GR L 8218; (December, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8218 December 15, 1955
EULOGIA BIGORNIA DE CARDENAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONCIO CARDENAS and FLORENCIA RIÑEN, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas, filed an action to annul the marriage between the defendants, Leoncio Cardenas and Florencia Riñen, contracted on April 19, 1948, on the ground that Leoncio Cardenas was still legally married to her from their marriage on July 10, 1927. The defendants, in their answer, pleaded lack of knowledge regarding the 1927 marriage and the authority of the minister who solemnized it, and asserted that Florencia Riñen married in honest belief of capacity. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts which established: (1) the 1927 marriage before Minister George W. Wright, evidenced by a marriage contract; (2) the 1948 marriage before a Justice of the Peace; (3) Leoncio Cardenas’ sworn admission of the 1927 marriage; (4) U.S. Veterans Administration recognition of Eulogia as the legal wife; (5) no divorce, separation, or annulment of the 1927 marriage; and (6) that the minister’s authorization to solemnize marriage did not appear in Bureau of Public Libraries records, his whereabouts were unknown, and the Manila Local Civil Registrar had no record of the marriage license. Based on this stipulation, the trial court declared the 1948 marriage null and void ab initio.
ISSUE
Whether the marriage between Leoncio Cardenas and Eulogia Bigornia in 1927 was valid, thereby rendering his subsequent marriage to Florencia Riñen in 1948 null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, declaring the 1948 marriage null and void. The Court held that a marriage license was not required under General Orders No. 68, the law in force in 1927. The marriage certificate (Exhibit A) gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities, including the minister’s authority to solemnize the marriage, were complied with. The burden to prove the minister’s lack of authority lay with the defendants, which they failed to discharge. The Court noted that Article 88 of the new Civil Code, which prohibits annulment judgments based on stipulation of facts, was inapplicable as collusion was remote due to the conflicting interests of the two wives, and the marriage certificates attached were evidence, not merely stipulations.