SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 83598. March 7, 1997]

LEONCIA BALOGBOG and GAUDIOO BALOGBOG, petitioners,
vs. !ONORABLE COUR" O# A$$EAL, RAMONI"O BALOGBOG
and GENEROO BALOGBOG, respondents.
D E C I I O N
MENDO%A, J.&
This is a petition for review of the decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals affir!in" the
decision of the Court of #irst Instance of Ce$u Cit% &'ranch I() declarin" private
respondents heirs of the deceased 'asilio and *enoveva 'alo"$o" entitled to inherit
fro! the!+
The facts are as follows+ ,etitioners -eoncia and *audioso 'alo"$o" are the
children of 'asilio 'alo"$o" and *enoveva Arni$al who died intestate in 1./1 and
1.01 respectivel%+ The% had an older $rother *avino $ut he died in 1.1/
predeceasin" their parents+
In 1.02 private respondents 3a!onito and *eneroso 'alo"$o" $rou"ht an action
for partition and accountin" a"ainst petitioners clai!in" that the% were the le"iti!ate
children of *avino $% Catalina 4$as and that as such the% were entitled to the one5
third share of *avino in the estate of their "randparents+
In their answer petitioners denied 6nowin" private respondents+ The% alle"ed that
their $rother *avino died sin"le and without issue in their parents7 residence at Ta"5
a!a6an Asturias Ce$u+ In the $e"innin" the% clai!ed that the properties of the estate
had $een sold to the! $% their !other when she was still alive $ut the% later withdrew
this alle"ation+
,rivate respondents presented ,riscilo 8+ Tra9o
[:]
then 21 %ears old !a%or of the
!unicipalit% of Asturias fro! 1.:2 to 1.1; who testified that he 6new *avino and
Catalina to $e hus$and and wife and 3a!onito to $e their first child+ On
crosse<a!ination Tra9o e<plained that he 6new *avino and Catalina $ecause the%
perfor!ed at his ca!pai"n rallies Catalina as =$alitaw> dancer and *avino 'alo"$o" as
her "uitarist+ Tra9o said he attended the weddin" of *avino and Catalina so!eti!e in
1.:. in which 3ev+ #ather E!iliano ?o!ao5as officiated and E"!idio @anuel then a
!unicipal councilor acted as one of the witnesses+
The second witness presented was @atias ,o"o%
[1]
a fa!il% friend of private
respondents who testified that private respondents are the children of *avino and
Catalina+ Accordin" to hi! the weddin" of *avino and Catalina was sole!ni9ed in the
Catholic Church of Asturias Ce$u and that he 6new this $ecause he attended their
weddin" and was in fact as6ed $% *avino to acco!pan% Catalina and carr% her
weddin" dress fro! her residence in Ca!anaol to the po$lacion of Asturias $efore the
weddin" da%+ Ae testified that *avino died in 1.1/ in his residence at O$o"on
'ala!$an Ce$u in the presence of his wife+ &This contradicts petitioners7 clai! !ade
in their answer that *avino died in the ancestral house at Ta"5a!a6an
Asturias+) ,o"o% said he was a carpenter and he was the one who had !ade the coffin
of *avino+ Ae also !ade the coffin of the couple7s son ,etronilo who died when he
was si<+
Catalina 4$as testified concernin" her !arria"e to *avino+
[;]
She testified that after
the weddin" she was handed a =receipt> presu!a$l% the !arria"e certificate $% #r+
?o!ao5as $ut it was $urned durin" the war+ She said that she and *avino lived
to"ether in O$o"on and $e"ot three children na!el% 3a!onito ,etronilo and
