G.R. No.

83598 March 7, 1997

LEONCIA BALOGBOG and GAUDIOSO BALOGBOG, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMONITO BALOGBOG and GENEROSO
BALOGBOG, respondents.

MENDOZA,
%is is a petition for review of te decision
1
of te Court of Appeals, affirming te
decision of te Court of First nstance of Cebu City (Branc X), declaring private
respondents eirs of te deceased Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog entitled to inerit
from tem.
%e facts are as follows. Petitioners Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog are te cildren of
Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arzibal wo died intestate in 1951 and 1961,
respectively. %ey ad an older broter, Gavino, but e died in 1935, predeceasing teir
parents.
n 1968, private respondents Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog brougt an action for
partition and accounting against petitioners, claiming tat tey were te legitimate
cildren of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and tat, as suc, tey were entitled to te one-
tird sare of Gavino in te estate of teir grandparents.
n teir answer, petitioners denied knowing private respondents. %ey alleged tat teir
broter Gavino died single and witout issue in teir parents' residence at %ag-amakan,
Asturias, Cebu. n te beginning tey claimed tat te properties of te estate ad been
sold to tem by teir moter wen se was still alive, but tey later witdrew tis
allegation.
Private respondents presented Priscilo Y. %razo,

ten 81 years old, mayor of te

municipality of Asturias from 1928 to 1934, wo testified tat e knew Gavino and
Catalina to be usband and wife and Ramonito to be teir first cild. On
crossexamination, %razo explained tat e knew Gavino and Catalina because tey
performed at is campaign rallies, Catalina as "balitaw" dancer and Gavino Balogbog as
er guitarist. %razo said e attended te wedding of Gavino and Catalina sometime in
1929, in wic Rev. Fater Emiliano Jomao-as officiated and Egmidio Manuel, ten a
municipal councilor, acted as one of te witnesses.
%e second witness presented was Matias Pogoy,
3
a family friend of private
respondents, wo testified tat private respondents are te cildren of Gavino and
Catalina. According to im, te wedding of Gavino and Catalina was solemnized in te
Catolic Curc of Asturias, Cebu and tat e knew tis because e attended teir
wedding and was in fact asked by Gavino to accompany Catalina and carry er
wedding dress from er residence in Camanaol to te poblacion of Asturias before te
wedding day. He testified tat Gavino died in 1935 in is residence at Obogon,
Balamban, Cebu, in te presence of is wife. (%is contradicts petitioners' claim made in
teir answer tat Gavino died in te ancestral ouse at %ag-amakan, Asturias.) Pogoy
said e was a carpenter and e was te one wo ad made te coffin of Gavino. He
also made te coffin of te couple's son, Petronilo, wo died wen e was six.
Catalina Ubas testified concerning er marriage to Gavino.

$e testified tat after te

wedding, se was anded a "receipt," presumably te marriage certificate, by Fr.
Jomao-as, but it was burned during te war. $e said tat se and Gavino lived
togeter in Obogon and begot tree cildren, namely, Ramonito, Petronilo, and
Generoso. Petronilo died after an illness at te age of six. On crossexamination, se
stated tat after te deat of Gavino, se lived in common law relation wit a man for a
year and ten tey separated.
Private respondents produced a certificate from te Office of te Local Civil Registrar
(Ex. P) tat te Register of Marriages did not ave a record of te marriage of Gavino
and Catalina, anoter certificate from te Office of te %reasurer (Ex. L) tat tere was
no record of te birt of Ramonito in tat office and, for tis reason, te record must be
presumed to ave been lost or destroyed during te war, and a certificate by te Paris
Priest of Asturias tat tere was likewise no record of birt of Ramonito in te curc,
te records of wic were eiter lost or destroyed during te war. (Ex. M)
On te oter and, as defendant below, petitioner Leoncia Balogbog testified
5
tat
Gavino died single at te family residence in Asturias. $e denied tat er broter ad
any legitimate cildren and stated tat se did not know private respondents before tis
case was filed. $e obtained a certificate (Ex. 10) from te Local Civil Registrar of
Asturias to te effect tat tat office did not ave a record of te names of Gavino and
Catalina. %e certificate was prepared by Assistant Municipal %reasurer Juan Maranga,
wo testified tat tere was no record of te marriage of Gavino and Catalina in te
Book of Marriages between 1925 to 1935.
6

