GR L 13114; (November, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13114; November 25, 1960
ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ESTHER PERALTA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
This is a direct appeal from the Court of First Instance of Davao. Plaintiff Elenita Ledesma Silva, assisted by her husband Saturnino R. Silva, sued Esther Peralta to enjoin her from representing herself as “Mrs. Esther Peralta Silva” and to claim damages. Esther Peralta counterclaimed for damages, alleging that Saturnino Silva, during the Japanese occupation in 1944-1945, courted her while representing himself as single, proposed marriage, and they lived together as husband and wife, resulting in the birth of a child. She claimed they were married on January 14, 1945, by a Father Cote, with a justice of the peace also present, but no marriage documents were executed. Saturnino Silva was, at that time, already married to Prescilla Isabel (an Australian), whom he later divorced before marrying plaintiff Elenita Ledesma in 1948. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and awarded damages to Esther Peralta.
ISSUE
Whether a valid marriage was contracted between Saturnino Silva and Esther Peralta.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court found that no valid marriage took place. The evidence presented by Esther Peralta to prove the marriage was insufficient, uncertain, and incoherent. Her testimonies were contradictory: initially stating a justice of the peace solemnized the marriage, then later claiming it was Father Cote with the justice of the peace merely present. She also previously declared in a written statement that their marriage was delayed and they began living together in December 1944, expecting to marry after liberation, and in a sworn affidavit for a support case, she identified herself as “single” and as a “common-law-wife.” Her witness, Atty. Juan Quijano, testified he was present when Silva proposed but did not confirm a solemnized marriage. No marriage documents existed. These circumstances, coupled with Saturnino Silva’s denial, overcame any presumption of marriage. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint but modified the damages awarded, finding the basis for moral damages not in the original deceit but in Silva’s subsequent harassment through multiple lawsuits in 1954.