Balogbog vs.

CA
GR No. 83598, March 7, 1997

FACTS:

Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog filed an action for partition and accounting against their
Aunt Leoncia and Uncle Gaudioso for partition and accounting of their grandparents estate
at the Court of First Instance of Cebu City which was granted by the latter. Leoncia and
Gaudioso appealed to the Court of Appeals but the latter affirmed the lower courts decision.

Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal died intestate in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They
have three children, Leoncia, Gaudioso and Gavino, their older brother who died in
1935. Ramoncito and Generoso was claiming that they were the legitimate children of
Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as such they were entitled to the one-third share in the
estate of their grandparents. However, Leoncia and Gaudioso claimed they are not aware
that their brother has 2 sons and that he was married. They started to question the validity of
the marriage between their brother Gavino and Catalina despite how Gaudioso himself
admitted during a police investigation proceeding that indeed Ramonito is his nephew as the
latter is the son of his elder brother Gavino.

In the efforts of Ramoncito and Generoso to prove the validity of their parents marriage,
they presented Priscilo Trazo, 81 years old then mayor of Asturias from 1928 to 1934 and
Matias Pogoy who both testified that he knew Gavino and Catalina to be husband and wife
and that they have three children. Catalina herself testified that she was handed a receipt
presumably the marriage certificate by Fr. Jomao-as but it was burned during the war.

On the other hand,Leoncia claimed that her brother Gavino died single at the family
residence in Asturias. She obtained a certificate from the local Civil Registrar of Asturias to
the effect that the office did not have a record of the names of Gavino and Catalina which
was prepared by Assistant Municipal Treasurer Juan Maranga who testified in the hearing as
well.

Leoncia and Gaudioso contended that the marriage of Gavino and Catalina should have been
proven in accordance with Arts. 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889 because this was the
law in force at the time of the alleged marriage was celebrated.

Art. 53 provides that marriages celebrated under the Civil Code of 1889 should 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, or unless they are questioned in the courts, in which
case any other proof, such as that of the continuous possession by parents of the status of
husband and wife, may be considered, provided that the registration of the birth of their
children as their legitimate children is also submitted in evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gavino and Catalinas marriage is valid.

HELD:

Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in rendering
Gavino and Catalinas marriage as valid and thus entitle Ramonito and Generoso one third of
their grandparents estate.

The court further states that Arts. 42 to 107 of the Civil Code of 889 of Spain did not take
effect, having been suspended by the Governor General of the Philippines shortly after the
extension of that code of this country. Therefore, Arts. 53 and 54 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 of evidence. Under
the Rules of Court, the presumption is that a man and a woman conducting themselves as
husband and wife are legally married.

Albeit, a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, failure to present it

would not mean that marriage did not take place. Other evidence may be presented where in
this case evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the
marriage of Gavino and Catalina in 1929, that they have three children, one of whom,
Petronilo, died at the age of six and that they are recognized by Gavinos family and by the
public as the legitimate children of Gavino.