You are on page 1of 5


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
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.

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 father’s 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
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.

(3) attempt by respondent against her life. Filipina later filed a new action for legal separation against Fernando on the following grounds: (1) repeated physical violence. 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.  RTC: denied the petition of Filipina for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando. (2) refusal to live with her without fault on her part. and (3) refusal to have sex with her. o She also cites as manifestations of her husband’s psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual alcoholism. performing the marital act only to satisfy himself. as cited by Filipina. YES . and released her only when he thought she was dead. Issue: 1. Filipina appealed by certiorari and raises that CA overlooked that their marriage on 1973 lacks marriage license and was not disputed by Fernando.)  Later.  Filipina’s testimony concerning Fernando’s 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. (2) sexual infidelity. choosing to live with his mistress instead.  It stated that the alleged acts of Fernando.  RTC Manila: convicted Fernando only of slight physical injuries.o  Filipina also claimed that her husband started choking her when she fell on the floor. Moreover. it was mentioned on the decision part. o RTC: granted the petition on the grounds of 1 and 2. Filipina alleges that such psychological incapacity of her husband existed from the time of the celebration of their marriage and became manifest thereafter. W/n the marriage between Filipina and Fernando is void from the beginning for lack of marriage license at the time of the ceremony. do not constitute psychological incapacity which may warrant the declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity. and issued a decree of legal separation. Moreover. and (4) abandonment of her by her husband without justifiable cause for more than one year.  CA: affirmed RTC’s decision. 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.

SC noted that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only photocopies. these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial below.PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE 1. that having been admitted in evidence.OFFER OF EVIDENCE 1. Nevertheless. MACASIRAY V.DORIA . SY V. with no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due execution. The marriage celebrated on November 15. MANZANO B. 1973. RULE 132 SECTION 23 . REALUBIT V. JASO . SC: Petition is GRANTED. DE ONATE V. Yes. the marriage is void from the beginning. CA .HAUTEA RULE 132 SECTION 34 .2.LESAVA 2. which shows that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court. CA . 1973 o Date of Issuance of Marriage License: September 17. VDA. these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein. with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto. So are the birth certificates of their children.BUENAVENTURA 6. Yes. MULTIWOOD . YES Held: 1. PEOPLE . SPOUSES PAROCHA . o Date of Marriage: 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. W/n the photocopied marriage certificate and marriage license can be admitted as evidence in the case. HEIRS OF PASAG V. no objection was interposed to Filipina’s testimony in open court when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on November 15. Therefore. HEIRS OF CARMEN V. GARCIA . Likewise. 1974 2.LIM 3. CATUIRA V.VILLAFUERTE 5.SUPAPO 4.GATCHALIAN 2. CA .

ALVIN TUASON V. One morning.FRANCISCO Note: Section 34 Rule 132 was not mentioned in the case. One of the accused stumbled upon a box containing keys. The 3 men ransacked Torres' room. Tuason was then summoned upstairs and given the car key.7. . Jovina and their neighbor described the physical features of the four (4) robbers before the NBI cartographer. She told them she did not know where the keys were hidden. o CA: affirmed RTC’s decision in toto. o As the maid handed the ice to the buyer. They used the keys to open drawers and in the process found the car key. Tuason was arrested by the NBI agents. Complainant is Torres. he was pointed to by Jovina and the other prosecution witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the crimes at bench. covered her mouth. o Numbering four (4). The next day. o TC: Convicted Tuason of the crimes charged. o Thereafter. They then tied maid’s hands and feet to the bed's headboard and escaped using Torres' car. One of those drawn by the artist was a person with a large mole between his eyebrows. they pushed her inside Torres' house and demanded the keys to the car and the safety vault. Only Tuason was apprehended. The ice buyer and his companions barged in. Peter. poked a gun at her. She left her maid (Jovina) alone in her house. CA . at the NBI headquarters. and Richard were charged with Robbery and Carnapping. Facts:        Issue: Tuason together with John. must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but the same must be credible in itself. Tuason anchored his defense on alibi and insufficient identification by the prosecution. Accused were able to loot the vault and other valuable items in the house. He tried it on the car and succeeded in starting its engine. and opened the gate of their house. one of the robbers jumped over the fence. a public school teacher. somebody knocked at the gate of the Torres residence pretending to buy ice. Tuason was allegedly left downstairs as their lookout. Doctrine: Evidence to be believed. They tied up her hands and dragged her to the second floor of the house. Torres reported the robbery to the police authorities.

Tuason was not wearing any mask in the occasion. Jovina's attempt to explain her erroneous description does not at all convince.GATCHALIAN 9. the NBI cartographer made a drawing of Tuason showing a dominant mole between his eyes. SANCHEZ . Such an illogical reasoning cannot constitute evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  At the NBI headquarters. 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.W/n the testimony of Jovina can serve as a basis for the conviction of Tuason beyond reasonable doubt. While Quintal also described Tuason as 5'3" and with a black mole between his eyebrows. As it turned out. BARELLANO . CA . CANDIDO & RUMBAUA V. Moreover. he is 5'8. 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. Jovina described Tuason as 5'3" tall and with a big mole between his eyebrows. 8.5" and not 5'3" tall. Worthy to note. SC: Tuason is acquitted. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V. Tuason has no mole but only a scar between his eyes.HAUTEA 10. o If indeed Jovina and Quintal had a good look at Tuason during the robbery. There is a big difference between a mole and a scar.LESAVA . they could not have erroneously described Tuason. o On the basis of their description.