4.

FILIPINA SY V. CA and FERNANDO SY - FRANCISCO

Note: This case was under Sec 22 Rule 132 in our syllabus, however, no
handwriting issue was mentioned in the case.
--This is a case for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of the spouses
Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy.
RTC and CA denied the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage.
Doctrine:
Photocopied documents that are admitted as evidence are deemed
sufficient proof of the facts contained therein if the adverse party fails to timely
object thereto.
Facts:

1973, Filipina and Fernando contracted marriage. Both were then 22

years old. Their union was blessed with two children.
The spouses first established their residence in Manila, then in Apalit,
Pampanga, and later at San Matias, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. They
operated a lumber and hardware business in Sto. Tomas, Pampanga.
1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Since then, the spouses lived
separately, and their two children were in the custody of their mother.
However, their son transferred to his fathers residence at Masangkay,
Tondo, Manila on 1988, and from then on, lived with his father.
1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation before the RTC
Pampanga.
o Later, upon motion of Filipina, the action was later amended to a
petition for separation of property on the grounds that her husband
abandoned her without just cause; that they have been living
separately for more than one year; and that they voluntarily entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement on 1983, containing the rules
that would govern the dissolution of their conjugal partnership.
RTC Pampanga: rendered dissolving their conjugal
partnership of gains and approving a regime of separation of
properties based on the Memorandum of Agreement
executed by the spouses. The trial court also granted
custody of the children to Filipina.
1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted parricide against her
husband before the RTC Manila.
o Filipina testified that on May 15, 1988, she went to the dental clinic
owned by her husband but operated by his mistress, to fetch her
son and bring him to San Fernando, Pampanga.
o While she was talking to her son, the boy ignored her and
continued playing with the family computer. Filipina got mad, took
the computer away from her son, and started spanking him. At that
instance, Fernando pulled Filipina away from their son, and
punched her in the different parts of her body.

Filipina also claimed that her husband started choking her when
she fell on the floor, and released her only when he thought she
was dead.
RTC Manila: convicted Fernando only of slight physical
injuries.

Filipina later filed a new action for legal separation against Fernando on
the following grounds: (1) repeated physical violence; (2) sexual infidelity;
(3) attempt by respondent against her life; and (4) abandonment of her by
her husband without justifiable cause for more than one year.
o RTC: granted the petition on the grounds of 1 and 2, and issued a
decree of legal separation.

These are the main facts of the case related to our topic: (Issue on the marriage
certificate (as evidence) was not mentioned in the facts of the case, it was
mentioned on the decision part.)
Later, Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her
marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity.
o She also cites as manifestations of her husbands psychological
incapacity the following: (1) habitual alcoholism; (2) refusal to live
with her without fault on her part, choosing to live with his mistress
instead; and (3) refusal to have sex with her, performing the marital
act only to satisfy himself. Moreover, Filipina alleges that such
psychological incapacity of her husband existed from the time of
the celebration of their marriage and became manifest thereafter.
RTC: denied the petition of Filipina for the declaration of
absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando.
It stated that the alleged acts of Fernando, as cited by
Filipina, do not constitute psychological incapacity
which may warrant the declaration of absolute nullity
of their marriage.
CA: affirmed RTCs decision.
Filipinas testimony concerning Fernandos purported
psychological incapacity falls short of the quantum of
evidence required to nullify a marriage celebrated
with all the formal and essential requisites of law.
Moreover, the CA held that Filipina failed to show that
the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent
had existed at the time of the celebration of their
marriage in 1973.
Filipina appealed by certiorari and raises that CA overlooked that their
marriage on 1973 lacks marriage license and was not disputed by Fernando.
Issue:
1. W/n the marriage between Filipina and Fernando is void from the
beginning for lack of marriage license at the time of the ceremony. YES

2. W/n the photocopied marriage certificate and marriage license can be

admitted as evidence in the case. YES
Held:
1. Yes, the marriage is void from the beginning.
o Date of Marriage: November 15, 1973
o Date of Issuance of Marriage License: September 17, 1974
2. Yes, SC noted that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only
photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their children. Nevertheless,
these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial
below, which shows that these have been examined and admitted by the
trial court, with no objections having been made as to their
authenticity and due execution. Likewise, no objection was
interposed to Filipinas testimony in open court when she affirmed
that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on
November 15, 1973. Therefore, that having been admitted in evidence,
with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are
deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein.
SC: Petition is GRANTED. The marriage celebrated on November 15, 1973
between petitioner Filipina and Fernando is hereby declared void ab initio for lack
of a marriage license at the time of celebration.
RULE 132 SECTION 23 - PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE
1. REALUBIT V. JASO - GATCHALIAN
2.

