MARTINEZ V. TAN 12 PHIL.

237
Facts
It is claimed by the plaintiff that what took place before the justice of the pe
ace, even admitting all that the witnesses for the defendant testified to, did n
ot constitute a legal marriage.Lower court ruled ruled in favor of the defendant
Angel Tan that Tan and Martinez were married on Sept. 25, 1907. Evidence suppor
ting this were: document signed by plaintiff, testimony of defendant that he and
plaintiff appeared before the justice of peace along with their witnesses (by B
allori and Esmero), testimony of Esmero that he, the defendant, plaintiff and Ba
llori appeared before the justice of peace and signed the document, the testimon
y of Ballori who also testified to the same effect, and the testimony of the bai
liff of court that defendant, appellant, justice of peace and two witnesses were
all present during the ceremony.
Issue
Whether or not the plaintiff and the defendant were married on the 25th day of S
eptember, 1907, before the justice of the peace
Held
The judgment of the court below acquitting the defendant of the complaint is aff
irmed.
The petition signed the plaintiff and defendant contained a positive statement t
hat they had mutually agreed to be married and they asked the justice of the pea
ce to solemnize the marriage. The document signed by the plaintiff, the defendan
t, and the justice of the peace, stated that they ratified under oath, before th
e justice, the contents of the petition and that witnesses of the marriage were
produced. A mortgage took place as shown by the certificate of the justice of th
e peace, signed by both contracting parties, which certificates gives rise to th
e presumption that the officer authorized the marriage in due form, the parties
before the justice of the peace declaring that they took each other as husband a
nd wife, unless the contrary is proved, such presumption being corroborated in t
his case by the admission of the woman to the effect that she had contracted the
marriage certified to in the document signed by her, which admission can only m
ean the parties mutually agreed to unite in marriage when they appeared and sign
ed the said document which so states before the justice of the peace who authori
zed the same. It was proven that both the plaintiff and the defendant were able
to read and write the Spanish language, and that they knew the contents of the d
ocument which they signed; and under the circumstances in this particular case w
ere satisfied, and so hold, that what took place before the justice of the peace
on this occasion amounted to a legal marriage.