Topic: G.

Marriage
G. 2. Presumption of Marriage
Dela Rosa v. Heirs of Rustia vda. de Damian
G.R. No. 155733
January 27, 2006

Facts:

The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of Felisa Delgado by one Lucio Campo. Aside from Josefa, five other children were born to the
couple, namely, Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, and Gorgonio, all surnamed Delgado. Felisa Delgado was never married to Lucio Campo, hence,
Josefa and her full-blood siblings were all natural children of Felisa Delgado.

However, Lucio Campo was not the first and only man in Felisa Delgado’s life. Before him was Ramon Osorio with whom Felisa had a son, Luis
Delgado. But, unlike her relationship with Lucio Campo which was admittedly one without the benefit of marriage, the legal status of Ramon
Osorio’s and Felisa Delgado’s union is in dispute.

Josefa Delgado died on September 8, 1972 without a will. She was survived by Guillermo Rustia and some collateral relatives, the petitioners
herein. This petition was raised to determine who are the lawful heirs of Josefa Delgado.

Issue:

1. In relation to the determination of the heirs of Josefa Delgado,

a. Is the marriage of her mother to Ramon valid, making his half brother, Luis Delgado, a legitimate child?
b. Is her marriage to Guillermo Rustia valid?

Ruling:
1.a The marriage of Felisa Delgado to Ramon Osorio is not valid.

Presumptions of law are either conclusive or disputable. Conclusive presumptions are inferences which the law makes so peremptory that no
contrary proof, no matter how strong, may overturn them while disputable presumptions, one of which is the presumption of marriage, can be relied
on only in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary.

In this case, little was said of the cohabitation or alleged marriage of Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio. The disputable presumption of marriage
was suffiently overcame by the countervailing evidence as (1) the continued use by Felisa and Luis (her son with Ramon Osorio) of the surname
Delgado and (2) Luis Delgado’s and Caridad Concepcion’s Partida de Casamiento identifying Luis as "hijo natural de Felisa Delgado" (the natural
child of Felisa Delgado).

Hence, all the children born to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and his half-blood siblings
Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all surnamed Delgado, were her natural children.

1.b. The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado is valid.

Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law
leans toward legitimizing matrimony.

Persons dwelling together apparently in marriage are presumed to be in fact married. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties
are not what they hold themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety. Semper
praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.

In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their
cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted. Their family and friends knew them to be married. Their reputed status as husband and wife
was such that even the original petition for letters of administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in 1975 referred to them as "spouses."

First, although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took
place. Once the presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support thereof. The evidence need not necessarily or directly
establish the marriage but must at least be enough to strengthen the presumption of marriage. Here, the certificate of identity issued to Josefa
Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia, the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia, the declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo Rustia that
he was married to Josefa Delgado and the titles to the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia married to Josefa Delgado," more than
adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are public documents which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. No clear
and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recitals therein was presented by petitioners.

Second, Elisa vda. de Anson, petitioners’ own witness whose testimony they primarily relied upon to support their position, confirmed that Guillermo
Rustia had proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado and that eventually, the two had "lived together as husband and wife." This again could not but
strengthen the presumption of marriage.

Third, the baptismal certificate was conclusive proof only of the baptism administered by the priest who baptized the child. It was no proof of the
veracity of the declarations and statements contained therein, such as the alleged single or unmarried ("Señorita") civil status of Josefa Delgado
who had no hand in its preparation.
 BALOGBOG v COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 83598
March 7, 1997

Facts:

Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog are the children of Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arzibal who died intestate in 1951 and 1961, respectively.
They had an older brother, Gavino, but he died in 1935, predeceasing their parents.

In 1968, Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog brought an action for partition and accounting against Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog, claiming that
they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as such, they were entitled to the one-third share of Gavino in the estate of
their grandparents.

This marriage between Gavino v. Catalino Ubas is in dispute.

First witness, Priscilo Y. Trazo, then 81 years old, mayor of the municipality of Asturias from 1928 to 1934, testified that he knew Gavino and
Catalina to be husband and wife and Ramonito to be their first child. Trazo explained that he knew Gavino and Catalina because they performed at
his campaign rallies, Catalina as "balitaw" dancer and Gavino Balogbog as her guitarist. Trazo said he attended the wedding of Gavino and
Catalina sometime in 1929, in which Rev. Father Emiliano Jomao-as officiated and Egmidio Manuel, then a municipal councilor, acted as one of the
witnesses.

The second witness was Matias Pogoy, a family friend of private respondents, who testified that private respondents are the children of Gavino and
Catalina. According to him, the wedding of Gavino and Catalina was solemnized in the Catholic Church of Asturias, Cebu and that he knew this
because he attended their wedding and was in fact asked by Gavino to accompany Catalina and carry her wedding dress from her residence in
Camanaol to the poblacion of Asturias before the wedding day. He testified that Gavino died in 1935 in his residence at Obogon, Balamban, Cebu,
in the presence of his wife. Pogoy said he was a carpenter and he was the one who had made the coffin of Gavino. He also made the coffin of the
couple's son, Petronilo, who died when he was six.

Catalina Ubas testified concerning her marriage to Gavino. She testified that after the wedding, she was handed a "receipt," presumably the
marriage certificate, by Fr. Jomao-as, but it was burned during the war. She said that she and Gavino lived together in Obogon and begot three
children, namely, Ramonito, Petronilo, and Generoso. Petronilo died after an illness at the age of six.