MANZANO B. GARCIA - HAUTEA

RULE 132 SECTION 34 - OFFER OF EVIDENCE

1. HEIRS OF CARMEN V. MULTIWOOD - LESAVA
2.

HEIRS OF PASAG V. SPOUSES PAROCHA - LIM

3.

CATUIRA V. CA - SUPAPO

4.

VDA. DE ONATE V. CA - VILLAFUERTE

5.

SY V. CA - BUENAVENTURA

6.

MACASIRAY V. PEOPLE - DORIA

7.
ALVIN TUASON V. CA - FRANCISCO
Note: Section 34 Rule 132 was not mentioned in the case.
Doctrine:
Evidence to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a
credible witness but the same must be credible in itself.
Facts:

Issue:

Tuason together with John, Peter, and Richard were charged with
Robbery and Carnapping. Only Tuason was apprehended.
Complainant is Torres, a public school teacher. She left her maid (Jovina)
alone in her house.
One morning, somebody knocked at the gate of the Torres residence
pretending to buy ice.
o As the maid handed the ice to the buyer, one of the robbers jumped
over the fence, poked a gun at her, covered her mouth, and opened
the gate of their house. The ice buyer and his companions barged
in.
o Numbering four (4), they pushed her inside Torres' house and
demanded the keys to the car and the safety vault. She told them
she did not know where the keys were hidden. They tied up her
hands and dragged her to the second floor of the house. Tuason
was allegedly left downstairs as their lookout.
The 3 men ransacked Torres' room. One of the accused stumbled upon a
box containing keys. They used the keys to open drawers and in the
process found the car key. Tuason was then summoned upstairs and
given the car key. He tried it on the car and succeeded in starting its
engine.
Accused were able to loot the vault and other valuable items in the house.
They then tied maids hands and feet to the bed's headboard and escaped
using Torres' car.
Torres reported the robbery to the police authorities. Jovina and their
neighbor described the physical features of the four (4) robbers before the
NBI cartographer. One of those drawn by the artist was a person with
a large mole between his eyebrows.
o Thereafter, Tuason was arrested by the NBI agents. The next day,
at the NBI headquarters, he was pointed to by Jovina and the other
prosecution witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the crimes at
bench.
Tuason anchored his defense on alibi and insufficient identification by the
prosecution.
o TC: Convicted Tuason of the crimes charged.
o CA: affirmed RTCs decision in toto.

W/n the testimony of Jovina can serve as a basis for the conviction of
Tuason beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:

No. The trial court cannot convict Tuason on the basis of a deduction that
is irrational because it is not derived from an established fact. The records
do not show any fact from which the trial court can logically deduce the
conclusion that Tuason covered up his scar with a black coloring to make
it appear as a mole. Such an illogical reasoning cannot constitute
evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
At the NBI headquarters, Jovina described Tuason as 5'3" tall and with a
big mole between his eyebrows. While Quintal also described Tuason as
5'3" and with a black mole between his eyebrows.
o On the basis of their description, the NBI cartographer made a
drawing of Tuason showing a dominant mole between his eyes. As
it turned out, Tuason has no mole but only a scar between his eyes.
Moreover, he is 5'8.5" and not 5'3" tall. There is a big difference
between a mole and a scar.
o If indeed Jovina and Quintal had a good look at Tuason during the
robbery, they could not have erroneously described Tuason.
Worthy to note, Tuason was not wearing any mask in the occasion.
Jovina's attempt to explain her erroneous description does not at all
convince.
SC: Tuason is acquitted.
8.

CANDIDO & RUMBAUA V. CA - GATCHALIAN

9.

PEOPLE V. BARELLANO - HAUTEA

10.

PEOPLE V. SANCHEZ - LESAVA