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,