2025 / Apr
G.R. No. 267998 ELOISA MALIWAT-MELAD, PETITIONER, VS. AMANCIO REYES MELAD AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. April 23, 2025
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 267998, April 23, 2025 ]
ELOISA MALIWAT-MELAD, PETITIONER, VS. AMANCIO REYES MELAD AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
LOPEZ, M., J.:
The present Petition[1]assails the October 27, 2022 Decision[2]and the May 17, 2023 Resolution[3]of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 117590, which affirmed the March 1, 2021 Decision[4]of Branch 11, Family Court, Tarlac City, Tarlac (RTC) in Civil Case No. 808-2018, which denied the petition for nullity of marriage between Eloisa Maliwat-Melad (Eloisa) and Amancio Reyes Melad (Amancio).
Antecedents
On March 23, 1990, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, Tarlac. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by a certain Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia). Their union produced three children.[5]
Throughout their marriage, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted her lawyer, Atty. Eduardo Cunanan (Atty. Cunanan), regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against Amancio. Eloisa showed her marriage certificate to Atty. Cunanan, who claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia.
Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to Atty. Cunanan, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures. According to Atty. Cunanan, the person who appeared to be the solemnizing officer was a certain Rosalio Florendo (Florendo),[6]whom he allegedly also knew as a co-member of the Rotary Club of Tarlac City.
Eloisa explained to Atty. Cunanan that although she arranged the wedding, neither she, nor anyone else knew Judge De Gracia. She thought that the person who solemnized their marriage was the judge himself.
Consequently, on January 5, 2018, Eloisa filed a petition with the RTC to declare her marriage to Amancio as void on the ground of lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. Summons were served upon Amancio, but he failed to file a responsive pleading and appear before the court. Deputy City Prosecutor Liza C. Olinares-Agliam certified that no collusion existed between Eloisa and Amancio.[7]
Pre-trial and trial ensued. Eloisa presented herself, Roland Atiburcio Quilana (Quilana) and Atty. Cunanan.
Eloisa submitted the three pictures of her marriage ceremony as evidence. She claimed that the person wearing a white polo shirt with stripes, and who officiated her marriage, was Florendo and not Judge De Gracia. The ceremony was attended by their godparents, Estela Reyes, the wife of one Mateo Briones, Quilana, and other witnesses. Eloisa explained that the solemnizing officer gave them marriage advice before officiating the marriage. Afterwards, the solemnizing officer used his right hand to join the hands of Eloisa and Amancio and used his left hand to "bless" the couple and declare them husband and wife. Eloisa also claimed that the solemnizing officer was still present at the time Eloisa and Amancio signed the marriage certificate, but that the couple was told to just leave the marriage contract at the table. Afterwards, the newly married couple and their guests proceeded to Antigua Restaurant for the reception.[8]
As for Quilana, he testified that he was one of the guests present during the marriage ceremony of Eloisa and Amancio on March 23, 1990. He also admitted that he did not know what Judge De Gracia looked like, and he thought all along that the person in the picture who appeared to officiate the marriage was the judge.[9]
Finally, Atty. Cunanan testified that he personally knew Judge De Gracia as a municipal court judge in the 1990s because he used to visit him in his chambers. Before 1990, he and Judge De Gracia were part of a religious-oriented group called "Marriage Encounter 3" in Tarlac City where they used to do bible study, among other Catholic activities. When Eloisa showed him a picture of her marriage ceremony, he identified the solemnizing officer as Rosalio Florendo, whom he also personally knew as a co-member of the Rotary Club in Tarlac City. He also noted that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures. During cross-examination, Atty. Cunanan admitted that he was not personally present during the marriage ceremony and that he was also not certain whether the picture showed the actual marriage ceremony or merely the giving of marriage advice to Eloisa and Amancio.[10]
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision[11]dated March 1, 2021, the RTC denied Eloisa's petition. The RTC ruled that the testimonies of Eloisa, Quilana, and Atty. Cunanan did not sufficiently establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo, and who among the two actually officiated the marriage of Eloisa and Amancio. In any case, Eloisa admitted that she believed that Judge De Gracia was the person who officiated the marriage. Thus:
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision[13]dated October 27, 2022, the CA affirmed the RTCin toto. The CA ruled that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as aprima facieproof of marriage and evidence of the facts stated in the document. However, Eloisa failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut theprima faciepresumption. Thus:
The Petition is unmeritorious.
Marriage is a special contract whose terms and conditions are not merely subject to the stipulations of the contracting parties but are governed by law.[16]Since it is a lifetime commitment which cannot be dissolved by the simple whim of the parties, the State has surrounded it with safeguards to preserve its purity, continuity, and permanence.[17]
Any petition to declare the nullity of marriage can only be based on the exclusive grounds provided by Articles 35 and 36 of the Family Code:[18]
Here, the Court finds that petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that her marriage to private respondent was voidab initioon the ground of lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code provide that one of the formal requisites of marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. In the absence or lack of an essential or formal requisite of marriage, the marriage is deemed void:
However, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan argued that it was not Judge De Gracia who solemnized petitioner and private respondent's marriage, based on the pictures of the marriage ceremony. According to them, the pictures showed that the man who appeared to officiate the marriage was Florendo, who is not an authorized solemnizing officer under the Family Code. Thus, according to petitioner, her marriage should be declared void for lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
We do not agree.
