Tolentino vs. Paras

A judicial declaration of marital status is a proper remedy to lay the basis for the correction of an entry in the civil registry, and a prior conviction for bigamy upon the accused's own plea furnishes the necessary proof of the existence of the first marriage and the nullity of the second marriage. The second marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is void from the beginning and of no force and effect, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage.

The petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, married Amado Tolentino on July 31, 1943. Amado subsequently contracted a second marriage with private respondent Maria Clemente on November 1, 1948, while his first marriage was still subsisting. The petitioner charged Amado with bigamy in Criminal Case No. 2768 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II, and Amado pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly. After serving his prison sentence, Amado continued to live with private respondent until his death on July 25, 1974, and his death certificate carried the entry "Name of Surviving Spouse — Maria Clemente."

Serafia G. Tolentino married Amado Tolentino on July 31, 1943. While that marriage was still subsisting, Amado contracted a second marriage with Maria Clemente at Paombong, Bulacan, on November 1, 1948. The petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy in Criminal Case No. 2768 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II, and upon Amado's plea of guilty, the Court sentenced him to suffer the corresponding penalty. After Amado had served the prison sentence imposed on him, he continued to live with private respondent until his death on July 25, 1974. His death certificate carried the entry "Name of Surviving Spouse — Maria Clemente."

In Special Proceedings No. 1587-M for Correction of Entry, the petitioner sought to correct the name of the surviving spouse in the death certificate from "Maria Clemente" to "Serafia G. Tolentino." The lower Court dismissed the petition "for lack of the proper requisites under the law" and indicated the need for a more detailed proceeding. Conformably thereto, the petitioner filed a case against private respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her declaration as the lawful surviving spouse and the correction of the death certificate of Amado.

In an Order dated October 21, 1976, respondent Court, upon private respondent's instance, dismissed the case, stating: (1) the correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is marital relationship; (2) the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code, publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no such publication; and (3) in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding No. 1587-M, which this Court has already dismissed, for lack of the proper requisites under the law. The Court declared all other motions moot and academic.

• Propriety of the Remedy: Petitioner argued that although her ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate. The suit below is a proper remedy of an adversary character, as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding.
• Publication Requirement: Petitioner maintained that the publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary, for no other parties are involved, and that even assuming this is a proceeding under Rule 108, it was the Court that was called upon to order the publication, but it did not.
• Effect of Bigamy Conviction: Petitioner argued that considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased, and that the second marriage contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect.

• Improper Remedy: Private respondent, through counsel, moved for dismissal on the ground that the correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is marital relationship.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Private respondent argued that the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code, publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no such publication.
• Prior Dismissal: Private respondent argued that the subject matter of the case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding No. 1587-M, which the Court has already dismissed, for lack of the proper requisites under the law.

• Propriety of the Remedy: Whether the suit for declaration as the lawful surviving spouse and correction of the death certificate is a proper remedy.
• Publication Requirement: Whether publication under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is necessary in this case.
• Proof of Marital Status: Whether the prior conviction of Amado for bigamy upon his own plea furnishes the necessary proof of the petitioner's marital status and the nullity of the second marriage.

• Propriety of the Remedy: Yes. The suit below is a proper remedy. It is of an adversary character as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding, and a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it.
• Publication Requirement: No. The publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary, for no other parties are involved. Publication is required to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established.
• Proof of Marital Status: Yes. Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. The second marriage contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage.

• Propriety of the Remedy: The Court reasoned that although the petitioner's ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate. The suit below is a proper remedy of an adversary character, as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding. A claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Private respondent, as the individual most affected, is a party defendant and has appeared to contest the petition and defend her interests. The Local Civil Registrar is also a party defendant. The Court further noted that in the ultimate analysis, courts are not concerned so much with the form of actions as with their substance, citing City of Manila vs. Gawkee, 71 Phil. 195, 199 (1940).
• Publication Requirement: The Court held that the publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary, for no other parties are involved. After all, publication is required to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, citing Uy Sioco vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 692 (1966). Besides, even assuming that this is a proceeding under Rule 108, it was the Court that was called upon to order the publication under Rule 108, Sec. 4, but it did not.
• Proof of Marital Status: The Court reasoned that considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage, citing People vs. Samson, 7 SCRA 478 (1963). The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect, pursuant to Art. 80 (4), Civil Code, and People vs. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957). No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. The Court concluded that it can be safely concluded, without need of further proof nor remand to the Court below, that private respondent is not the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, but petitioner. Rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may, therefore, be validly made, citing Alisoso vs. Lastimoso, 14 SCRA 210 (1965). While documents such as death and birth certificates are public and entries therein are presumed to be correct, such presumption is merely disputable and will have to yield to more positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy, citing In re Florentino Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 (1974).

