Payad, Azanith Ann B.

11583371 G04
Legal Opinion Midterms
Dear Ms. Teresa Campos,
Greetings!
Here is the legal opinion that you requested. The facts, based
on my understanding, are as follows:
You and Roy Lopez are about to get married next month. Roy
Lopez has an illegitimate child in his past relationship with Ester
Salva. Roy and Ester did not get married but they are currently in
good terms and Roy even gives support to his child. Last month, you
received by mail copies of a marriage license issued by the Civil
Registrars office of Imus, Cavite, dated September 17, 2005 in favor
of Roy and Ester and a certificate of marriage showing that they were
married at the office of some religious pastor at the back of Manila
City Hall on August 4, 2005. The documents were obviously falsified
and the signature of Roy is forged since Roy and Ester never got
married. Ester confessed that she paid for someones help to obtain
those falsified documents in 2005. Esters father is now threatening to
file a case for bigamy against Roy if he marries you.
Based on our previous conversation, your primary concern is
the validity of your upcoming marriage to Roy Lopez despite the
existence of the marriage license and certificate of marriage between
Roy Lopez and Ester Salva. Hence, we need to consider the
following: a.) whether or not there is an existing valid marriage
between Roy and Ester; b.) what actions should be taken to relieve
you and Roy from any possible charges such as bigamy; and, in
connection to Roys illegitimate child, c.) what are the remedies
needed to protect your personal properties.
The best evidence of marriage is the marriage certificate itself 1.
In your case, Ester Salva obtained a marriage certificate in favor of
her and Roy. The documents filed into the Civil Registry and the
1 People v. Alejo, G.R. No. 149370. September 23, 2003.

National Statistics Office are indeed presumed to be valid. In

Ferancullo v. Ferancullo2, it was held that the marriage certificate
should prevail over respondents claim that the marriage certificate or
his signature therein was falsified. The rule is that a notarized
document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a
notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.
Therefore, in the eyes of the court, there is a valid marriage between
Ester and Roy.
It is your burden to provide evidence to support your claim that
the marriage certificate was falsified. You may invoke that: 1.) the
marriage license and marriage certificate obtained by Ester are
falsified since there was no marriage that was celebrated at all; 2.)
the information about Roy Lopez are wrong; 3.) as examined by a
handwriting expert, his signatures were forged. Also, the genuineness
of the aforesaid documents can be challenged in regard to its
respective dates. The marriage certificate was dated August 4, 2005
and the marriage license was dated September 17, 2005. Whereas,
the marriage license should have been dated first since it is one of
the formal requisites in a valid marriage. Hence, there is absurdity.
Falsification of documents is punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. Hence, it is in your discretion if you opt to file a criminal case.
Establishing the fact that the documents were falsified, Esters
father cannot adduce them as evidence if ever he files a charge of
bigamy against Roy.
To relieve Roy from any impediments, he should file a petition
for cancellation of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. In the case of Republic v. Olaybar3, the court allowed
her petition for cancellation of entries because she never contracted
to the marriage that was registered in the NSO and her signatures in
the said marriage contract were merely forged. As a general rule, a
petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry
cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. However, in
2 Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, A.C. No. 7214, November 30, 2006.
3 Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No 159138, February 10, 2014.

the case Roy, the court cannot declare the marriage between Roy
and Ester as void as there was no marriage to speak of.
There is no valid marriage if no marriage ceremony is
performed. This was further illustrated in the case of Morigo v.
People4 where the parties merely signed a marriage contract on their
own. The court held that a mere private act of signing a marriage
contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no
judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be
deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner
might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Since your marriage is already set to happen next month, I
suggest that he files his petition immediately because the court shall
still cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation 5.
Once the petition has been allowed, you may validly continue
with the marriage to Roy without having to worry about any
hindrances. I would just like to remind you of the other essential 6 and
formal requisites7 of marriage such as your legal capacity, authority of
the solemnizing officer, valid marriage license, and your witnesses.
Upon complying with the requisites, there will be assurance in the
validity of your marriage.
With regards to the protection of your personal property against
possible future claims of Roys illegitimate child, I recommend you to
have your marriage under the regime of conjugal partnership of
gains. Under the Family Code, the regime conjugal partnership of
gains is defined as:
Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the husband
and wife place in a common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and
income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both
spouses through their efforts or by chance, and, upon dissolution of the
4
5
6
7

Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004.

Rules of Court, Rule 108, Section 4.
Family Code of the Philippines, Article 2.
Id., Article 3.

marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either

or both spouses shall be divided equally between them, unless otherwise
agreed in the marriage settlements.

To further elaborate, you will still have your exclusive property

which is comprised of: (1) that which is brought to the marriage as
your own;(2) that which each acquires during the marriage by
gratuitous title;(3) that which is acquired by right of redemption, by
barter or by exchange with property belonging to only you; and (4)
that which is purchased with your exclusive money8.
The obligation of Roy to support his illegitimate child shall come from
his separate property9. If Roys separate property would be
inadequate, only the conjugal partnership shall advance the support
and which shall be deducted from the share of Roy upon the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Therefore, your exclusive
property will never be held answerable to the support of the
illegitimate child of Roy.
I hope you find the foregoing legal opinion helpful. Please let me
know if I can be of further service to you in this matter.
Regards,
Atty. Salas

8 Family Code of the Philippines, Article 109.

9 Id., Article 197.