G.R. No. 185374 March 11, 2015
SIMPLICIA CERCADO-SIGA and LIGAYA CERCADO-BELISON, Petitioners, vs. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C. ARABIT, LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR and VIOLETA C. BINADAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga and Ligaya Cercado-Belison filed a complaint against respondents, seeking to nullify the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of the deceased Vicente Cercado, Sr. and Leonora Ditablan. Petitioners claimed to be the legitimate children of Vicente Cercado, Sr. and Benita Castillo, who were allegedly married on October 9, 1929, in Pililla, Rizal, as evidenced by a “Contrato Matrimonial.” They asserted that a parcel of land acquired by their father during his lifetime with Benita was conjugal property. Upon Vicente’s death, they, as heirs, owned the property. They argued that the subsequent marriage of Vicente to Leonora Ditablan in 1977 was bigamous and void due to the subsisting prior marriage, and thus the extrajudicial settlement executed solely by Leonora’s children (respondents) was invalid. To prove the marriage of Vicente and Benita, petitioners presented the Contrato Matrimonial, a certification from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, certifications of non-production of birth records, a baptismal certificate, and a joint affidavit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the extrajudicial settlement null and void and awarding shares in the property. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, holding that the Contrato Matrimonial, being a private document, was not properly authenticated and was thus inadmissible in evidence, and that the other evidence presented was insufficient to prove the marriage or filiation.

ISSUE

Whether the Contrato Matrimonial and the accompanying evidence presented by petitioners are sufficient to prove the fact of marriage between Vicente Cercado, Sr. and Benita Castillo.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Contrato Matrimonial is a private document, not a public one. A church marriage contract, by itself, is not a public document. Public documents are those executed by a notary public or other competent official with the required formalities. The Contrato Matrimonial in question was not authenticated by a notary public or a priest acting as a civil official. It was merely a private writing prepared by the church. As a private document offered as authentic, its due execution and authenticity must be proved under Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court, which petitioners failed to do. The certification from the Iglesia Filipina Independiente did not cure this defect, as it merely stated the church’s acceptance of the original marriage contract without attesting to its authenticity or execution. The document could not be considered an “ancient document” under Rule 132, Section 21, as the requirements for ancient documents—that they be more than thirty years old, produced from a custody in which they would naturally be found if genuine, and unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion—were not established. The baptismal certificate is not conclusive proof of filiation. The joint affidavit is hearsay evidence. The presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation was not sufficiently established. Therefore, petitioners failed to prove by preponderance of evidence the existence of the marriage between Vicente and Benita. Consequently, they failed to establish their status as legitimate heirs and their cause of action to nullify the extrajudicial settlement.