BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
ELOISA MALIWAT-MELAD VS. AMANCIO REYES MELAD, G.R. NO. 267998 (APRIL 23, 2025): MARRIAGE STILL VALID IF EITHER OR BOTH OF THE PARTIES BELIEVED IN GOOD FAITH THAT THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER HAD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OFFICIATE MARRIAGE
Petitioner Eloisa Maliwat-Melad (“Eloisa”) questions the ruling of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated October 27, 2022 and Resolution dated May 17, 2023 which affirmed the Decision dated March 1, 2021 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11 (Family Court) of Tarlac City denying the petition for nullity of marriage between petitioner and respondent Amancio Reyes Melad (“Amancio”).
On March 23, 1990, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, Tarlac. Their marriage contract showed that their marriage was solemnized by a certain Judge Conrado De Gracia (“Judge De Gracia”). Their union produced three (3) children.
Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems during their marriage. Eloisa consulted her lawyer for the possibility of filing a legal separation. Eloisa presented her marriage certificate to her lawyer who claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia. Upon showing the pictures of the marriage ceremony to her lawyer, the latter claimed told her that he noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures and the person who appeared to be the solemnizing officer was a certain Rosalio Florendo (“Florendo”), whom he also knew being a co-member of the Rotary Club of Tarlac City. Eloisa alleged that while she arranged the ceremony, she did not know Judge De Gracia and thought all along that Florendo was Judge De Gracia.
Eloisa filed a petition before the trial court to have her marriage with Amancio declared void for lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. After exchange of pleadings and trial, the trial court denied Eloisa’s petition. The trial court held that the testimonies of Eloisa and his witnesses did not sufficiently establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo, and who among the two actually officiated the marriage of Eloisa and Amancio. In any event, Eloisa admitted that she believed that Judge De Gracia was the one who officiated the marriage. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, hence, the recourse before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court denied Eloisa’s petition citing Article 35 (2) which provides for one of the exclusive grounds to declare marriages void from the very beginning to wit: “(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so.”
The Supreme Court restated the formal requisites of a valid marriage as provided in Article 3 of the Family Code, to wit: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and (3) a marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husbands and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. The Court also cited Article 4 of the Family Code which provides that “The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).”
The Supreme Court also cited Article 7 of the Family Code which enumerates those who may solemnize marriage which includes any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction. In the instant case, the court held that the marriage certificate shows that the marriage took place in Tarlac City and was solemnized by Judge De Gracia, a judge of Tarlac City. The solemnizing officer, being then an incumbent trial court judge of Tarlac City, had the legal authority to officiate the marriage of Eloisa and Amancio.
Eloisa, however, argues that the one who solemnized the marriage was Florendo and not Judge De Gracia. Eloisa claims that Florendo was not authorized to solemnize marriage, hence, her marriage to Amancio should be declared void ab initio. The Supreme Court rejected Eloisa’s contention and held:
“Foremost, all petitioner’s witnesses failed to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo. Petitioner had no personal knowledge to distinguish the persons of Judge De Gracia or Florendo. She even admitted that she thought the person who solemnized the marriage was Judge De Gracia. She did not present any evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.
“Likewise, Atty. Cunanan, petitioner’s lawyer who testified for her, claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia because he had previously visited him in his chambers and that they belonged to a religious group. Atty. Cunanan also contended that he and Florendo belonged to the same organization, that is, the Rotary Club of Tarlac City. Yet, aside from his bare allegations and despite claims of personal connection with the individuals in question, he did not present other documentary or testimonial evidence to buttress his claims. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Atty. Cunanan’s claims that he personally knew Judge De Gracia were not only unsubstantiated but also self-serving; x x x Finally, Quilana established that he personally attended the marriage ceremony, but he also admitted that he did not know what Judge De Gracia or Florendo looked like.”
The Supreme Court also highlighted the fact that Judge De Gracia’s name and signature appeared in the Marriage Certificate which authenticity was never assailed. The Court held that 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 for which, against Eloisa’s self-serving allegations, must prevail.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that the case falls under Article 35 (2) of the Family Code wherein the marriage is still valid even if the solemnizing officer was not authorized to solemnize marriage but either or both of the parties honestly believed that he or she had the legal authority to do so. “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 do solemnize the marriage. She had never doubted the authority of the solemnizing officer. It was only in 2017 that she sought legal advice on how to be legally separated from her husband, wherein she was notified by her lawyer that Judge De Gracia was not the actual person who officiated the marriage. However, as discussed, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan palpably failed to establish the veracity of their allegations.”