Foremost, all of petitioner's witnesses failed to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo. Petitioner had no personal knowledge to distinguish the persons of Judge De Gracia or Florendo. She even admitted that she thought the person who solemnized the marriage was Judge De Gracia. She did not present any evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.
Likewise, Atty. Cunanan, petitioner's lawyer who testified for her, claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia because he had previously visited him in his chambers and that they belonged to a religious group. Atty. Cunanan also contended that he and Florendo belonged to the same organization, that is, the Rotary Club of Tarlac City. Yet, aside from his bare allegations and despite claims of personal connection with the individuals in question, he did not present other documentary or testimonial evidence to buttress his claims. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Atty. Cunanan's claims that he personally knew Judge De Gracia were not only unsubstantiated but also self-serving:
It is a fundamental legal precept that a person who alleges must prove his or her allegations. InGatmaytan v. Dolor,[22]the Court emphasized that a mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges has the burden of proving the allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence. Logically, a party who fails to discharge his or her burden of proof will not be entitled to the relief prayed for.[23]
In this case, the identities of either Judge De Gracia or Florendo could have been established by numerous documentary or testimonial evidence of various competent and disinterested persons. Atty. Cunanan could have secured the presence of Judge De Gracia himself, his court staff (considering that he was a judge in Tarlac City), or any other competent person who can personally identify him; yet they failed to do so. Similarly, Atty. Cunanan claimed that he belonged to the same organization as Florendo, and yet, he failed to produce competent evidence, aside from his own testimony, as to the identity of Florendo.
On the other hand, Judge De Gracia's name and signature appeared in the marriage contract as the solemnizing officer. The authenticity of his signature was never assailed. The marriage contract, being a public document, is not only aprima facieproof of marriage, but is also aprima facieevidence of the facts stated therein.[24]Hence, as against the petitioners' self-serving allegations, the marriage contract must prevail.
More importantly, it is settled in jurisprudence that an officer or clergyman who officiated the marriage is presumed to have legal authority to do so, absent sufficient contrary evidence. As explained by the Court inAlcantara vs. Alcantara:[25]
In any case, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the person who solemnized the marriage was not Judge De Gracia, the marriage is still valid because the case falls under Article 35(2) of the Family Code.
Article 35(2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by a person with no legal authority are considered void,exceptif one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage, to wit:
Thus, petitioner's case falls under the exception of void marriages as provided in Article 35(2) of the Family Code. Petitioner's marriage with private respondent is valid owing to her genuine belief, in good faith, that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate her marriage with private respondent.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition isDISMISSED. The October 27, 2022 Decision and the May 17, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117590, upholding the March 1, 2021 Decision of Branch 11, Family Court, Tarlac City isAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, andKho, Jr., JJ., concur.
Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), see dissenting opinion.
[1]Rollo, pp. 10-30.
[2]Id.at 31-42. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Carlito B. Calpatura and Michael P. Ong of the Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
[3]Id.at 52-53.
[4]Id.at 63-71. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Joefferson B. Toribio of Branch 11, Family Court, Tarlac City.
[5]Id.at 63.
[6]Id.at 32.
[7]Id.at 64.
[8]Id.at 65.
[9]Id.at 66.
[10]Id.at 67.
[11]Id.at 63-71.
[12]Id.at 71.
[13]Id.at 31-43.
[14]Id.at 42.
[15]Id.at 13-30.
[16]Tilar v. Tilar, 813 Phil. 734, 741 (2017) Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
[17]De Silva v. De Silva, 913 Phil. 524, 535 (2021) [Per J. J. Lopez, First Division].
[18]Executive Order No. 209 (1987).
[19]Tan-Andal v. Andal, 902 Phil. 558, 591 (2021) [Per J. Leonen,En Banc].
[20]Riguer v. Mateo, 811 Phil. 538, 547 (2017) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[21]Rollo, p. 40.
[22]806 Phil. 1 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[23]Id.at 26.
[24]558 Phil. 192, 200 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[25]558 Phil. 192 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
LEONEN,SAJ.:
I dissent.
The marriage between petitioner Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and private respondent Amancio Reyes Melad should be declared voidab initiofor lacking the formal requisites[1]of authority of the solemnizing officer and a proper marriage ceremony.[2]
While the solemnizing officer's lack of authority here falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code,[3]the absence of the required personal declaration in their marriage ceremony still renders the marriage voidab initio.
The Family Code prescribes the elements of a marriage ceremony:
Petitioner testified that the solemnizing officer "officiated" the marriage, and that she did not witness him sign the marriage contract:[4]
Jurisprudence declares marriages lacking proper marriage ceremonies as voidab initio. In the following cases, the accused were acquitted of bigamy because one of the marriages they supposedly entered into was declared voidab initiofor lacking proper marriage ceremonies.
