G.R. No.

178221

December 1, 2010.*

MAY D. AONUEVO, ALEXANDER BLEE DESANTIS and

JOHN DESANTIS NERI, petitioners, vs. INTESTATE ESTATE
OF RODOLFO G. JALANDONI, represented by BERNARDINO
G. JALANDONI as Special Administrator, respondent.
Civil Procedure; Parties; Intervention; A courts power to allow or
deny intervention is circumscribed by the basic demand of sound judicial
procedure that only a person with interest in an action or proceeding
may be allowed to intervene.A courts power to allow or
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
421

VOL. 636, DECEMBER 1, 2010

Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni

421

deny intervention, albeit discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the

basic demand of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest
in an action or proceeding may be allowed to intervene. Otherwise stated,
a court has no authority to allow a person, who has no interest in an
action or proceeding, to intervene therein.
Same; Same; Same; Appeals; Certiorari; When a court commits a
mistake and allows an uninterested person to intervene in a case, the
mistake is not simply an error of judgment, but one of jurisdiction.
When a court commits a mistake and allows an uninterested person to
intervene in a casethe mistake is not simply an error of judgment, but
one of jurisdiction. In such event, the allowance is made in excess of the
courts jurisdiction and can only be the product of an exercise of
discretion gravely abused. That kind of error may be reviewed in a
special civil action for certiorari.
Civil Law; Documentary Evidence; Marriage Certificate; The fact of
marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage
certificate.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. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may
be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate.
Hence, even a0 persons birth certificate may be recognized as competent
evidence of the marriage between his parents.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Nelson A. Clemente for petitioners.
Redentor D. Roque collaborating counsel for petitioners.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for respondent.

422

42
2

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni

PEREZ, J.:
On appeal1 is the Decision2 dated 31 May 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00576. In the said decision, the Court of
Appeals nullified, on certiorari, the Orders3 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 40, of Negros Occidental (intestate court) allowing
herein petitioners and their siblings4 to intervene in the estate
proceedings of the late Rodolfo G. Jalandoni.5 The decretal portion
of the decision of the appellate court reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED,
the assailed Orders dated July 2, 2004 and January 26, 2005, of the
Regional Trial Court in Spec. Proc. No. 338 are hereby SET ASIDE and
NULLIFIED, and a permanent injunction is hereby issued enjoining
respondents [petitioners], their agents and anyone acting for and in their
behalves, from enforcing the assailed Orders. No costs.6

The antecedents are:

Rodolfo G. Jalandoni (Rodolfo) died intestate on 20 December
1966.7 He died without issue.8
_______________
1 Via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices
Arsenio J. Magpale and Agustin S. Dizon, concurring. Rollo, pp. 38-48.
3 Orders dated 2 July 2004 and 26 January 2005, issued by Judge Reynaldo M.
Alon, id., at pp. 49-55 and pp. 65-66.
4 The other siblings of the petitioners are Isabel Blee Desantis, Pierre Jojo
Desantis Joven, Cynthia Desantis Handy, William Chester Handy, Carroll Leon
Handy and Nora Margaret Handy.
5 Docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 338.
6 Rollo, p. 47.
7 Certificate of Death of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni. CA Rollo, p. 187.
8 Petition (for the Issuance of Letters of Administration). id., at p. 183.
423

VOL. 636, DECEMBER 1, 2010

423
Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni
On 28 April 1967, Bernardino G. Jalandoni (Bernardino), the
brother of Rodolfo, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of
administration9 with the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental, to commence the judicial settlement of the latters estate.
The petition was docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 338 and is currently

