Cercado-Siga vs. Cercado, Jr.

A church-issued marriage contract or “Contrato Matrimonial” executed after the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 is a private document, not a public writing; its due execution and authenticity must be proved in accordance with the rules governing private documents. Even if the document is more than thirty years old, it cannot be admitted as an ancient document unless it is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and the party offering it bears the burden of establishing such proper custody.

Vicente Cercado, Sr. was alleged to have married Benita Castillo on 9 October 1929 in a rite officiated by the Iglesia Filipina Independiente in Pililla, Rizal. After Vicente’s death, respondents — children of Vicente and Leonora Ditablan from a marriage celebrated on 27 June 1977 — executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Vicente and Leonora. Petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga and Ligaya Cercado-Belison claimed to be the legitimate children of Vicente and Benita. They assailed the settlement as void, contending that the marriage between Vicente and Leonora was bigamous because of the subsisting prior marriage. Civil registry records were largely unavailable because old records of birth had been destroyed by fire or war, prompting petitioners to rely on a church-issued Contrato Matrimonial and ancillary documents to prove the first marriage and their filiation.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga and Ligaya Cercado-Belison filed a complaint against respondents Vicente Cercado, Jr., Manuela C. Arabit, Lolita C. Basco, Maria C. Aralar, and Violeta C. Binadas, and the Registrar of Deeds of Binangonan, Rizal, seeking the annulment of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the deceased Vicente Cercado, Sr. and Leonora Ditablan, the correction of entry regarding Vicente’s marital status, and the recovery of damages.
• The Claimed First Marriage and Filiation: Petitioners alleged that they are the legitimate children of Vicente Cercado, Sr. and Benita Castillo, who were married on 9 October 1929 before the Iglesia Filipina Independiente in Pililla, Rizal. To prove the marriage, they offered: (1) the Contrato Matrimonial or marriage contract issued by the church; (2) a certification from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente acknowledging the original marriage contract; (3) certifications from the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Pililla that no records of birth of Simplicia and Ligaya existed; (4) the baptismal certificate of Simplicia; and (5) a Joint Affidavit of two disinterested persons attesting that Ligaya was the child of Vicente and Benita.
• The Subsequent Marriage and Extrajudicial Settlement: Respondents claimed to be the legitimate heirs of Vicente Cercado, Sr. and Leonora Ditablan, who were married on 27 June 1977 as evidenced by a marriage certificate registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Binangonan. Sometime before September 1998, respondents executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Vicente and Leonora covering Lot No. 7627 Cad 609-D, a 6,032-square-meter property in Binangonan, Rizal, acquired by Vicente by gratuitous title. Petitioners learned of the settlement through a newspaper notice.
• Trial Court Proceedings: Respondents denied petitioners’ status, asserting that petitioners failed to present their birth certificates to prove filiation and that the document showing the marriage to Benita was not a certified true copy. The RTC upheld the validity of the marriage between Vicente and Benita based on the Contrato Matrimonial, declared Vicente’s subsequent marriage to Leonora bigamous and void, nullified the extrajudicial settlement, and partitioned the property among both sets of heirs.
• Appellate Review: The Court of Appeals found the Contrato Matrimonial to be a private document that was not properly authenticated. The appellate court likewise declined to treat the baptismal certificate as proof of filiation, and rejected the Joint Affidavit as hearsay because the affiants were not presented in court. For failure of petitioners to establish their cause of action by preponderance of evidence, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling in its entirety.

• Nature of the Contrato Matrimonial: Petitioners argued that the Contrato Matrimonial is a public document because it was required by law to be recorded in the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office. They contended that the copy in their possession was a duplicate original, which should be regarded as an original under Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, and thus admissible without accounting for the non-production of the original.
• Ancient Document Exception: Assuming the marriage contract is a private document, petitioners maintained that it met the requisites of an ancient document under Section 21, Rule 132 — it was more than thirty years old and unblemished — and therefore should have been excepted from the requirement of authentication.
• Other Evidence of Marriage and Filiation: Petitioners insisted that the certification from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, the baptismal certificate, the Joint Affidavit of two disinterested persons, and the open and public cohabitation of Vicente and Benita, taken together with the presumption of marriage, constituted strong evidence proving the marriage and their filiation, even if individually insufficient.
• Collateral Attack on Bigamous Marriage: Petitioners argued that the marriage of Vicente and Leonora was bigamous and void, and its nullity could be collaterally attacked in any proceeding where its validity was asserted; therefore, the trial court had authority to pass upon its validity.

• Character of the Marriage Contract: Respondents countered that the Contrato Matrimonial is a private document, and the mere fact that marriages are required by law to be registered in the civil registrar does not convert church-issued documents into public documents.
• Probative Value of the Baptismal Certificate: Respondents asserted that the baptismal certificate is a private document that only proves the administration of the sacrament of baptism, not the truth of the declarations regarding filiation made therein.
• Insufficiency of Civil Registry Certifications: Respondents argued that the certifications from the local civil registrar stating that there was no record of the petitioners’ birth on file did not prove filiation; they merely established the absence of such records.
• Hearsay Nature of the Joint Affidavit: Respondents objected to the Joint Affidavit on the ground that the two affiants were never presented on the witness stand, rendering their statements inadmissible hearsay.

• Admissibility of the Contrato Matrimonial: Whether a church-issued “Contrato Matrimonial” executed after the effectivity of General Orders No. 68 and Act No. 190 is a public document, a duplicate original, or an ancient document, such that it may be admitted without authentication to prove the fact of marriage.
• Proof of Filiation: Whether the baptismal certificate, the certifications of non-production of birth records, and the Joint Affidavit of disinterested persons sufficiently established petitioners’ filiation to Vicente and Benita, thereby conferring upon them a cause of action to challenge the extrajudicial settlement.
• Validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement: Whether petitioners’ failure to adduce competent evidence of the first marriage and their filiation precluded them from obtaining a declaration that the extrajudicial settlement was null and void.