InMorigo v. People,[7]the accused's first marriage was declared voidab initiobecause no actual marriage ceremony took place:
Similar to the witnesses inGenio, petitioner and Quilana—as counterparty and witness to the marriage, respectively—are also competent to testify on what transpired during the ceremony.
Petitioner submitted photos of her marriage ceremony. She also testified that she did not see the solemnizing officer sign the marriage contract, and that she and private respondent were instructed to leave the marriage contract at the table.[11]
She and Quilana identified the solemnizing officer in the pictures, who they believed to be Judge De Gracia. While they admitted not knowing what he looked like, the evidence on record clearly established the solemnizing officer's acts: he gave marriage advice to private respondent and petitioner, joined their hands, blessed them, and declared them as husband and wife.
Conversely, Atty. Eduardo Cunanan (Atty. Cunanan) positively identified the solemnizing officer in petitioner's pictures as Rosalio Florendo (Florendo), a Rotary Club member.[12]
Without proof of authority to officiate marriages, Florendo is not expected to be well-versed in the formalities of marriage ceremonies. This may explain why he only gave marriage advice to the couple and thereafter declared them as husband and wife, instead of having them personally declare, before him and the witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife.
II
Atty. Cunanan cannot competently testify based on the pictures petitioner submitted because he was not present at her marriage ceremony.[13]However, he is competent to testify on Judge De Gracia and Florendo's identities because he personally knows them.
Rule 130 of the 2019 Rules on Evidence provides:
Atty. Cunanan's competent and credible identification of Judge De Gracia dispensed with the need for corroborative or documentary evidence. As an advocate of his client and an officer of the court, he also has the duty to disclose any irregularity, perceived or otherwise, in his client's marriage ceremony. He has no incentive to assert untruthful statements as it not only prejudices his client's cause but also jeopardizes his personal practice.
Taken together, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan's testimonies can be harmonized into a reasonable account: that Florendo solemnized petitioner and private respondent's marriage, but that Judge De Gracia signed the marriage contract as solemnizing officer after the ceremony.
III
As inGenio, the irregularities in petitioner's marriage ceremony and in the authority of the solemnizing officer create reasonable doubt on the presumed validity of her marriage contract.
Here, the marriage contract indicates (1) petitioner and private respondent's marriage and (2) Judge De Gracia's signature and name as solemnizing officer. The marriage contract, as a public document, isprima facieproof of marriage and evidence of the facts stated therein.[18]
InUniversity of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[19]this Court clarified that disputable presumptions may be overcome by contrary evidence.
Without compelling rebuttals or explanations to these findings, petitioner and private respondent's marriage contract is questionable, if not invalid.
IV
As a final note, judges are not expected to be generally known by the public, nor is the public presumed or expected to personally know the identities of judges.
Exacting standards and constraints govern judicial conduct. Judges are required to abide by the norm of simplicity and modesty. Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which was in effect during the solemnization of petitioner and respondent's marriage, provides that "[a] judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory."[21]Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Floro, Jr.[22]explains this provision:
Here, petitioner and Quilana merely relied on the honest belief that the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia and not Florendo, as identified by Atty. Cunanan. Hence, the exception in Article 35 (2) of the Family Code applies to uphold the validity of the marriage.
However, another formal requisite remains absent: a proper marriage ceremony. Without petitioner and private respondent's personal declarations taking each other as husband and wife before the solemnizing officer and the witnesses, their marriage should be declared voidab initio.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote toGRANTthe Petition. The October 27, 2022 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117590 should beREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. The marriage between petitioner Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and private respondent Amancio Reyes Melad should beDECLARED VOIDAB INITIO.
[1]FAMILY CODE, art. 3 reads:
[5]Id.
[6]Id.
[7]466 Phil. 1013 (2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
[8]Id.at 1022-1024.
[9]G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024 [Per J. Inting, Third Division] at 24-27. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
[10]Id.
[11]Ponencia, p. 2.
[12]Id.at 2-3.
[13]Id.at 2-3, 6.
[14]A relevant discussion on the retroactive application of the 2019 Rules on Evidence is also found inGenio:
[16]Id.at 833-834.
[17]Ponencia, pp. 2-3, 6.
[18]Spouses Salgado v. Anson, 791 Phil. 481, 494 (2016) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
[19]776 Phil. 401 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[20]Id.at 435.
[21]CODE OF JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct that was promulgated on September 5, 1989 and took effect on October 20, 1989.
[22]520 Phil. 590 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,En Banc].
[23]Id.at 615.
[24]736 Phil. 81 (2014) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[25]Id.at 117-118.
On March 23, 1990, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Municipal Hall of Tarlac City, Tarlac. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by a certain Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia). Their union produced three children.[5]
Throughout their marriage, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted her lawyer, Atty. Eduardo Cunanan (Atty. Cunanan), regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against Amancio. Eloisa showed her marriage certificate to Atty. Cunanan, who claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia.
Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to Atty. Cunanan, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures. According to Atty. Cunanan, the person who appeared to be the solemnizing officer was a certain Rosalio Florendo (Florendo),[6]whom he allegedly also knew as a co-member of the Rotary Club of Tarlac City.
Eloisa explained to Atty. Cunanan that although she arranged the wedding, neither she, nor anyone else knew Judge De Gracia. She thought that the person who solemnized their marriage was the judge himself.
Consequently, on January 5, 2018, Eloisa filed a petition with the RTC to declare her marriage to Amancio as void on the ground of lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. Summons were served upon Amancio, but he failed to file a responsive pleading and appear before the court. Deputy City Prosecutor Liza C. Olinares-Agliam certified that no collusion existed between Eloisa and Amancio.[7]
Pre-trial and trial ensued. Eloisa presented herself, Roland Atiburcio Quilana (Quilana) and Atty. Cunanan.
Eloisa submitted the three pictures of her marriage ceremony as evidence. She claimed that the person wearing a white polo shirt with stripes, and who officiated her marriage, was Florendo and not Judge De Gracia. The ceremony was attended by their godparents, Estela Reyes, the wife of one Mateo Briones, Quilana, and other witnesses. Eloisa explained that the solemnizing officer gave them marriage advice before officiating the marriage. Afterwards, the solemnizing officer used his right hand to join the hands of Eloisa and Amancio and used his left hand to "bless" the couple and declare them husband and wife. Eloisa also claimed that the solemnizing officer was still present at the time Eloisa and Amancio signed the marriage certificate, but that the couple was told to just leave the marriage contract at the table. Afterwards, the newly married couple and their guests proceeded to Antigua Restaurant for the reception.[8]
As for Quilana, he testified that he was one of the guests present during the marriage ceremony of Eloisa and Amancio on March 23, 1990. He also admitted that he did not know what Judge De Gracia looked like, and he thought all along that the person in the picture who appeared to officiate the marriage was the judge.[9]
Finally, Atty. Cunanan testified that he personally knew Judge De Gracia as a municipal court judge in the 1990s because he used to visit him in his chambers. Before 1990, he and Judge De Gracia were part of a religious-oriented group called "Marriage Encounter 3" in Tarlac City where they used to do bible study, among other Catholic activities. When Eloisa showed him a picture of her marriage ceremony, he identified the solemnizing officer as Rosalio Florendo, whom he also personally knew as a co-member of the Rotary Club in Tarlac City. He also noted that Judge De Gracia was not in the pictures. During cross-examination, Atty. Cunanan admitted that he was not personally present during the marriage ceremony and that he was also not certain whether the picture showed the actual marriage ceremony or merely the giving of marriage advice to Eloisa and Amancio.[10]
In its Decision[11]dated March 1, 2021, the RTC denied Eloisa's petition. The RTC ruled that the testimonies of Eloisa, Quilana, and Atty. Cunanan did not sufficiently establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo, and who among the two actually officiated the marriage of Eloisa and Amancio. In any case, Eloisa admitted that she believed that Judge De Gracia was the person who officiated the marriage. Thus:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the instant Petition is DENIED for failure of the petitioner to prove the grounds relied upon in the petition and for insufficiency of evidence.Aggrieved, Eloisa appealed to the CA.
SO ORDERED.[12]
In its Decision[13]dated October 27, 2022, the CA affirmed the RTCin toto. The CA ruled that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as aprima facieproof of marriage and evidence of the facts stated in the document. However, Eloisa failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut theprima faciepresumption. Thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal isDENIED. The March 1, 2021 Decision and July 26, 2021 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Tarlac City in Civil Case No. 808-2018 are herebyAFFIRMED.Hence, this Petition.[15]Petitioner Eloisa Maliwat-Melad reiterates her arguments that her marriage to private respondent Amancio Reyes Melad was void due to the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
SO ORDERED.[14](Emphasis in the original)
Ruling of the Court
The Petition is unmeritorious.
Marriage is a special contract whose terms and conditions are not merely subject to the stipulations of the contracting parties but are governed by law.[16]Since it is a lifetime commitment which cannot be dissolved by the simple whim of the parties, the State has surrounded it with safeguards to preserve its purity, continuity, and permanence.[17]
Any petition to declare the nullity of marriage can only be based on the exclusive grounds provided by Articles 35 and 36 of the Family Code:[18]
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:Moreover, the quantum of proof in nullity cases isclear and convincing evidence,[19]which is greater than a preponderance of evidence for ordinary civil cases but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases.[20](1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (Emphasis supplied)
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
Here, the Court finds that petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that her marriage to private respondent was voidab initioon the ground of lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the lack of legal authority of the solemnizing officer |
Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code provide that one of the formal requisites of marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. In the absence or lack of an essential or formal requisite of marriage, the marriage is deemed void:
Article 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:A solemnizing officer is considered clothed with legal authority to solemnize the marriage if he or she belongs to any of the following,viz:(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;Article 4.The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriagevoid ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2). (Emphasis supplied)
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
Article 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:Here, the marriage certificate shows that petitioner and private respondent's marriage took place in Tarlac City and was solemnized by Judge De Gracia, a judge of Tarlac City. The solemnizing officer, being then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City, had the legal authority to officiate the marriage pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Family Code.(1)Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction;
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer's church or religious sect;
(3) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the cases mentioned in Article 31;
(4) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military operation, likewise only in the cases mentioned in Article 32; or
(5) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the case provided in Article 10. (Emphasis supplied)
However, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan argued that it was not Judge De Gracia who solemnized petitioner and private respondent's marriage, based on the pictures of the marriage ceremony. According to them, the pictures showed that the man who appeared to officiate the marriage was Florendo, who is not an authorized solemnizing officer under the Family Code. Thus, according to petitioner, her marriage should be declared void for lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
We do not agree.
