Balogbog v. CA
March 7, 1997
PARTIES:
- Petitioner: Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudiso Balogbog
- Respondents: CA, Ramonito Balogbog, Generoso Balgbog
FACTS:
·
Petitioners (Leoncia and Gaudiso) were
children of Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal who died intestatein 1951 and
1961. They had an older brother Gavino who died in 1935.
·
1986 – (PR) Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog
nrought an action for partition and accounting against the petitioners claiming
they were legitimate children of Gavino and Catalina Ubas, and are thus
entitled to the one-third share of Gavino in the estate of their grandparents.
·
Leoncia and Gaudiso denied knowing Ramonito
and Generoso; claiming their brother died single in their parents’ residence.
·
Ramonito and Generoso presented 2 witnesses:
1.
Prisicilo Y. Trazo – former mayor of Astruias
(1928-1934) – testified knowing Gavino and Catalina to be husband and wife with
Ramonito as their first born. Claimed to have attended Gavino and Catalina’s
wedding sometime in 1929 in which Rev. Father Jomao-as officiated and Egmidio
Manuel (municipal councilor) as a witness.
2.
Matias Pogoy – close family friend; testified
that the PR’s were Gavino and Catalina’s children; claimed the wedding happened
in a Catholic Church in Asturias which he attended.
·
Catalina herself testified claiming that after
the wedding she was handed a “receipt” presumably a marriage certificate by Fr.
Jomao-as, but it was burned during the war.
·
PR’s produced a certificate from the Office of
the Local Civil Registrar that the Register of Marriage did not have a record
of the marriage of Gavino and Catalina and that there was no record of Ramonito’s
birth as well, for the reason that the records are presumed to have been lost
or destroyed during the war. (Also similar to why no records of Ramonito’s
birth at a church)
PETITIONER’S
ARGUMENTS:
·
Marriage of Gavino and Catalina should have
been proven under Articles 53 and 54 of the 1889 Civil Code (because this was
the law in force at the time the alleged marriage was celebrated), which states
that marriages celebrated under the 1889 Civil Code must be proven only by a
certified copy of the memorandum in the Civil Registry, unless the books
thereof have not been kept or have been lost.
·
COURT: noted a long
time ago that Articles 42-107 of the Civil Code did not take effect having been
suspended by the Governor General of the Philippines. (Therefore Articles 53
and 54 never took effect)
Under the Rules
of Court: the presumption is that a man and a woman conducting themselves as
husband and wife are legally married. This presumption is only rebutted by
proof to the contrary.
ISSUE/S:
·
W/N the marriage between Gavino and Catalina
is valid even in the absence of a marriage certificate.
HELD:
-Yes. Under the
Rules of Court, the presumption is that a man and a woman conducting themselves
as husband and wife are legally married. This presumption may be rebutted when
there is a proof to the contrary. Although a marriage contract is considered
primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no
marriage took place. Other evidences may be shown to prove the marriage.
- Evidence on
record also shows that petitioner Gaudisio Balogbog admitted to the police that
Raminito is his nephew (admissible although made in a different case—considered
reliable declaration against interest).
o
The law favors the
validity of marriage, because the State is interested in the preservation of
the family and the sanctity of family is a matter of constitutional concern.
o
Civil Code of
Procedure: “that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage.” (Semper praesumitur pro
matrimonio) – Always presume marriage,
