Legal presumption that solemnizing officer had authority

Petitioner and her husband were married before a judge in Tarlac in 1990. In 2018, petitioner filed for a declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground that the solemnizing officer had no authority to solemnize marriages. Under the Family Code, a marriage can be declared void if the solemnizing officer had no authority to solemnize marriages.

Apparently in her case, the person who officiated the ceremony acted only as the judge but was actually someone else. Even petitioner’s own counsel testified to this fact, as he knew both the real judge and the one who acted as the judge. The trial court, however, refused to declare the marriage void. It opined that the petitioner was unable to prove the lack of authority. This was affirmed by the appellate court on appeal.

When the issue reached the Supreme Court, it made this pronouncement:

“Foremost, all of petitioner’s witnesses failed to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo. Petitioner had no personal knowledge to distinguish the persons of Judge De Gracia or Florendo. She even admitted that she thought the person who solemnized the marriage was Judge De Gracia. She did not present any evidence to identify either Judge De Gracia or Florendo.

“Likewise, Atty. Cunanan, the petitioner’s lawyer who testified for her, claimed that he knew Judge De Gracia because he had previously visited him in his chambers and that they belonged to a religious group. Cunanan also contended that he and Florendo belonged to the same organization, that is, the Rotary Club of Tarlac City. Yet, aside from his bare allegations and despite claims of personal connection with the individuals in question, he did not present other documentary or testimonial evidence to buttress his claims.

“Finally, Quilana established that he personally attended the marriage ceremony, but he also admitted that he did not know what Judge De Gracia or Florendo looked like. It is a fundamental legal precept that a person who alleges must prove his or her allegations. In Gatmaytan v. Dolor, the Court emphasized that a mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges has the burden of proving the allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence.

“Logically, a party who fails to discharge his or her burden of proof will not be entitled to the relief prayed for. In this case, the identities of either Judge De Gracia or Florendo could have been established by numerous documentary or testimonial evidence of various competent and disinterested persons. Atty. Cunanan could have secured the presence of Judge De Gracia himself, his court staff (considering that he was a judge in Tarlac City), or any other competent person who can personally identify him; yet they failed to do so.

“Similarly, Atty. Cunanan claimed that he belonged to the same organization as Florendo, and yet, he failed to produce competent evidence, aside from his own testimony, as to the identity of Florendo. On the other hand, Judge De Gracia’s name and signature appeared in the marriage contract as the solemnizing officer. The authenticity of his signature was never assailed. The marriage contract, being a public document, is not only a prima facie proof of marriage, but is also a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

“Hence, as against the petitioner’s self-serving allegations, the marriage contract must prevail. More importantly, it is settled in jurisprudence that an officer or clergyman who officiated the marriage is presumed to have legal authority to do so, absent sufficient contrary evidence.

“Thus, since the petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer, the marriage is valid. The legal presumption accorded to public documents, in favor of the authority of the solemnizing officer, and towards the validity of marriage, must be upheld.”

The facts and redacted portion of the decision are from G.R. No. 267998 (23 April 2025).