Balogbog Vs CA

Balogbog vs CA
GR No. 83598
March 7, 1997
Facts:
Petitioners Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog are children of Basilio Balogbog and
Genoveva Arzibal who died intestate in 1951 and 1961. They had an older
brother, Gavino, but he died in 1935, predeceasing their parents.
In 1968, private respondents Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog brought action
for partition and accounting against petitioners, claiming they were the
legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, were entitled to one-
third share of Gavino in the estate of their grandparents.
Petitioners denied knowing private respondents. They alleged brother Gavino
died single and without issue in their parents' residence. At start, they claimed
properties of estate had been sold to them by their mother when she was alive,
but withdrew this.
Private respondents presented Priscilo Trazo (then mayor of Asturias), Matias
Pogoy (a family friend), and Catalino Ubas as witnesses to prove that the
marriage existed between Gavino and Catalina, that there was a wedding, that
they had 3 children, and Gavino died in the residence of Matias which
contradicts petitioner’s claim.
Private respondents produced a certificate from Office of the Local Civil Registrar
that Register of Marriages did not have a record of the marriage of Gavino and
Catalina, certificate from Office of the Treasurer which shows no record of birth
of Ramonito. Records were presumed to have been lost/destroyed during war.
On the other hand, petitioner Leoncia still asserts that Gavino died in their family
residence in Asturias,that Gavino had no legitimate child, she did not know
private respondents before this case, and also she obtained certificates showing
no record of marriage between Gavino and Catalina.
Witness Jose Narvasa testified Gavino died single in 1935 and Catalina lived with
another man after war, although he did not know whether they were legally
married.
CFI rendered judgement in favor of Ramonito and Generoso. Petitioners filed for
reconsideration but was denied. They appealed to CA but it just affirmed CFI’s
decision. Hence, this petition.
Issue: W/N Ramonito and Generoso is entitled to one-third of the estate of

Basilio and Genoveva
Ruling: Yes, CA’s decision is affirmed.

Arts. 53 and 54 as contended by petitioners never came into force. Since this
case was brought in the lower court in 1968, the existence of the marriage must
be determined in accordance with the present Civil Code, which repealed the
provisions of the former Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights, and
the rules on evidence. 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 only by cogent proof to the contrary.
Evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove
the marriage. Indeed, although a marriage contract is considered primary
evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took
place. Other evidence may be presented to prove marriage.
Here, private respondents proved, through testimonial evidence, that Gavino and
Catalina were married in 1929; that they had three children, one of whom died
in infancy; that their marriage subsisted until 1935 when Gavino died; and that
their children, private respondents herein, were recognized by Gavino's family
and by the public as the legitimate children of Gavino. Neither is there merit in
the argument that the existence of the marriage cannot be presume.
An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies
of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for
having a wedding is to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would indeed
be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and quite unnatural
for people not to notice its absence.
The law favors the validity of marriage, because the State is interested in the
preservation of the family and the sanctity of the family is a matter of
constitutional concern.

Balogbog Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balogbog Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balogbog Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balogbog vs CA

Issue: W/N Ramonito and Generoso is entitled to one-third of the estate of

Ruling: Yes, CA’s decision is affirmed.

You might also like