Peregrina Avenido vs Tecla Avenido

Facts:
This case involves a contest between two women claiming to have been married to the same
man, now deceased.
Tecla instituted a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage against Peregrina, alleging
that she, Tecla, is the lawful wife of Eustaquio Avenido, the latter also being the father of their
four children.
After Eustaquio left his family, Tecla learned that he married another woman named Peregrina.
Trial ensued.
Tecla presented testimonial and documentary evidence consisting, among others, of a copy of
Certificate of Marriage, a Certification that the Civil Registry records submitted to the Office of
the Civil Registrar General, from 1932 to the early part of 1945, were totally destroyed during
the liberation of Manila, a Certification of Loss/Destruction of Record of Marriage, and an
electronic copy of the Marriage Contract between Eustaquio and Peregrina.
Peregrina presented, among others, a Marriage Contract, an affidavit by Eustaquio declaring
himself single when he married the petitioner, although he had a common law wife, Tecla
Hoybia, and four children with her.
The RTC rendered a decision denying Teclas petition, as well as Peregrinas counter-claim. In
the absence of the marriage contract, the trial court did not give credence to the testimony of
Tecla and her witnesses as it considered the same as mere self-serving assertions. Superior
significance was given to the fact that Tecla could not even produce her own copy of the said
proof of marriage. Relying on Section 3(a) and Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the
trial court declared that Tecla failed to prove the existence of the first marriage.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Tecla, holding that the due execution and loss
of marriage contract, both constituting the condition sine qua non, for the introduction of
secondary evidence of its contents, were shown by the very evidence the trial court
disregarded. The CA concluded that there was a presumption of lawful marriage between Tecla
and Eustaquio as they deported themselves as husband and wife and begot four children. Such
presumption, supported by documentary evidence consisting of the same certifications
disregarded by the trial court, as well as the testimonial evidence, created, according tot eh
CA, sufficient proof of the fact of marriage. Contrary to the trial courts ruling, the CA found
that its appreciation of the evidence presented by Tecla is well in accord with Section 5, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court.
Peregrine now questions the said ruling, assigning as error, among others, the failure of the CA
to appreciate the validity of her marriage to Eustaquio.
Issue:
Whether or not secondary evidence may be considered and/or taken cognizance of by reason
of the unavailability of the best evidence
Held:
The ruling of the CA is upheld.
Secondary evidence is admissible even in the absence of best evidence provided due
execution and the loss of the marriage contract are duly proved.
While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not
regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage.

The celebration of marriage between Tecla and Equtaquio was established by the testimonial
evidence furnished by living witnesses to the event; the unrebutted fact of birth within the
cohabitation of Tecla and Eustaquio of four children coupled with certificates of the childrens
birth and baptism; and the certificates of marriage issued by the parish priest.
Wherefore, petition is denied and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The
marriage between petitioner Peregrina and deceased Eustaquio Avenido is hereby declared
null and void.