*eneroso+ ,etronilo died after an illness at the a"e of si<+ On crosse<a!ination she
stated that after the death of *avino she lived in co!!on law relation with a !an for a
%ear and then the% separated+
,rivate respondents produced a certificate fro! the Office of the -ocal Civil
3e"istrar &E<h+ ,) that the 3e"ister of @arria"es did not have a record of the !arria"e
of *avino and Catalina another certificate fro! the Office of the Treasurer &E<h+ -) that
there was no record of the $irth of 3a!onito in that office and for this reason the
record !ust $e presu!ed to have $een lost or destro%ed durin" the war and a
certificate $% the ,arish ,riest of Asturias that there was li6ewise no record of $irth of
3a!onito in the church the records of which were either lost or destro%ed durin" the
war+ &E<h+ @)
On the other hand as defendant $elow petitioner -eoncia 'alo"$o" testified
[/]
that
*avino died sin"le at the fa!il% residence in Asturias+ She denied that her $rother had
an% le"iti!ate children and stated that she did not 6now private respondents $efore this
case was filed+ She o$tained a certificate &E<h+ 1B) fro! the -ocal Civil 3e"istrar of
Asturias to the effect that that office did not have a record of the na!es of *avino and
Catalina+ The certificate was prepared $% Assistant @unicipal Treasurer ?uan @aran"a
who testified that there was no record of the !arria"e of *avino and Catalina in the
'oo6 of @arria"es $etween 1.:/ to 1.1/+
[0]
Citness ?ose Narvasa testified
[D]
that *avino died sin"le in 1.1/ and that Catalina
lived with a certain Eleuterio Eeriado after the war althou"h he did not 6now whether
the% were le"all% !arried+ Ae added however that Catalina had children $% a !an she
had !arried $efore the war althou"h he did not 6now the na!es of the children+ On
crosse<a!ination Narvasa stated that -eoncia 'alo"$o" who reFuested hi! to testif%
was also his $onds!an in a cri!inal case filed $% a certain @r+ Cu%os+
3a!onito 'alo"$o" was presented
[2]
to re$ut -eoncia 'alo"$o"7s testi!on%+
On ?une 1/ 1.D1 the Court of #irst Instance of Ce$u Cit% rendered Gud"!ent for
private respondents &plaintiffs $elow) orderin" petitioners to render an accountin" fro!
1.0B until the finalit% of its Gud"!ent to partition the estate and deliver to private
respondents one5third of the estate of 'asilio and *enoveva and to pa% attorne%7s fees
and costs+
,etitioners filed a !otion for new trial andHor reconsideration contendin" that the
trial court erred in not "ivin" wei"ht to the certification of the Office of the @unicipal
Treasurer of Asturias &E<h+ 1B) to the effect that no !arria"e of *avino and Catalina
was recorded in the 'oo6 of @arria"es for the %ears 1.:/51.1/+ Their !otion was
denied $% the trial court as was their second !otion for new trial andHor reconsideration
$ased on the church records of the parish of Asturias which did not contain the record of
the alle"ed !arria"e in that church+
On appeal the Court of Appeals affir!ed+ It held that private respondents failed to
overco!e the le"al presu!ption that a !an and a wo!an deportin" the!selves as
hus$and and wife are in fact !arried that a child is presu!ed to $e le"iti!ate and that
thin"s happen accordin" to the ordinar% course of nature and the ordinar% ha$its of life+
[.]