Foremost, all of petitioner's witnesses failed to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo. Petitioner had no personal knowledge to distinguish the persons of Judge De Gracia or Florendo. She even admitted that she thought the person who solemnized the marriage was Judge De Gracia. She did not present any evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.
Likewise, Atty. Cunanan, petitioner's lawyer who testified for her, claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia because he had previously visited him in his chambers and that they belonged to a religious group. Atty. Cunanan also contended that he and Florendo belonged to the same organization, that is, the Rotary Club of Tarlac City. Yet, aside from his bare allegations and despite claims of personal connection with the individuals in question, he did not present other documentary or testimonial evidence to buttress his claims. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Atty. Cunanan's claims that he personally knew Judge De Gracia were not only unsubstantiated but also self-serving:
However, Atty. Eduardo [Cunanan]'s statements, standing alone, do not credibly establish the identities of Judge Conrado and Rosalio [Florendo]. He claimed that he personally knows Judge Conrado and Rosalio but failed to present any evidence to prove their identities or establish his relationship with them. The belatedly submitted baptismal certificate of Atty. Eduardo [Cunanan]'s daughter could not prove his affiliation with Judge Conrado because the person named as godparent therein was a certain Viola, and not Conrado De Gracia. There is also no proof of Viola's relationship with Conrado.[21]Finally, Quilana established that he personally attended the marriage ceremony, but he also admitted that he did not know what Judge De Gracia or Florendo looked like.
It is a fundamental legal precept that a person who alleges must prove his or her allegations. InGatmaytan v. Dolor,[22]the Court emphasized that a mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges has the burden of proving the allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence. Logically, a party who fails to discharge his or her burden of proof will not be entitled to the relief prayed for.[23]
In this case, the identities of either Judge De Gracia or Florendo could have been established by numerous documentary or testimonial evidence of various competent and disinterested persons. Atty. Cunanan could have secured the presence of Judge De Gracia himself, his court staff (considering that he was a judge in Tarlac City), or any other competent person who can personally identify him; yet they failed to do so. Similarly, Atty. Cunanan claimed that he belonged to the same organization as Florendo, and yet, he failed to produce competent evidence, aside from his own testimony, as to the identity of Florendo.
On the other hand, Judge De Gracia's name and signature appeared in the marriage contract as the solemnizing officer. The authenticity of his signature was never assailed. The marriage contract, being a public document, is not only aprima facieproof of marriage, but is also aprima facieevidence of the facts stated therein.[24]Hence, as against the petitioners' self-serving allegations, the marriage contract must prevail.
More importantly, it is settled in jurisprudence that an officer or clergyman who officiated the marriage is presumed to have legal authority to do so, absent sufficient contrary evidence. As explained by the Court inAlcantara vs. Alcantara:[25]
Likewise, the issue raised by petitioner — that they appeared before a "fixer" who arranged everything for them and who facilitated the ceremony before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC Br Chapel — will not strengthen his posture.The authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of any showing to the contrary.[Emphasis supplied]Thus, since petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer, the marriage is valid. The legal presumption accorded to public documents, in favor of the authority of the solemnizing officer, and towards the validity of marriage, must be upheld.
At any rate, petitioner had always believed, in good faith, that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate the marriage |
In any case, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the person who solemnized the marriage was not Judge De Gracia, the marriage is still valid because the case falls under Article 35(2) of the Family Code.
Article 35(2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by a person with no legal authority are considered void,exceptif one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage, to wit:
ARTICLE 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:Here, the records show that petitioner had always believed in good faith, since the inception of her marriage in the year 1990, that the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia—a person who had the legal authority to solemnize the marriage. She had never doubted the authority of the solemnizing officer. It was only in 2017 that she sought legal advice on how to be legally separated from her husband, wherein she was notified by her lawyer that Judge De Gracia was not the actual person who officiated the marriage. However, as discussed, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan palpably failed to establish the veracity of their allegations.(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriagesunlesssuch marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, petitioner's case falls under the exception of void marriages as provided in Article 35(2) of the Family Code. Petitioner's marriage with private respondent is valid owing to her genuine belief, in good faith, that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate her marriage with private respondent.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition isDISMISSED. The October 27, 2022 Decision and the May 17, 2023 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117590, upholding the March 1, 2021 Decision of Branch 11, Family Court, Tarlac City isAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, andKho, Jr., JJ., concur.
Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), see dissenting opinion.
[1]Rollo, pp. 10-30.
[2]Id.at 31-42. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Carlito B. Calpatura and Michael P. Ong of the Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
[3]Id.at 52-53.
[4]Id.at 63-71. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Joefferson B. Toribio of Branch 11, Family Court, Tarlac City.
[5]Id.at 63.
[6]Id.at 32.
[7]Id.at 64.
[8]Id.at 65.
[9]Id.at 66.
[10]Id.at 67.
[11]Id.at 63-71.
[12]Id.at 71.
[13]Id.at 31-43.
[14]Id.at 42.
[15]Id.at 13-30.
[16]Tilar v. Tilar, 813 Phil. 734, 741 (2017) Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
[17]De Silva v. De Silva, 913 Phil. 524, 535 (2021) [Per J. J. Lopez, First Division].
[18]Executive Order No. 209 (1987).
[19]Tan-Andal v. Andal, 902 Phil. 558, 591 (2021) [Per J. Leonen,En Banc].
[20]Riguer v. Mateo, 811 Phil. 538, 547 (2017) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[21]Rollo, p. 40.
[22]806 Phil. 1 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[23]Id.at 26.
[24]558 Phil. 192, 200 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[25]558 Phil. 192 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN,SAJ.:
I dissent.
The marriage between petitioner Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and private respondent Amancio Reyes Melad should be declared voidab initiofor lacking the formal requisites[1]of authority of the solemnizing officer and a proper marriage ceremony.[2]
While the solemnizing officer's lack of authority here falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code,[3]the absence of the required personal declaration in their marriage ceremony still renders the marriage voidab initio.
The Family Code prescribes the elements of a marriage ceremony:
Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required.It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses andattested by the solemnizing officer. (Emphasis supplied)The evidence on record did not establish petitioner and private respondent's personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife before the solemnizing officer and the witnesses.
Petitioner testified that the solemnizing officer "officiated" the marriage, and that she did not witness him sign the marriage contract:[4]
The ceremony was attended by their godparents, Estela Reyes, the wife of one Mateo Briones, Quilana, and other witnesses.Eloisa explained that the solemnizing officer gave them marriage advice before officiating the marriage. Afterwards, the solemnizing officer used his right hand to join the hands of Eloisa and Amancio and used his left hand to "bless" the couple and declare them husband and wife.Eloisa also claimed that the solemnizing officer was still present at the time Eloisa and Amancio signed the marriage certificate, but thatthe couple was told to just leave the marriage contract at the table. Afterwards, the newly married couple and their guests proceeded to Antigua restaurant for the reception.[5](Emphasis supplied)Roland Atiburcio Quilana (Quilana), a witness of the ceremony, also did not witness petitioner and private respondent perform the required personal declarations.[6]
Jurisprudence declares marriages lacking proper marriage ceremonies as voidab initio. In the following cases, the accused were acquitted of bigamy because one of the marriages they supposedly entered into was declared voidab initiofor lacking proper marriage ceremonies.
InMorigo v. People,[7]the accused's first marriage was declared voidab initiobecause no actual marriage ceremony took place:
The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that the marriage is voidab initio,in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, "This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with; and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as voidab initioto the date of the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never married." The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become final and executory.The second marriage inGenio v. People[9]was also deemed voidab initiobecause it lacked the requisites of a marriage ceremony and a duly authorized solemnizing officer. The testimonies of the witnesses to the marriage ceremony were deemed sufficient bases to dispute the marriage certificate asprima facieevidence of the facts stated therein:
. . . .
In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The 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.[8](Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Verily, Rommel offered the testimonies of Maricar, Myra, and Gloria who uniformly testified that the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija never appeared on September 7, 2013, to solemnize the marriage between Rommel and Maricar, and that the two did not take each other as husband and wife before a duly authorized solemnizing officer.Geniois analogous and applicable to the facts here. Petitioner and private respondent's marriage was officiated by an unauthorized solemnizing officer and lacked the required personal declaration that they accept each other as husband and wife. The only difference is that petitioner believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer was a certain Judge Conrado De Gracia (Judge De Gracia), who had authority to officiate her marriage. InGenio, the parties to the marriage knew that the solemnizing officer was the local civil registrar, not the mayor, and that the registrar did not have authority to officiate their marriage.
Significantly, it has been held that no other witness is more competent to testify on the fact of marriage, including the solemnities observed therefor, than the parties to the marriage contract themselves – the husband and wife. A witness who was present during the marriage ceremony is likewise competent to testify on the same subject matter.Given that Maricar is the counter[]party to Rommel's second marriage, while Myra and Gloria were both present when the two were married on September 7, 2013, then they are competent to testify on what actually transpired on the day of that marriage. Their testimonies are sufficient to produce reasonable doubt if the Marriage Certificate may stand as proof that the solemnities required for marriages were, in fact, observed by Rommel and Maricar.
