G.R. No. 135216 . August 19, 1999.
TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB, as Special Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfredo E. Jacob, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for the Province of Camarines Sur, and JUAN F. TRIVINO as publisher of “Balalong,” respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tomasa Vda. de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of the deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special Administratrix of his estate based on a reconstructed Marriage Contract. Respondent Pedro Pilapil claimed to be the legally adopted son of Alfredo, presenting an Order dated July 18, 1961, issued by Judge Jose L. Moya, granting the petition for adoption. During the settlement of Alfredo’s estate, Pedro sought to intervene as the sole heir, questioning the validity of Tomasa’s marriage. Tomasa opposed and filed a complaint for injunction, questioning Pedro’s claim.
The trial court identified two main issues: (1) the validity of the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo, and (2) whether Pedro was the legally adopted son. Regarding the marriage, Tomasa claimed it was solemnized in 1975 by Msgr. Florencio C. Yllana but could not present the original Marriage Contract, alleging it was lost when given to Jose Centenera for registration. She presented a reconstructed Marriage Contract from 1978. The trial court noted irregularities: no copy was sent to the local civil registrar; Alfredo placed only a thumbmark on the contract despite signing an affidavit with his customary signature a day before; Msgr. Yllana’s affidavit did not mention giving the contract to Centenera, who was in Australia during the marriage; and no record of the marriage existed in the church records.
Regarding the adoption, Tomasa questioned the authenticity of Judge Moya’s signature on the 1961 Order. Two handwriting experts presented conflicting reports. The NBI’s Binevenido C. Albacea, using 13 specimen signatures, concluded the questioned signature was not genuine. Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui, a former NBI Chief Document Examiner, using 32 specimen signatures, concluded it was genuine. The trial court sustained Pagui’s findings, declared the signature genuine, and ruled in favor of Pedro, declaring the reconstructed Marriage Contract spurious and non-existent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo was valid.
2. Whether Pedro Pilapil is the legally adopted son of Alfredo Jacob.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.
1. On the Validity of the Marriage: The Court ruled that the contents of a document may be proven by competent evidence other than the document itself, provided its due execution and subsequent loss or destruction are established. However, the petitioner failed to establish the due execution and loss of the original marriage contract. The reconstructed contract was properly excluded under the best evidence rule due to the noted irregularities, such as the lack of a civil registry record, the dubious thumbmark, inconsistencies in the account of its loss, and the absence of a church record. Therefore, the marriage was not sufficiently proven.
2. On the Legality of the Adoption: The Court found that the authenticity of Judge Moya’s signature on the adoption order was established. It upheld the trial court’s preference for the expert opinion of Atty. Pagui, who used a larger set of specimen signatures and found the signature genuine. The Court also noted that the adoption order, being a public document, carried the presumption of regularity, which was not sufficiently rebutted. Consequently, Pedro Pilapil was declared the legally adopted son and sole heir of Alfredo Jacob.
The trial court’s rulings declaring the reconstructed marriage contract spurious, the adoption order genuine, lifting the injunction, and awarding attorney’s fees were affirmed.