Aence this petition+
Ce find no reversi$le error co!!itted $% the Court of Appeals+
First. ,etitioners contend that the !arria"e of *avino and Catalina should have
$een proven in accordance with Arts+ /1 and /; of the Civil Code of 122. $ecause this
was the law in force at the ti!e the alle"ed !arria"e was cele$rated+ Art+ /1 provides
that !arria"es cele$rated under the Civil Code of 122. should $e proven onl% $% a
certified cop% of the !e!orandu! in the Civil 3e"istr% unless the $oo6s thereof have
not $een 6ept or have $een lost or unless the% are Fuestioned in the courts in which
case an% other proof such as that of the continuous possession $% parents of the status
of hus$and and wife !a% $e considered provided that the re"istration of the $irth of
their children as their le"iti!ate children is also su$!itted in evidence+
This Court noted lon" a"o however that Arts+ ;: to 1BD of the Civil Code of 122. of
Spain did not ta6e effect havin" $een suspended $% the *overnor *eneral of the
,hilippines shortl% after the e<tension of that code to this countr%+
[1B]
ConseFuentl% Arts+
/1 and /; never ca!e into force+ Since this case was $rou"ht in the lower court in
1.02 the e<istence of the !arria"e !ust $e deter!ined in accordance with the present
Civil Code which repealed the provisions of the for!er Civil Code e<cept as the%
related to vested ri"hts
[11]
and the rules on evidence+ 4nder the 3ules of Court the
presu!ption is that a !an and a wo!an conductin" the!selves as hus$and and wife
are le"all% !arried+
[1:]
This presu!ption !a% $e re$utted onl% $% co"ent proof to the
contrar%+
[11]
In this case petitioners7 clai! that the certification presented $% private
respondents &to the effect that the record of the !arria"e had $een lost or destro%ed
durin" the war) was $elied $% the production of the 'oo6 of @arria"es $% the assistant
!unicipal treasurer of Asturias+ ,etitioners ar"ue that this $oo6 does not contain an%
entr% pertainin" to the alle"ed !arria"e of private respondents7 parents+
This contention has no !erit+ In Pugeda v. Trias
[1;]
the defendants who Fuestioned
the !arria"e of the plaintiffs produced a photostatic cop% of the record of !arria"es of
the @unicipalit% of 3osario Cavite for the !onth of ?anuar% 1.10 to show that there
was no record of the alle"ed !arria"e+ Nonetheless evidence consistin" of the
testi!onies of witnesses was held co!petent to prove the !arria"e+ Indeed althou"h a
!arria"e contract is considered pri!ar% evidence of !arria"e
[1/]
the failure to present it
is not proof that no !arria"e too6 place+ Other evidence !a% $e presented to prove
!arria"e+
[10]
Aere private respondents proved throu"h testi!onial evidence that *avino
and Catalina were !arried in 1.:.I that the% had three children one of who! died in
infanc%I that their !arria"e su$sisted until 1.1/ when *avino diedI and that their
children private respondents herein were reco"ni9ed $% *avino7s fa!il% and $% the
pu$lic as the le"iti!ate children of *avino+
Neither is there !erit in the ar"u!ent that the e<istence of the !arria"e cannot $e
presu!ed $ecause there was no evidence showin" in particular that *avino and
Catalina in the presence of two witnesses declared that the% were ta6in" each other as
hus$and and wife+
[1D]
An e<chan"e of vows can $e presu!ed to have $een !ade fro!
the testi!onies of the witnesses who state that a weddin" too6 place since the ver%
purpose for havin" a weddin" is to e<chan"e vows of !arital co!!it!ent+ It would
indeed $e unusual to have a weddin" without an e<chan"e of vows and Fuite unnatural
for people not to notice its a$sence+
The law favors the validit% of !arria"e $ecause the State is interested in the
preservation of the fa!il% and the sanctit% of the fa!il% is a !atter of constitutional
concern+ As stated in Adong v. Cheong Seng GeeJ
[12]
The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of
marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new
relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply
interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing
matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the
absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact
married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties
were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the
constant violation of decency and of law. ! presumption established by our Code of
Civil Procedure is "that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and
wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.# $%ec. &&', (o. )*+ Semper
praesumitur pro matrimonio !lways presume marriage. $,.%. vs. -illafuerte and
.abano /01234, ' Phil., '567 %on Cui vs. 8uepangco, supra7 ,.%. vs. Memoracion and
,ri /01064, &' Phil., 6&&7 Teter vs. Teter /0**'4, 020 9nd., 0)1.+
Second+ ,etitioners contend that private respondents7 reliance solel% on testi!onial
evidence to support their clai! that private respondents had $een in the continuous
possession of the status of le"iti!ate children is contrar% to Art+ :0/ of the Civil Code
which provides that such status shall $e proven $% the record of $irth in the Civil
3e"ister $% an authentic docu!ent or $% final Gud"!ent+ 'ut in accordance with Arts+
:00 and :0D in the a$sence of titles indicated in Art+ :0/ the filiation of children !a% $e
proven $% continuous possession of the status of a le"iti!ate child and $% an% other
!eans allowed $% the 3ules of Court or special laws+ Thus the Civil Code providesJ
!.T. )66. 9n the absence of the titles indicated in the preceding article, the filiation
shall be proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child
!.T. )65. 9n the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or
possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed
by the .ules of Court and special laws.