. . . .
In the Court's assessment the testimonies of Maricar, Myra, and Gloria are sufficient to produce reasonable doubt, such that the presumed regularity and accuracy of the Marriage Certificate is deemed rebutted. Surely, even if they are not disinterested witnesses, the fact remains that they took the witness stand; hence, their credibility was tested, not just through the requirement of an oath and pain of perjury, but also through cross-examination.Thus, it may be reasonably expected that their statements have at least a ring of truth to them, and cannot be wholly ignored by the Court, especially considering that the prosecution did not present any evidence to refute their testimonies.
In fine, the testimonies of the defense witnesses produce reasonable doubt because based on their unrefuted testimonies,it is not wholly improbable that the solemnities required for marriages were not observed by Rommel and Maricar, notwithstanding the entries in the Marriage Certificate.[10](Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Similar to the witnesses inGenio, petitioner and Quilana—as counterparty and witness to the marriage, respectively—are also competent to testify on what transpired during the ceremony.
Petitioner submitted photos of her marriage ceremony. She also testified that she did not see the solemnizing officer sign the marriage contract, and that she and private respondent were instructed to leave the marriage contract at the table.[11]
She and Quilana identified the solemnizing officer in the pictures, who they believed to be Judge De Gracia. While they admitted not knowing what he looked like, the evidence on record clearly established the solemnizing officer's acts: he gave marriage advice to private respondent and petitioner, joined their hands, blessed them, and declared them as husband and wife.
Conversely, Atty. Eduardo Cunanan (Atty. Cunanan) positively identified the solemnizing officer in petitioner's pictures as Rosalio Florendo (Florendo), a Rotary Club member.[12]
Without proof of authority to officiate marriages, Florendo is not expected to be well-versed in the formalities of marriage ceremonies. This may explain why he only gave marriage advice to the couple and thereafter declared them as husband and wife, instead of having them personally declare, before him and the witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife.
Rule 130 of the 2019 Rules on Evidence provides:
Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. —A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.[14](Emphasis supplied)Angeles, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[15]reiterates the Court's stance on the sufficiency of the credible testimony of a single witness, even if uncorroborated:
We have consistently ruled that the testimony of a single witness, free from any sign of impropriety or falsehood, is sufficient for conviction, even if uncorroborated.Indeed, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient and needs no corroboration, save only in offenses where the law expressly prescribes a minimum number of witnesses. Otherwise,corroborative evidence is deemed necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that [their] observation had been inaccurate.[16](Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)Contrary to the accusation that it was self-serving, Atty. Cunanan's testimony was based on his personal knowledge, made under oath, and was even subjected to cross-examination. He stated having personally known Judge De Gracia from his practice and in their religious group, Marriage Encounter 3; and Florendo in their organization, the Rotary Club of Tarlac.[17]
Atty. Cunanan's competent and credible identification of Judge De Gracia dispensed with the need for corroborative or documentary evidence. As an advocate of his client and an officer of the court, he also has the duty to disclose any irregularity, perceived or otherwise, in his client's marriage ceremony. He has no incentive to assert untruthful statements as it not only prejudices his client's cause but also jeopardizes his personal practice.
Taken together, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan's testimonies can be harmonized into a reasonable account: that Florendo solemnized petitioner and private respondent's marriage, but that Judge De Gracia signed the marriage contract as solemnizing officer after the ceremony.
As inGenio, the irregularities in petitioner's marriage ceremony and in the authority of the solemnizing officer create reasonable doubt on the presumed validity of her marriage contract.
Here, the marriage contract indicates (1) petitioner and private respondent's marriage and (2) Judge De Gracia's signature and name as solemnizing officer. The marriage contract, as a public document, isprima facieproof of marriage and evidence of the facts stated therein.[18]
InUniversity of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[19]this Court clarified that disputable presumptions may be overcome by contrary evidence.
[D]isputable presumptions are presumptions that may be overcome by contrary evidence.They are disputable in recognition of the variability of human behavior. Presumptions are not always true. They may be wrong under certain circumstances, and courts are expected to apply them, keeping in mind the nuances of every experience that may render the expectations wrong.Contrary evidence rebuts the disputable presumption in favor of petitioner's marriage contract:first, Atty. Cunanan positively identified the solemnizing officer as Florendo, not Judge De Gracia;second, petitioner categorically stated that she did not witness the solemnizing officer sign the marriage contract;third, petitioner and Quilana's testimonies did not establish petitioner and private respondent's personal declarations taking each other as husband and wife before the solemnizing officer and their witnesses.
Thus, the application of disputable presumptions on a given circumstance must be based on the existence of certain facts on which they are meant to operate. "[P]resumptions are not allegations, nor do they supply their absence[.]" Presumptions are conclusions. They do not apply when there are no facts or allegations to support them.