itness Jose Narvasa testified

7
tat Gavino died single in 1935 and tat Catalina lived
wit a certain Eleuterio Keriado after te war, altoug e did not know weter tey
were legally married. He added, owever, tat Catalina ad cildren by a man se ad
married before te war, altoug e did not know te names of te cildren. On
crossexamination, Narvasa stated tat Leoncia Balogbog, wo requested im to testify,
was also is bondsman in a criminal case filed by a certain Mr. Cuyos.
Ramonito Balogbog was presented
8
to rebut Leoncia Balogbog's testimony.
On June 15, 1973, te Court of First nstance of Cebu City rendered judgment for
private respondents (plaintiffs below), ordering petitioners to render an accounting from
1960 until te finality of its judgment, to partition te estate and deliver to private
respondents one-tird of te estate of Basilio and Genoveva, and to pay attorney's fees
and costs.
Petitioners filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, contending tat te trial
court erred in not giving weigt to te certification of te Office of te Municipal
%reasurer of Asturias (Ex. 10) to te effect tat no marriage of Gavino and Catalina
was recorded in te Book of Marriages for te years 1925-1935. %eir motion was
denied by te trial court, as was teir second motion for new trial and/or reconsideration
based on te curc records of te paris of Asturias wic did not contain te record of
te alleged marriage in tat curc.
On appeal, te Court of Appeals affirmed. t eld tat private respondents failed to
overcome te legal presumption tat a man and a woman deporting temselves as
usband and wife are in fact married, tat a cild is presumed to be legitimate, and tat
tings appen according to te ordinary course of nature and te ordinary abits of life.
9
Hence, tis petition.
e find no reversible error committed by te Court of Appeals.
789. Petitioners contend tat te marriage of Gavino and Catalina sould ave been
proven in accordance wit Arts. 53 and 54 of te Civil Code of 1889 because tis was
te law in force at te time te alleged marriage was celebrated. Art. 53 provides tat
marriages celebrated under te Civil Code of 1889 sould be proven only by a certified
copy of te memorandum in te Civil Registry, unless te books tereof ave not been
kept or ave been lost, or unless tey are questioned in te courts, in wic case any
oter proof, suc as tat of te continuous possession by parents of te status of
usband and wife, may be considered, provided tat te registration of te birt of teir
cildren as teir legitimate cildren is also submitted in evidence.
%is Court noted long ago, owever, tat Arts. 42 to 107 of te Civil Code of 1889 of
$pain did not take effect, aving been suspended by te Governor General of te
Pilippines sortly after te extension of tat code to tis
country.
10
Consequently, Arts. 53 and 54 never came into force. $ince tis case was
brougt in te lower court in 1968, te existence of te marriage must be determined in
accordance wit te present Civil Code, wic repealed te provisions of te former
Civil Code, except as tey related to vested rigts,
11
and te rules on evidence. Under
te Rules of Court, te presumption is tat a man and a woman conducting temselves
as usband and wife are legally married.
1
%is presumption may be rebutted only by
cogent proof to te contrary.
13
n tis case, petitioners' claim tat te certification
presented by private respondents (to te effect tat te record of te marriage ad been
lost or destroyed during te war) was belied by te production of te Book of Marriages
by te assistant municipal treasurer of Asturias. Petitioners argue tat tis book does
not contain any entry pertaining to te alleged marriage of private respondents' parents.
%is contention as no merit. n Pugeda v. T7a8,
1
te defendants, wo questioned te
marriage of te plaintiffs, produced a potostatic copy of te record of marriages of te
Municipality of Rosario, Cavite for te mont of January, 1916, to sow tat tere was
no record of te alleged marriage. Noneteless, evidence consisting of te testimonies
of witnesses was eld competent to prove te marriage. ndeed, altoug a marriage
contract is considered primary evidence of marriage,
15
te failure to present it is not
proof tat no marriage took place. Oter evidence may be presented to prove
marriage.
16
Here, private respondents proved, troug testimonial evidence, tat
Gavino and Catalina were married in 1929; tat tey ad tree cildren, one of wom
died in infancy; tat teir marriage subsisted until 1935 wen Gavino died; and tat teir
cildren, private respondents erein, were recognized by Gavino's family and by te
public as te legitimate cildren of Gavino.
Neiter is tere merit in te argument tat te existence of te marriage cannot be
presumed because tere was no evidence sowing in particular tat Gavino and
Catalina, in te presence of two witnesses, declared tat tey were taking eac oter as
usband and wife.
17
An excange of vows can be presumed to ave been made from
te testimonies of te witnesses wo state tat a wedding took place, since te very
purpose for aving a wedding is to excange vows of marital commitment. t would
indeed be unusual to ave a wedding witout an excange of vows and quite unnatural
for people not to notice its absence.
%e law favors te validity of marriage, because te $tate is interested in te
preservation of te family and te sanctity of te family is a matter of constitutional
concern. As stated in dong v. Cheong Seng Gee:
18

