This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Documentary evidence may also be shown. In Villanueva v. Court of Appeals,[32] we held that the best documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract itself. Under Act No. 3613 or the Marriage Law of 1929,[33] as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 114,[34] which is applicable to the present case being the marriage law in effect at the time Uy and Rosca cohabited, the marriage certificate, where the contracting parties state that they take each other as husband and wife, must be furnished by the person solemnizing the marriage to (1) either of the contracting parties, and (2) the clerk of the Municipal Court of Manila or the municipal secretary of the municipality where the marriage was solemnized. The third copy of the marriage contract, the marriage license and the affidavit of the interested party regarding the solemnization of the marriage other than those mentioned in Section 5 of the same Act shall be kept by the official, priest, or minister who solemnized the marriage. | |||||
|
2010-01-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the respondents. The supposed vendor's signature having been proved to be a forgery, the instrument is totally void or inexistent as "absolutely simulated or fictitious" under Article 1409 of the Civil Code.[51] According to Article 1410, "the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe". The inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable which cannot be cured either by ratification or by prescription.[52] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
|||||
| The best proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage contract.[35] Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reads as follows:Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. | |||||