Mistake in identity v. forged signature in a marriage contract

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

As the bar examinations are due to be rolled-out this September, the examinees are preparing to meet different legal scenarios so they can provide answers to the same.

Being their bar reviewer in civil law at the University of San Agustin Bar Reviewer Org., apart from conducting reviews in the form of lectures, this columnist also accepts questions from the bar reviewees.

One of the most interesting questions sent last year was this:

What is the difference between a void marriage on the ground of mistake as to the identity of the party and the case of Republic v. Olaybar (G.R. No. 189538               February 10, 2014) where the Supreme Court held that there is in fact no marriage for lack of consent when one’s signature in the marriage contract is forged?

To recall, in Olaybar, an applicant for a marriage license was surprised when she was not eligible for issuance of a marriage license because it appears from the records of the civil registry that she was already married. Upon some sleuthing, she discovered that somebody forged her signature in a marriage contract to which she did not participate. The aggrieved party filed a petition for cancellation of the marriage contract (not a petition for nullity of marriage) on account of invalidity of her signature.

This columnist’s humble suggested answers are as follows:

1)In a void marriage on account of mistake as to the identity of one party, somehow there is an intention to contract marriage although the one who showed up at the time of celebration is a different person. Please note that the intent of one party (like the good faith belief as to the authority of the solemnizing officer) matters in a marriage even if the other party knew of the absence of authority of the solemnizing officer.

To illustrate, if X and Y agree to marry but during the ceremony, Z, Y’s identical twin, shows up and takes the place of Y, we have a case of mistake in identity. To be sure, X and Y had agreed to marry. But in Olaybar, the petitioner never had any intention to marry at all. She was just surprised to learn that she was already ‘married’ as appearing on the marriage contract.

2)In mistake in identity, it presupposes that a marriage ceremony was held. But in Olaybar, no such marriage ceremony was ever held insofar as the party whose signature was forged is concerned, as in fact, the signature appearing on the marriage contract was indubitably shown to be forged.

3)Also, in mistake of identity, the word “mistake” presupposes the lack of malicious intent. In Olaybar, there was really an act of “forgery” which means the act of imitating the signature and it implies malice. (Philippine Savings Bank v. Maria Cecilia Sakata, G.R. No. 229450. June 17, 2020). 

I further humbly submit that Republic v. Olaybar is imbued with obiter dicta. It should also apply only when the facts are very similar. This is because the peculiar circumstance in Olaybar is that both parties were given the opportunity to present their cases in an adversarial proceeding. In other words, absent a full blown trial, a Rule 108 petition would not be a proper remedy to declare a marriage as null and void as it would amount to a collateral attack on the validity of a marriage in violation of Article 40 of the Family Code.

In the normal run of things, when a marriage is void, regardless of the ground, the proper way to have it declared void is by filing a petition for nullity of marriage pursuant to Article 40 and not through a petition for cancellation of entry in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

                (The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).