Tolentino v. Paras 122 SCRA 525; May 30,1983

TOLENTINO v. PARAS

Topic: Void Marriages; Bigamous and Polygamous Marriages

Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari; reversal of respondent Court's Order, dismissing petitioner's suit for her "declaration . . . as the lawful surviving spouse of deceased Amado Tolentino and the correction of the death certificate of the same"

Doctrine: There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage

Facts: Amado Tolentino had contracted a second marriage with private respondent herein, Maria Clemente, at Paombong, Bulacan, on November 1, 1948, while his marriage with petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, celebrated on July 31, 1943, was still subsisting.

Petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy. Amado pleaded guilty and after he had served the prison sentence imposed on him, he continued to live with respondent until his death on July 25, 1974. His death certificate carried the entry "Name of Surviving Spouse—Maria Clemente."

Petitioner sought to correct the name of the surviving spouse in the death certificate from "Maria Clemente" to "Serafia G. Tolentino", her name in in a special proceeding for correction of entry. The lower Court dismissed the petition "for lack of the proper requisites under the law" and indicated the need for a more detailed proceeding.

Petitioner filed a case against private respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her declaration as the lawful surviving spouse, and the correction of the death certificate of Amado. In an Order, dated October 21, 1975, respondent Court, upon private respondent's instance, dismissed the case, stating: (1) the correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is marital relationship;  (2) the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code—publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no such publication; and (3) in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding which this Court has already dismissed, also for lack of the proper requisites under the law.

Issue/s:

WON the petitioner may validly rectify the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar

Ruling:

YES

Although petitioner's ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased, Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate of said deceased. The suit below is a proper remedy. It is of an adversary character as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding. A claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Private respondent, as the individual most affected, is a party defendant, and has appeared to contest the petition and defend her interests. The Local Civil Registrar is also a party defendant. The publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary for no other parties are involved.

Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. It can be safely concluded, then, without need of further proof nor remand to the Court below, that private respondent is not the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, but petitioner. Rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may, therefore, be validly made.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Order, dated October 21, 1975, of respondent Court is hereby set aside and petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, hereby declared the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado Tolentino. Let the corresponding correction be made in the latter's death certificate in the records of the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan.