ARSENIO DE LORIA and RICARDA DE LORIA, 

petitioners,
vs.
FELIPE APELAN FELIX, respondent.

Facts:
Before World War II, Matea dela Cruz and Felipe Apellan Felix were living
for quite some time as husband and wife though without the sanctity of marriage.
They acquired properties together but had no children. Right after the liberation of
Manila, Matea got ill. While being doing a confession to Father Gerardo Bautista,a
Catholic priest, she admitted that she and Felipe were never married. Upon strong
urging of the priest, they agreed. After the confession, Holy Communion, Sacrament
of Extreme Unction, Father Bautista solemnized the union of the two, in articulo
mortis, with Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra as sponsors or witness . The date
was either 29 or 30 January 1945.
Matea recovered from her illness for a few months but eventually died on
January 1946, with Fr. Bautista performing the burial ceremonies.
On 12 May 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria, grand nephew and
niece, respectively, of Matea by her sister Adriana dela Cruz, filed a complaint against
Felipe to compel him to account and turnover the properties left by their grand aunt
Matea. Felipe responded that he was the widower of the late Matea, therefore, the
rightful claimant. The Court of First Instance gave a favorable judgment for the
petitioners, but on appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and dismissed the
complaint.
The Arsenio and Ricarda appealed the decision of the CA citing that the
marriage of Felipe and Matea, though solemnized by a Catholic priest, was not
registered to the local civil registrar.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between two parties were legal though no
marriage license were issued

Ruling:
Yes, according to the Supreme Court. In the old Marriage Law, failure to sign
the marriage contract is not a cause of annulment.
Bearing in mind that the "essential requisites for marriage are the legal
capacity of the contracting parties and their consent" (section 1 of the old Marriage
Law), the latter being manifested by the declaration of "the parties" "in the presence
of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age that they
take each other as husband and wife",which in this case actually occurred. The
Supreme Court opined that the signing of the marriage contract or certificate was
required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the act. No statutory
provision or court ruling has been cited making it an essential requisite,not the formal
requirement of evidentiary value. The fact of marriage is one thing; the proof by
which it may be established is quite another.Father Bautista was at fault for not
registering the formal union of the couple to the local civil registrar. This does not
mean that the non-registration of the marriage is a ground for annulment. Therefore,
the married couple should not suffer for the omission of Father Bautista.
Felipe is the rightful claimant to the estate of Matea -being the husband. As
such, the claims of the petitioner was denied.