pending before the intestate court.10

On 17 January 2003, the petitioners and their siblings filed a
Manifestation11 before the intestate court. In the Manifestation, they
introduced themselves as the children of Sylvia Blee Desantis
(Sylvia)who, in turn, was revealed to be the daughter of Isabel
Blee (Isabel) with one John Desantis.12
The petitioners and their siblings contend that their
grandmotherIsabelwas, at the time of Rodolfos death, the legal
spouse of the latter.13 For which reason, Isabel is entitled to a share
in the estate of Rodolfo.
Seeking to enforce the right of Isabel, the petitioners and their
siblings pray that they be allowed to intervene on her behalf in the
intestate proceedings of the late Rodolfo G. Jalandoni.14 As it was,
by the time the Manifestation was filed, both Sylvia and Isabel have
already passed away with the former predeceasing the latter.15
To support their cause, the petitioners and their siblings appended
in their Manifestation, the following documents:
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 183-186.
10 Id.
11 The Manifestation was coupled by a Motion to Admit Manifestation. See id., at
pp. 52-56; id., at pp. 57-74.
12 Id., at pp. 57-58.
13 Id., at p. 57.
14 Id., at p. 58.
15 Isabel Blee died on 21 November 1999 whereas Sylvia Blee Desantis died on
21 November 1994, see their respective Certificates of Death, id., at pp. 65 and 84.
424

42
4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni

a.) Two (2) marriage certificates between Isabel and Rodolfo;16

b.) The birth certificate of their mother, Sylvia;17 and
c.) Their respective proof of births.18
It is the assertion of the petitioners and their siblings that the
foregoing pieces of evidence sufficiently establish that Isabel was
the spouse of Rodolfo, and that they are her lawful representatives.
The respondent intestate estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, now
represented by Bernardino as its Special Administrator, however,
begged to differ. It opposed the intervention on the ground that the

petitioners and their siblings have failed to establish the status of

Isabel as an heir of Rodolfo. The very evidence presented by the
petitioners and their siblings showed that Isabel had a previous and
subsisting marriage with John Desantis at the time she was
purportedly married to Rodolfo.
In its Comment to the Manifestation,19 the respondent called
attention to the entries in the birth certificate of Sylvia, who was
born on 14 February 1946.20 As it turned out, the record of birth of
Sylvia states that she was a legitimate child of Isabel and John
Desantis.21 The document also certifies the status of both Isabel and
John Desantis as mar_______________
16 Annex 1 and 2 of the Manifestation. The certificates attest to two
nuptialsthe first one being in 1951 and the other in 1953as both having been
celebrated between Isabel and Rodolfo. id., at pp. 61-62.
17 Annex 4 of the Manifestation, id., at p. 64.
18 Annex 6 to 14 of the Manifestation. The petitioners and their siblings all
attached their birth certificates, with the exception of Nora Margaret Handy who
presented her American passport. id., at pp. 66-74.
19 Id., at pp. 75-80.
20 Id., at p. 76.
21 Id.
425

VOL. 636, DECEMBER 1, 2010

425
Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni
ried.22 The respondent posits that the foregoing entries, having
been made in an official registry, constitute prima facie proof of a
prior marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.23
According to the respondent, Isabels previous marriage, in the
absence of any proof that it was dissolved, made her subsequent
marriage with Rodolfo bigamous and void ab initio.24
On 2 July 2004, the intestate court issued an order allowing the
petitioners and their siblings to take part in the settlement
proceedings.25 The intestate court was convinced that the evidence
at hand adequately establish Isabels status as the legal spouse of
Rodolfo and, by that token, permitted the petitioners and their
siblings to intervene in the proceedings on her behalf.26
The intestate court also held that the birth certificate of Sylvia
was insufficient to prove that there was a previous marriage between
Isabel and John Desantis.27 It ventured on the possibility that the
entries in the birth record of Sylvia regarding her legitimacy and the

status of her parents, may have been made only in order to save
Isabel and her family from the social condemnation of having a child
out of wedlock.28
The respondent sought for reconsideration, but was denied by the
intestate court in its order dated 26 January 2006.29 Undeterred, the
respondent hoisted a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals.
_______________
22 Id.
23 Rollo, pp. 120-121.
24 Id., at p. 121.
25 Id., at pp. 49-55.
26 Id., at p. 54.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id., at pp. 65-66.
426