,etitioners contend that there is no Gustification for presentin" testi!onies as to the
possession $% private respondents of the status of le"iti!ate children $ecause the 'oo6
of @arria"es for the %ears 1.:251.:. is availa$le+
Chat is in issue however is not the !arria"e of *avino and Catalina $ut the
filiation of private respondents as their children+ The !arria"e of *avino and Catalina
has alread% $een shown in the precedin" discussion+ The treasurer of Asturias Ce$u
certified that the records of $irth of that !unicipalit% for the %ear 1.1B could not $e
found presu!a$l% $ecause the% were lost or destro%ed durin" the war &E<h+ -)+ 'ut
@atias ,o"o% testified that *avino and Catalina $e"ot three children one of who!
,etronilo died at the a"e of si<+ Catalina testified that private respondents 3a!onito
and *eneroso are her children $% *avino 'alo"$o"+ That private respondents are the
children of *avino and Catalina 'alo"$o" cannot therefore $e dou$ted+
@oreover the evidence in the record shows that petitioner *audioso 'alo"$o"
ad!itted to the police of 'ala!$an Ce$u that 3a!onito is his nephew+ As the Court of
Appeals foundJ
9ronically, it is appellant 8audioso himself who supplies the clincher that tips the
balance in favor of the appellees. 9n an investigation before the Police 9nvestigating
Committee of :alamban, Cebu, held on March *, 016*, conducted for the purpose of
inquiring into a complaint filed by .amonito against a patrolman of the :alamban
police force, 8audioso testified that the complainant in that administrative case is his
nephew. ;<cerpts from the transcript of the proceedings conducted on that date
$;<hs. "(#, "(0#, "()#, "(&# and "('#+ read=
=Att%+ Eia!co 5 @a% it please this investi"ative $od%+
=K+5 Do %ou 6now the co!plainant in this Ad!inistrative Case No+ 1L
=A+5 8es I 6now+
=K+5 Ch% do %ou 6now hi!L
=A+5 I 6now $ecause he is !% nephew+
=K+5 Are %ou in "ood ter!s with %our nephew the co!plainantL
=A+5 8es+
=K+5 Do %ou !ean to sa% that %ou are close to hi!L
=A+5 8es+ Ce are close+
=K+5 Ch% do %ou sa% %ou are closeL
=A+5 Ce are close $ecause aside fro! the fact that he is !% nephew we were also
leavin" &sic) in the sa!e house in 'utuan Cit% and I even $arrow &sic) fro! hi!
!one% in the a!ount of ,1BB+BB when I return to 'ala!$an Ce$u+
< < << < < < < <
=K+5 Ch% is 3a!onito 'alo"$o" %our nephewL
=A+5 'ecause he is the son of !% elder $rother+>
This admission of relationship is admissible against 8audioso although made in
another case. 9t is considered as a reliable declaration against interest $.ule 0&2,
%ection ))+. %ignificantly, 8audioso did not try to offer any e<planation to blunt the
effects of that declaration. >e did not even testify during the trial. %uch silence can
only mean that .amonito is indeed the nephew of 8audioso, the former being the son
of 8avino.
'!ERE#ORE the decision appealed fro! is A##IRMED+
O ORDERED