• Adversary Proceeding for Correction of Civil Registry — A suit for declaration of marital status to lay the basis for correction of an entry in the civil registry is a proper adversary remedy, as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding, where a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the petitioner's suit was proper because private respondent, as the individual most affected, was a party defendant and had appeared to contest the petition, and the Local Civil Registrar was also a party defendant.
• Publication Requirement Under Rule 108 — Publication under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary where no other parties are involved, since publication is required to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the publication requirement was not an absolute necessity in this case.
• Bigamy Conviction as Proof of Marriage — A conviction for bigamy upon the accused's own plea furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of the accused and the first spouse, as there is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Amado's conviction for bigamy proved the petitioner's status as his lawful spouse.
• Void Marriage Requires No Judicial Decree — A second marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that Amado's second marriage to private respondent was void, and that the petitioner, not private respondent, was the surviving spouse.
• Disputable Presumption of Correctness of Civil Registry Entries — While documents such as death and birth certificates are public and entries therein are presumed to be correct, such presumption is merely disputable and will have to yield to more positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the erroneous entry in the death certificate could be corrected.

• "Although petitioner's ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased, Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate of said deceased. The suit below is a proper remedy. It is of an adversary character as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding." — This passage articulates the Court's ruling on the propriety of the remedy, distinguishing an adversary proceeding from a summary one and establishing the basis for the petitioner's suit.
• "Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage." — This passage states the controlling doctrine that a bigamy conviction upon the accused's own plea serves as proof of the first marriage's existence.
• "The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage." — This passage defines the doctrine that a void marriage requires no judicial decree to establish its invalidity, which was central to the Court's conclusion that the petitioner was the surviving spouse.
• "While document such as death and birth certificates, are public and entries therein are presumed to be correct, such presumption is merely disputable and will have to yield to more positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy." — This passage states the doctrine on the disputable presumption of correctness of civil registry entries, which supported the order for correction of the death certificate.

• Uy Sioco vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 692 (1966) — Cited as authority for the proposition that publication under Rule 108 is not absolutely necessary where no other parties are involved, since publication is required to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection against the right sought to be established.
• City of Manila vs. Gawkee, 71 Phil. 195, 199 (1940) — Cited for the principle that courts are not concerned so much with the form of actions as with their substance, supporting the Court's liberal approach to the petitioner's remedy.
• People vs. Samson, 7 SCRA 478 (1963) — Cited for the doctrine that there is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage, supporting the Court's reliance on Amado's bigamy conviction.
• People vs. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957) — Cited for the proposition that a second marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is null and void from the beginning, supporting the Court's conclusion on the invalidity of the second marriage.
• Alisoso vs. Lastimoso, 14 SCRA 210 (1965) — Cited for the proposition that rectification of an erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may be validly made, supporting the Court's order for correction.
• In re Florentino Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 (1974) — Cited for the doctrine that while entries in public documents such as death and birth certificates are presumed correct, such presumption is merely disputable and yields to more positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy.

• Article 412, Civil Code — The provision governing the correction of entries in the civil registry. The Court applied it in the context of the petitioner's ultimate objective of correcting the death certificate entry, while holding that a prior judicial declaration of marital status was the proper remedy to lay the basis for such correction.
• Article 108, Civil Code — The provision requiring publication in cases for correction of entries in the civil registry. The Court held that publication was not absolutely necessary where no other parties are involved, and that even assuming the proceeding fell under Rule 108, it was the Court that was called upon to order the publication but failed to do so.
• Rule 108, Rules of Court — The procedural rule governing the correction of entries in the civil registry. The Court applied it in determining the necessity of publication and the proper remedy for correction of the death certificate.
• Article 80 (4), Civil Code — The provision declaring a second marriage void when contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse. The Court applied it in holding that Amado's second marriage to private respondent was null and void from the beginning.

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred. Relova, J., was on leave.