Marriage Solemnized
Eloisa Maliwat and Amancio Reyes Melad were married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City. The marriage contract listed Judge Conrado De Gracia as the solemnizing officer.
1990 to 2017 - Marital Union
Eloisa and Amancio remained married, having three children, but encountered various marital problems.
2017 - Discrepancy Discovered
Eloisa consulted her lawyer, Atty. Eduardo Cunanan, about filing a legal separation case. Atty. Cunanan, upon seeing photos of the ceremony, noticed the person who officiated was Rosalio Florendo (a Rotary Club member) and not Judge De Gracia, contrary to the marriage contract.
Petition for Nullity Filed (RTC)
Eloisa filed a petition with the RTC, Branch 11, Family Court, Tarlac City (Civil Case No. 808-2018) to declare her marriage void due to the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. Amancio failed to file a responsive pleading.
RTC Denies Petition
The Regional Trial Court denied Eloisa's petition, ruling that she failed to prove, by sufficient evidence, the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo, or who actually officiated the marriage. The RTC noted that Eloisa admitted believing Judge De Gracia was the solemnizing officer.
Court of Appeals Affirms RTC
The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 117590) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that Eloisa failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption of the marriage contract's validity.
CA Denies Motion for Reconsideration
The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying Eloisa's motion for reconsideration, leading to her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision Promulgated
The Supreme Court (G.R. No. 267998) DISMISSED Eloisa's petition, AFFIRMING the CA's ruling. The Court held that:
-
Eloisa failed to prove the solemnizing officer's lack of legal authority by clear and convincing evidence.
-
Even if the solemnizing officer lacked authority, the marriage is saved by the exception under Article 35(2) of the Family Code because Eloisa had a genuine belief, in good faith, that the officer (Judge De Gracia) had the legal authority to solemnize the marriage.
Eloisa Maliwat-Melad v. Amancio Reyes Melad
G.R. No. 267998, April 23, 2025
SECOND DIVISION
Lopez, M., J.
DOCTRINE:
A marriage solemnized by an alleged unauthorized officer cannot be declared void ab initio for lack of authority if the party challenging the marriage fails to discharge the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, to rebut the prima facie presumption of validity accorded to the marriage contract, especially when the party themselves consistently believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer was legally authorized.
FACTS:
Eloisa Maliwat-Melad (Petitioner) and Amancio Reyes Melad (Private Respondent) were married on March 23, 1990, at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City. Their marriage contract indicated that the marriage was solemnized by a Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia). In 2017, when seeking legal separation, Eloisa’s lawyer reviewed her marriage pictures and claimed the solemnizing officer was actually a certain Rosalio Florendo, a person allegedly not authorized to solemnize marriages. Eloisa, however, admitted that she had always believed the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia.
Eloisa filed a petition to declare the marriage void due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. During trial, Eloisa and a witness, Quilana, testified that they did not know what Judge De Gracia looked like. Eloisa’s lawyer, Atty. Cunanan, identified the solemnizing officer in the pictures as Florendo, but the courts noted his testimony was self-serving and unsubstantiated. The RTC and the CA denied the petition, finding that Eloisa failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of the public document (the marriage contract) and its entries, which included Judge De Gracia’s name and signature as the solemnizing officer.
ISSUE(S):
- Was the petitioner able to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the marriage was void ab initio for lack of authority of the solemnizing officer
- Does the marriage fall under the exception to void marriages under Article 35(2) of the Family Code?
RULING:
1. Was the petitioner able to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the marriage was void ab initio for lack of authority of the solemnizing officer?
NO. It is a fundamental legal precept that a person who alleges must prove his or her allegations… In this case, the identities of either Judge De Gracia or Florendo could have been established by numerous documentary or testimonial evidence of various competent and disinterested persons. . . The marriage contract, being a public document, is not only a prima facie proof of marriage, but is also a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Hence, as against the petitioners’ self-serving allegations, the marriage contract must prevail.
More importantly, it is settled in jurisprudence that an officer or clergyman who officiated the marriage is presumed to have legal authority to do so, absent sufficient contrary evidence. As explained by the Court in Alcantara vs. Alcantara . . . the authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary. Thus, since petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer, the marriage is valid.
2. Does the marriage fall under the exception to void marriages under Article 35(2) of the Family Code?
YES. Article 35(2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by a person with no legal authority are considered void, except if one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage. . . Here, the records show that petitioner had always believed in good faith, since the inception of her marriage in the year 1990, that the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia—a person who had the legal authority to solemnize the marriage.
Thus, petitioner’s case falls under the exception of void marriages as provided in Article 35(2) of the Family Code. Petitioner’s marriage with private respondent is valid owing to her genuine belief, in good faith, that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate her marriage with private respondent.