42
6

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni

On 31 May 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and
nullified the orders of the intestate court.30
In coming to its conclusion, the Court of Appeals found that it
was an error on the part of the intestate court to have disregarded the
probative value of Sylvias birth certificate.31 The appellate court,
siding with the respondent, held that Sylvias birth certificate serves
as prima facie evidence of the facts therein statedwhich includes
the civil status of her parents.32 Hence, the previous marriage of
Isabel with John Desantis should have been taken as established.
The Court of Appeals added that since the petitioners and their
siblings failed to offer any other evidence proving that the marriage
of Isabel with John Desantis had been dissolved by the time she was
married to Rodolfo, it then follows that the latter marriagethe
Isabel-Rodolfo unionis a nullity for being bigamous.33 From that
premise, Isabel cannot be considered as the legal spouse of Rodolfo.
The petitioners and their siblings, therefore, failed to show that
Isabel has any interest in the estate of Rodolfo.
Hence, the instant appeal.34
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals
erred when it nullified the orders of the intestate court allowing the
petitioners and their siblings to intervene in the settlement

proceedings.
The petitioners answer in the affirmative. They proffer the
following arguments:
One. The Court of Appeals exceeded the limits of review under a
writ of certiorari.35 In nullifying the intestate courts
_______________
30 Id., at p. 47.
31 Id., at p. 45.
32 Id.
33 Id., at p. 43.
34 Petition for Review on Certiorari, id., at pp. 10-81.
35 Id., at p. 17.
427

VOL. 636, DECEMBER 1, 2010

427
Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni
order, the appellate court did not confine itself to the issue of
whether the same was issued with grave abuse of discretion.36
Rather, it chose to re-assess the evidence and touch upon the issue
pertaining to Isabels right to inherit from Rodolfo.37
Had the appellate court limited itself to the issue of whether
grave abuse of discretion exists, it would have found that the
intestate court did not act whimsically or capriciously in issuing its
assailed orders.38 Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
intestate court is belied by the fact that the said orders may be
supported by the two (2) marriage certificates between Isabel and
Rodolfo.39
Second. Assuming ex-gratia argumenti that the Court of Appeals
was correct in addressing the issue of whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove that Isabel has a right to inherit from Rodolfo, it
nevertheless erred in finding that there was none.40 A proper
evaluation of the evidence at hand does not support the conclusion
that Isabel had a previous marriage with John Desantis.41
To begin with, the respondent was not able to produce any
marriage certificate executed between Isabel and John Desantis.42
The conspicuous absence of such certificate can, in turn, only lend
credibility to the position that no such marriage ever took place.
Moreover, the entries in the birth certificate of Sylvia do not
carry the necessary weight to be able to prove a marriage between
Isabel and John Desantis.43 In assessing the probative value of such
entries, the Court of Appeals should have
_______________

36 Id., at pp. 21-22.

37 Id., at pp. 17-22.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id., at p. 23.
41 Id., at pp. 27-28.
42 Id., at p. 26.
43 Id., at p. 27.
428

42
8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni

taken note of a typical practice among unwed Filipino couples
who, in order to save face and not to embarrass their families,
concoct the illusion of marriage and make it appear that a child
begot by them is legitimate.44
Since the alleged previous marriage of Isabel with John Desantis
was not satisfactorily proven, the Court of Appeals clearly erred in
finding that her marriage with Rodolfo is bigamous.
We are not impressed.
First Argument
The first argument raised by the petitioners is specious at best.
The question of whether the intestate court gravely abused its
discretion is intricately linked with the issue of whether there was
sufficient evidence to establish Isabels status as the legal spouse of
Rodolfo.
A courts power to allow or deny intervention, albeit
discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the basic demand of
sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in an
action or proceeding may be allowed to intervene.45 Otherwise
stated, a court has no authority to allow a person, who has no interest
in an action or proceeding, to intervene therein.46
Consequently, when a court commits a mistake and allows an
uninterested person to intervene in a casethe mistake is not simply
an error of judgment, but one of jurisdiction. In such event, the
allowance is made in excess of the courts jurisdiction and can only
be the product of an exercise of dis_______________
44 Id.
45 See Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Paras v. Narciso,
35 Phil. 244, 246-247 (1916).
46 In the Matter of the Will of Cabigting, 14 Phil 463, 467-468 (1909).

