Court applied this rule to Faustino Neri, Jr., who was born 208 days after the marriage, and held that the conclusive presumption could not be overthrown by inconclusive evidence of sterility.

• Impotency Distinguished from Sterility — Impotency is the physical inability to have sexual intercourse, while sterility is the lack of fertility in the reproductive elements. Impotency, being an abnormal condition, is not presumed; the presumption is in favor of potency. The Court held that the deceased's ability to produce a semen specimen using a condom and a woman conclusively showed potency, and the examinations for spermatozoa were inconclusive.

• Burden of Proof in Assailing Public Documents — Official and public documents, such as marriage contracts and applications for marriage licenses, can be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony. A mere denial or sweeping testimony referring to a general period of sickness is insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity.

• Capacity to Contract Marriage — The doctrine on testamentary capacity applies equally to the capacity to contract marriage, which requires the same mental condition. Neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of mind, nor senile debility is by itself sufficient to establish incapacity when there is sufficient evidence of mental sanity at the time of the act.

• "As all the above four exhibits are official and public documents, their validity can be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony." — This passage establishes the evidentiary standard applied to the marriage documents and is central to the Court's ruling on the validity of the marriage.

• "Although the above doctrine relates to testamentary capacity, there is no reason why it should not be applied to the capacity to contract marriage, which requires the same mental condition." — This passage articulates the Court's extension of the testamentary capacity doctrine to marriage, forming the basis for upholding the marriage's validity.

• "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency." — This passage states the presumption of potency and is critical to the Court's application of the conclusive presumption of legitimacy.

• "The above-quoted provision is so clear that it does not require interpretation or construction, but only application." — This passage refers to Rule 123, Section 68(c), and underscores the Court's straightforward application of the conclusive presumption of legitimacy to Faustino Neri, Jr.

• Arroyo vs. Granada, 18 Phil. 484 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that to justify setting aside an instrument solemnly executed and voluntarily delivered on the ground of fraud, the proof must be clear and convincing. Applied to the marriage documents in this case.

• Sy Tiangco vs. Pablo and Apao, 59 Phil. 119 — Cited for the rule that the execution of a document ratified before a notary public cannot be disproved by the mere denial of the alleged signer. Applied to the official marriage documents.

• Torres et al. vs. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772 — Cited for the doctrine that neither old age, physical infirmities, feebleness of mind, nor eccentricities are sufficient singly or jointly to show testamentary incapacity. Applied by analogy to the capacity to contract marriage.

• Sancho vs. Abella, 58 Phil. 728 — Cited for the rule that neither senile debility, deafness, blindness, nor poor memory is by itself sufficient to establish the presumption of lack of mental faculties when there is sufficient evidence of mental sanity at the time of the act. Applied to the marriage capacity issue.

• Rule 123, Section 68(c), Rules of Court — The conclusive presumption that the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent, is indisputably presumed legitimate if not born within the 180 days immediately succeeding the marriage, or after the expiration of 300 days following its dissolution. Applied to declare Faustino Neri, Jr. legitimate.

Paras, Bengzon, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Montemayor, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concurred.