If the facts exist to set in motion the operation of a disputable presumption, courts may accept the presumption. However, contrary evidence may be presented to rebut the presumption.
Courts cannot disregard contrary evidence offered to rebut disputable presumptions. Disputable presumptions apply only in the absence of contrary evidence or explanations.[20](Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Without compelling rebuttals or explanations to these findings, petitioner and private respondent's marriage contract is questionable, if not invalid.
As a final note, judges are not expected to be generally known by the public, nor is the public presumed or expected to personally know the identities of judges.
Exacting standards and constraints govern judicial conduct. Judges are required to abide by the norm of simplicity and modesty. Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which was in effect during the solemnization of petitioner and respondent's marriage, provides that "[a] judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory."[21]Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Floro, Jr.[22]explains this provision:
Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct says in no uncertain terms that "a judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory."A parallel proscription, this time for lawyers in general, is found in Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: "a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory[,] or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services." This means that lawyers and judges alike, being limited by the exacting standards of their profession, cannot debase the same by acting as if ordinary merchants hawking their wares. As succinctly put by a leading authority in legal and judicial ethics, "(i)f lawyers are prohibited from [. . .] using or permitting the use of any undignified or self-laudatory statement regarding their qualifications or legal services (Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), with more reasons should judges be prohibited from seeking publicity for vanity or self-glorification. Judges are not actors or actresses or politicians, who thrive by publicity."[23](Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)Sison-Barias v. Judge Rubia[24]elaborates on the expected standards of propriety and behavior of judges:
InCastillo v. Judge Calanog, Jr., this [C]ourt held:Hence, in the context of marriages, judges have the responsibility to introduce themselves to the parties and witnesses and affirm their authority to solemnize the marriage. In doing so, judges will have confirmed their competence and compliance with the formal requisites of marriage, such as the authority of the solemnizing officer and the marriage ceremony.The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. As we have recently explained, a judge's official life can not simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Thus:InDe la Cruz, this court emphasized the need for impartiality of judges:
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion.. . . .
[I]n this connection, the Court pointed out inJoselito Rallos, et al. v. Judge Ireneo Lee Gako Jr., RTC Branch 5, Cebu City, that:
Well-known is the judicial norm that "judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial." Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity.
This reminder applies all the more sternly to municipal, metropolitan and regional trial court judges like herein respondent, because they are judicial front-liners who have direct contact with the litigating parties.They are the intermediaries between conflicting interests and the embodiments of the people's sense of justice. Thus, their official conduct should be beyond reproach.[25](Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Here, petitioner and Quilana merely relied on the honest belief that the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia and not Florendo, as identified by Atty. Cunanan. Hence, the exception in Article 35 (2) of the Family Code applies to uphold the validity of the marriage.
However, another formal requisite remains absent: a proper marriage ceremony. Without petitioner and private respondent's personal declarations taking each other as husband and wife before the solemnizing officer and the witnesses, their marriage should be declared voidab initio.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote toGRANTthe Petition. The October 27, 2022 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117590 should beREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. The marriage between petitioner Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and private respondent Amancio Reyes Melad should beDECLARED VOIDAB INITIO.
[1]FAMILY CODE, art. 3 reads:
"Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:[2]FAMILY CODE, art. 4 reads:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (53a, 55a)"
"Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage voidab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2).[3]FAMILY CODE, art. 35(2) reads:
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. (n)"
"Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:[4]Ponencia, p. 2.
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53." (Emphasis supplied)
[5]Id.
[6]Id.
[7]466 Phil. 1013 (2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
[8]Id.at 1022-1024.
[9]G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024 [Per J. Inting, Third Division] at 24-27. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
[10]Id.
[11]Ponencia, p. 2.
[12]Id.at 2-3.
[13]Id.at 2-3, 6.
[14]A relevant discussion on the retroactive application of the 2019 Rules on Evidence is also found inGenio:
"Notably, the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence took effect on May 1, 2020. Although the rule embodied in [Rule 131,] Section 6 of the Rules of Court was already effective when the [Court of Appeals] rendered its Decision, it was not yet in force when the [Regional Trial Court] rendered its judgment against Rommel. Nevertheless, it must be appliedretroactivelyto the present case, given that (1) it is a rule of procedure that merely confirms the burden of the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, each element of the crime charged and the guilt of the accused; (2) there are no vested rights in procedural rules; and (3) rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused."SeeGenio v. People, G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024 [Per J. Inting, Third Division] at 12. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Decision uploaded to the Supreme Court website.[15]407 Phil. 826 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[16]Id.at 833-834.
[17]Ponencia, pp. 2-3, 6.
[18]Spouses Salgado v. Anson, 791 Phil. 481, 494 (2016) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
[19]776 Phil. 401 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[20]Id.at 435.
[21]CODE OF JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct that was promulgated on September 5, 1989 and took effect on October 20, 1989.
[22]520 Phil. 590 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,En Banc].
[23]Id.at 615.
[24]736 Phil. 81 (2014) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
[25]Id.at 117-118.