429

VOL. 636, DECEMBER 1, 2010

429
Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni
cretion gravely abused. That kind of error may be reviewed in a
special civil action for certiorari.
Verily, the Court of Appeals was acting well within the limits of
review under a writ of certiorari, when it examined the evidence
proving Isabels right to inherit from Rodolfo. The sufficiency or
insufficiency of such evidence determines whether the petitioners
and their siblings have successfully established Isabels interest in
Rodolfos estatewhich, as already mentioned, is an indispensable
requisite to justify any intervention. Ultimately, the re-assessment of
the evidence presented by the petitioners and their siblings will tell if
the assailed orders of the intestate court were issued in excess of the
latters jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
We now proceed to the second argument of the petitioners.
Second Argument
The second argument of the petitioners is also without merit. We
agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that the petitioners
and their siblings failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that
Isabel was the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The very evidence of the
petitioners and their siblings negates their claim that Isabel has
interest in Rodolfos estate.
Contrary to the position taken by the petitioners, the existence of
a previous marriage between Isabel and John Desantis was
adequately established. This holds true notwithstanding the fact that
no marriage certificate between Isabel and John Desantis exists on
record.
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.47 Jurisprudence teaches that
_______________
47 Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 12, 30-31; 289 SCRA 188, 204 (1988).
430

43
0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni

the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than
the marriage certificate.48 Hence, even a persons birth certificate
may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between

his parents.49
In the present case, the birth certificate of Sylvia precisely serves
as the competent evidence of marriage between Isabel and John
Desantis. As mentioned earlier, it contains the following notable
entries: (a) that Isabel and John Desantis were married and (b) that
Sylvia is their legitimate child.50 In clear and categorical language,
Sylvias birth certificate speaks of a subsisting marriage between
Isabel and John Desantis.
Pursuant to existing laws,51 the foregoing entries are accorded
prima facie weight. They are presumed to be true. Hence, unless
rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, they can, and will, stand
as proof of the facts attested.52 In the case at bench, the petitioners
and their siblings offered no such rebuttal.
The petitioners did no better than to explain away the entries in
Sylvias birth certificate as untruthful statements
_______________
48 Pugeda v. Trias, 114 Phil. 781, 787; 4 SCRA 849, 855 (1962).
49 In Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, supra note 47 at p. 30, this Court held:
To prove the fact of marriage, the following would constitute competent
evidence: the testimony of a witness to the matrimony, the couples public and open
cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock, the birth and the
baptismal certificates of children born during such union, and the mention of such
nuptial in subsequent documents. (Pugeda v. Trias, id.) (Emphasis supplied)
50 CA Rollo, p. 64
51 See Article 410 in relation to Article 408 of the Civil Code and Section 44 of
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
52 Bustillo v. People, G.R. No. 160718, 12 May 2010, 620 SCRA 483.
431

VOL. 636, DECEMBER 1, 2010

431
Aonuevo vs. Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni
made only in order to save face.53 They urge this Court to take
note of a typical practice among unwed Filipino couples to
concoct the illusion of marriage and make it appear that a child
begot by them is legitimate. That, the Court cannot countenance.
The allegations of the petitioners, by themselves and unsupported
by any other evidence, do not diminish the probative value of the
entries. This Court cannot, as the petitioners would like Us to do,
simply take judicial notice of a supposed folkway and conclude
therefrom that the usage was in fact followed. It certainly is odd that
the petitioners would themselves argue that the document on which
they based their interest in intervention contains untruthful
statements in its vital entries.

Ironically, it is the evidence presented by the petitioners and their

siblings themselves which, properly appreciated, supports the
finding that Isabel was, indeed, previously married to John Desantis.
Consequently, in the absence of any proof that such marriage had
been dissolved by the time Isabel was married to Rodolfo, the
inescapable conclusion is that the latter marriage is bigamous and,
therefore, void ab initio.
The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to present
evidence to prove that Isabels prior marriage was dissolved results
in a failure to establish that she has interest in the estate of Rodolfo.
Clearly, an intervention by the petitioners and their siblings in the
settlement proceedings cannot be justified. We affirm the Court of
Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the
decision dated 31 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 00576 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioners.
_______________
53 Rollo, p. 27.