• Admissibility of the Contrato Matrimonial: The Contrato Matrimonial was correctly classified as a private document. Under the settled rule in U.S. v. Evangelista, church registries of marriages made subsequent to General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer public writings kept by duly authorized public officials; they are private writings, and their authenticity must be proved as are all other private writings. Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires authentication either by the person who executed the document, the person before whom execution was acknowledged, a witness to its execution, or a person who thereafter recognized the signatures. Petitioners presented none of these; Simplicia testified only that her mother gave her the document but was not present at its execution and could not identify handwriting because she was illiterate. The claim that the document was a duplicate original failed because an unsigned and uncertified carbon copy or duplicate is not competent evidence without attestation of its accuracy. Nor did the document qualify as an ancient document: while it was more than thirty years old and showed no signs of alteration, it was not produced from proper custody. Proper custody requires that the document come from a place where it would naturally be found if genuine; here, Simplicia failed to prove her own filiation to Vicente and Benita, and thus could not be considered an heir in whose possession the marriage contract would reasonably be expected to reside. The absence of the document from its proper depository was not satisfactorily accounted for. Consequently, the Contrato Matrimonial was inadmissible to prove the first marriage.
• Proof of Filiation: The baptismal certificate was held to be evidence only of the administration of the sacrament of baptism on the dates specified, not of the veracity of the declarations therein regarding parentage. The Joint Affidavit of two disinterested persons attesting to Ligaya’s birth to Vicente and Benita was correctly disregarded as hearsay because the affiants were never presented in court to be cross-examined. The certifications from the local civil registrar simply stated that birth records from 1930 to 1946 were destroyed or lost, and the accompanying advice to verify with the National Statistics Office was not heeded; no NSO certification was offered. Taken together, this evidence was insufficient to establish petitioners’ filiation.
• Validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement: Because petitioners failed to prove the marriage between Vicente and Benita by the required quantum of evidence, they did not establish a cause of action for the declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Vicente and Leonora. The petition for review was therefore denied.

• Church-Issued Marital Documents as Private Writings — After the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the enactment of Act No. 190, church registries of births, marriages, and deaths are no longer classified as public writings; they are private documents. Their authenticity must consequently be proved in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable to private writings, namely, by the testimony of a person who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Failure to present any such authenticating witness renders the document inadmissible.
• Ancient Document Rule (Section 21, Rule 132) — For a private document to be admitted as an ancient document without proof of due execution and authenticity, three requisites must concur: (1) the document must be more than thirty years old; (2) it must be produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and (3) it must be unblemished by any alteration or circumstance of suspicion. Proper custody does not require a single absolute place of deposit, but the actual custody must be reasonably and probably accounted for so as to impress the mind that the instrument is genuine. A party who cannot establish their legal relationship to the purported signatories fails to show the required proper custody.
• Baptismal Certificate as Evidence of Filiation — A baptismal certificate is evidence only to prove the administration of the sacrament on the dates therein specified; it does not prove the truth of the declarations and statements contained in the certificate concerning the parentage or relationship of the person baptized.
• Hearsay Nature of Ex Parte Affidavits — An affidavit executed by persons who are not presented in court to testify on its contents is inadmissible hearsay and has no probative value to prove the facts asserted therein.

• “As early as in the case of U.S. v. Evangelista, it has been settled that church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved as are all other private writings in accordance with the rules of evidence.” — This passage defines the status of church-issued marital documents and the authentication requirement.
• “Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they come from a place from which they might reasonably be expected to be found. Custody is proper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. If a document is found where it would not properly and naturally be, its absence from the proper place must be satisfactorily accounted for.” — The Court articulates the test for the custody element of the ancient document rule.
• “The baptismal certificate … has long been held as evidence only to prove the administration of the sacrament on the dates therein specified, but not the veracity of the declarations therein stated with respect to her kinsfolk.” — The Court restates the limited probative value of baptismal certificates in establishing filiation.

• U.S. v. Evangelista, 29 Phil. 215 (1915) — Controlling precedent establishing that church registries of marriages made after General Orders No. 68 and Act No. 190 are private, not public, writings.
• Vallarta v. Court of Appeals, 246 Phil. 596 (1988) — Followed for the rule that an unsigned and uncertified document purporting to be a duplicate original is not competent evidence.
• Bartolome v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 262 Phil. 113 (1990) — Distinguished; while custody was proper when the ancient document was presented by an heir who would naturally keep it, petitioners in the instant case failed to prove their heirship and thus could not establish proper custody.
• Heirs of Cabais v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 681 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that a baptismal certificate proves only the administration of the sacrament, not the veracity of declarations of parentage.
• Macua Vda. de Avenido v. Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, 22 January 2014, 714 SCRA 447 — Referenced in footnote as a recent case concerning the probative value of a church-issued marriage contract.

• General Orders No. 68 (18 December 1899) — The Marriage Law promulgated during the American occupation which authorized ministers of the gospel to solemnize marriages; after its effectivity, church registries of marriages ceased to be considered public writings.
• Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) — Passed after General Orders No. 68, it confirmed that church registries were no longer public documents and had to be proved as private writings.
• Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the proof of private documents; requires that the due execution and authenticity of a private document be proved by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Applied to exclude the unauthenticated Contrato Matrimonial.
• Section 21, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the ancient document exception; enumerates the three requisites (age, proper custody, absence of suspicion). Applied to reject the argument that the marriage contract could be admitted without authentication.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.