Also, a certificate from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar that the Register of Marriages did not have a record of the marriage of Gavino and
Catalina, another certificate from the Office of the Treasurer (Exh. L) that there was no record of the birth of Ramonito in that office and, for this
reason, the record must be presumed to have been lost or destroyed during the war, and a certificate by the Parish Priest of Asturias that there was
likewise no record of birth of Ramonito in the church, the records of which were either lost or destroyed during the war.

On the other hand, Leoncia Balogbog testified that Gavino died single at the family residence in Asturias. She obtained a certificate (Exh. 10) from
the Local Civil Registrar of Asturias to the effect that that office did not have a record of the names of Gavino and Catalina.

However, no record of the certificates from the government offices of Gavino and Catalina, as well the birth of Ramon, also, the no record of birth of
Ramonito in the church, for this reason, record must be presumed to have been lost or destroyed during the war.

Issues: Whether or not the marriage between Gavino and Catalina Ubas is valid.

Ruling:

The marriage in dispute is valid.

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, therefore, the presumption 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.

In the present case,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.

Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place
Nonetheless, evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the marriage. Other evidence may be presented to
prove marriage.

Neither is there merit in the argument that the existence of the marriage cannot be presumed because there was no evidence showing in particular
that Gavino and Catalina, in the presence of two witnesses, declared that they were taking each other as husband and wife. 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.
 VIRGINIA D. CALIMAG v. HEIRS OF MACAPAZ
G.R. No. 191936
June 01, 2016

Issue:

Virginia D. Calimag (petitioner) co-owned the property, the subject matter of this case, with Silvestra N. Macapaz (Silvestra).

On the other hand, Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. (Anastacio, Jr.) and Alicia Macapaz-Ritua (Alicia) (respondents) are the children of Silvestra's
brother, Anastacio Macapaz, Sr. (Anastacio, Sr.) and Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de Macapaz (Fidela).

On November 11, 2002, Silvestra died without issue. On July 7, 2005, a new certificate of title, TCT No. 221466,was issued in the name of the
petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 whereby Silvestra allegedly sold her 99-sq-m portion to the petitioner for P300,000.00.

On March 2, 2006, the respondents, asserting that they are the heirs of Silvestra, instituted the action for Annulment of Deed of Sale and
Cancellation of TCT No. 221466 with Damages against the petitioner and the Register of Deeds of Makati City.

The RTC found that the Deed of Sale dated January 18, 2005 presented for the cancellation of TCT No. 183088 was a forgery considering that
Silvestra, who purportedly executed said deed of sale died on November 11, 2002, about three years before the execution of the said Deed of Sale.

The Petitioner never assailed the factual finding that forgery was indeed committed to effect the cancellation of TCT No. 183088 and the
consequent transfer of title of the property in her name. However, Invoking the provisions of Article 992 of the Civil Code, the petitioner insists that
the respondents have no legal right over the estate left by Silvestra for being illegitimate children of Anastacio, Sr.

She claims that the respondents failed to establish their legitimate filiation to Anastacio, Sr. considering that the marriage between Anastacio, Sr.
and Fidela was not sufficiently proven. The marriage contract presented by the respondents is not admissible under the Best Evidence Rule for
being a mere fax copy or photocopy of an alleged marriage contract, and which is not even authenticated by the concerned Local Civil Registrar. In
addition, there is no mark or stamp showing that said document was ever received by said office. Further, while the respondents also presented a
Certificate of (Canonical) Marriage, the petitioner asserts that the same is not the marriage license required under Articles 3 and 4 of the Family
Code; that said Certificate of (Canonical) Marriage only proves that a marriage ceremony actually transpired between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela.

Moreover, the petitioner contends that the certificates of live birth of the respondents do not conclusively prove that they are legitimate children of
Anastacio, Sr.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage between Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela is valid.

Rulings:

The marriage between Anastacio and Fidela is valid.

Art. 220.of the Civil Code In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward
the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage, the authority
of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression.
Sarmiento v. CA is instructive anent the question of what other proofs can be offered to establish the fact of a solemnized marriage, viz: In Trinidad
vs. Court of Appeals, et al., this Court ruled that as proof of marriage may be presented: a) testimony of a witness to the matrimony; b) the
couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock; c) the birth and baptismal certificate of children born
during such union; and d) the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents

In the present case, the documents presented by the heirs of Macapaz,(1) fax or photo copy of the marriage contract, and (2) the canonical
certificate of marriage, cannot be used as legal basis to establish the fact of marriage ."When the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.

Also, a canonical certificate of marriage is not a public document. Accordingly, since there is no showing that the authenticity and due execution of
the canonical certificate of marriage of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela was duly proven, it cannot be admitted in evidence.

Notwithstanding, jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. Hence,
even a person's birth certificate,a public document, may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.

The heirs were able to prove marriage by presentation of their respective Certificates of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office ----their
father's name is Anastacio Nator Macapaz, while their mother's maiden name is Fidela Overa Poblete. In item no. 24 thereof where it asks: "24.
DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARENTS (For legitimate birth)" it was stated therein that respondents' parents were married on "May 25,
1955 in Alang-alang, Leyte.”

Nonetheless, the respondents' certificates of live birth also intimate that Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela had openly cohabited as husband and wife for a
number of years, as a result of which they had two children — the second child, Anastacio, Jr. being born more than three years after their first
child, Alicia. Verily, such fact is admissible proof to establish the validity of marriage. Court Resolution dated February 13, 2013 in GR. No. 183262
entitled Social Security System (SSS) v. Lourdes S. Enobiso47 had the occasion to state:

Furthermore, as the established period of cohabitation of Anastacio, Sr. and Fidela transpired way before the effectivity of the Family Code, the
strong presumption accorded by then Article 220 of the Civil Code in favor of the validity of marriage cannot be disregarded.