%e basis of uman society trougout te civilized world is tat of marriage. Marriage in

tis jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in te
maintenance of wic te public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of
te law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling togeter in apparent
matrimony are presumed, in te absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special
to te case, to be in fact married. %e reason is tat suc is te common order of society,
and if te parties were not wat tey tus old temselves out as being, tey would be
living in te constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption establised by our
Code of Civil Procedure is "tat a man and a woman deporting temselves as usband
and wife ave entered into a lawful contract of marriage." ($ec. 334, No. 28) Sempe7
p7ae8um9u7 p7o ma97mono Always presume marriage. (U.$. vs. Villafuerte and
Rabano [1905], 4 Pil., 476; $on Cui vs. Guepangco, 8up7a; U.$. vs. Memoracion and
Uri [1916], 34 Pil., 633; %eter vs. %eter [1884], 101 nd., 129.)
Second. Petitioners contend tat private respondents' reliance solely on testimonial
evidence to support teir claim tat private respondents ad been in te continuous
possession of te status of legitimate cildren is contrary to Art. 265 of te Civil Code
wic provides tat suc status sall be proven by te record of birt in te Civil
Register, by an autentic document or by final judgment. But in accordance wit Arts.
266 and 267, in te absence of titles indicated in Art. 265, te filiation of cildren may be
proven by continuous possession of te status of a legitimate cild and by any oter
means allowed by te Rules of Court or special laws. %us te Civil Code provides:
Art. 266. n te absence of te titles indicated in te preceding article, te filiation sall be
proved by te continuous possession of status of a legitimate cild.
Art. 267. n te absence of a record of birt, autentic document, final judgment or
possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any oter means allowed by
te Rules of Court and special laws.
Petitioners contend tat tere is no justification for presenting testimonies as to te
possession by private respondents of te status of legitimate cildren because te Book
of Marriages for te years 1928-1929 is available.
at is in issue, owever, is not te marriage of Gavino and Catalina but te filiation of
private respondents as teir cildren. %e marriage of Gavino and Catalina as already
been sown in te preceding discussion. %e treasurer of Asturias, Cebu certified tat
te records of birt of tat municipality for te year 1930 could not be found, presumably
because tey were lost or destroyed during te war (Ex. L). But Matias Pogoy testified
tat Gavino and Catalina begot tree cildren, one of wom, Petronilo, died at te age
of six. Catalina testified tat private respondents Ramonito and Generoso are er
cildren by Gavino Balogbog. %at private respondents are te cildren of Gavino and
Catalina Balogbog cannot terefore be doubted.
Moreover, te evidence in te record sows tat petitioner Gaudioso Balogbog admitted
to te police of Balamban, Cebu tat Ramonito is is nepew. As te Court of Appeals
found:
ronically, it is appellant Gaudioso imself wo supplies te clincer tat tips te balance
in favor of te appellees. n an investigation before te Police nvestigating Committee of
Balamban, Cebu, eld on Marc 8, 1968, conducted for te purpose of inquiring into a
complaint filed by Ramonito against a patrolman of te Balamban police force, Gaudioso
testified tat te complainant in tat administrative case is is nepew. Excerpts from te
transcript of te proceedings conducted on tat date (Exs. "N", "N-1", "N-2", "N-3" and
"N-4") read:
Atty. Kiamco May it please tis investigative body.
Q. Do you know te complainant in tis Administrative Case No. 1?
A. Yes know.
Q. y do you know im?
A. know because e is my nepew.
Q. Are you in good terms wit your nepew, te complainant?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you mean to say tat you are close to im?
A. Yes. e are close.
Q. y do you say you are close?
A. e are close because aside from te fact tat e is my nepew we
were also leaving (8c) in te same ouse in Butuan City, and even
barrow (8c) from im money in te amount of P300.00, wen return to
Balamban, Cebu.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. y is Ramonito Balogbog your nepew?
A. Because e is te son of my elder broter.
%is admission of relationsip is admissible against Gaudioso altoug made in anoter
case. t is considered as a reliable declaration against interest (Rule 130, $ection 22).
$ignificantly, Gaudioso did not try to offer any explanation to blunt te effects of tat
declaration. He did not even testify during te trial. $uc silence can only mean tat
Ramonito is indeed te nepew of Gaudioso, te former being te son of Gavino.
HEREFORE, te decision appealed from is AFFRMED.
$O ORDERED.
Regalado, Rome7o, Puno and To77e8, J7, JJ, concu7