VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO and APOLONIA P. CATIBAYAN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SIMON ARGUELLES, respondents. G.R. No.

96740 | Mar.25.1999 | 3RD DIV. PURISIMA, J.: NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rule 45 ROC, seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the Decision Regional Trial Court, Naic Cavite FACTS Virginia P. Sarmiento and Apolonia P. Catibayan - sisters and herein pet.s Leogarda Arguelles - deceased mother of pet.s, daughter of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli - deceased grandparents of pet.s Petrona Reyes - deceased mother of Simon Arguellas - Before she died, Petrona is the legal wife of Francisco. Simon Arguellas - halfbrother of Leonarda. Francisco Arguelles is their common father. Pet.s filed a complain for partition of a piece of land to co-owners, Francisco Arguelles and Petrona Reyes. They claim that as granddaughters of Francisco Arguelles, they and Simon Arguelles are coowners of the 1/2 portion of the lot, as the only heirs of the late Francisco Arguelles. Simon - pet.s are not the legal heirs of Francisco Arguelles because their mother was allegedly an illegitimate child of his father, Francisco Arguelles, and Emilia Pineli who were not married. - Old Civil Code - states that an illegitimate child did not have successional rights - applicable because Francisco died in Feb 1949, before the effectivity of NCC. RTC - ordered the parties to partition among themselves subject 1/2 portion of the lot CA - reversed and dismissed the complaint for judicial partition. ISSUE WON the petitioners offered sufficient evidence to substantiate their submission that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married. HELD NO RATIO Sec. 3 (aa) of Rule 131 ROC Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions, The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but maybe contradicted or overcome by other evidence xxx xxx xxx (aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; xxx xxx xxx RTC - Upon reliance on the stated rule the lower court said that "The fact that no marriage certificate of Francisco and Emilia was submitted in evidence does not lead to the conclusion that the said parties were not legally married and that Leogarda was their illegitimate child." It upheld the presumption of marriage People vs. Borromeo - persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, absent any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. However - the presumption of marriage, on which the trial court premised its decision, has been sufficiently offset by Simon based on the following. Certification issued by Assistant Treasurer Lucila Lucero of Naic, Cavite - evidence used by pet.s - stated that the marriage certificate is no longer available due to destruction of the records during the Japanese occupation. She stated on the witness stand however that she signed the said certificate prepared by a certain Consuelo Pangilinan, without verifying its correctness. In reality, the records of marriages of Naic are intact. The records do not reflect the names of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli. Death certificate of Francisco Arguelles - contained the word "none" opposite the phrase "surviving spouse", indicating that he died a widower 1949. His deceased wife was Petrona Reyes. Transfer Certificate of Title - TCT's No. 21877 covering Lot 926 as well as the reconstituted TCT No. 21877, RT-19055 - show the status of Francisco Arguelles as "widower". CA stated w/c SC updeld:

"If it is true, as Tiburcio Pangilinan testified, that the certificate of title was the possession of Emilia Pineli and was given to him (Tiburcio) before her death, there is no conceivable reason why Emilia never exerted any effort to correct the mistake in the description of Francisco's status in the certificate of title as 'widower' knowing that she would not be able to transmit any part of the property to her heirs upon her death if the error was not corrected. Her omission only serves to bolster the proposition that she had no right to protect, in the first place, because she was not legally married to Francisco." The burden of proof shifted to the petitioners to prove that their deceased grandparents were legally married. "In Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, et a1. 20, 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." Petitioners did not present anybody who witnessed the marriage ceremony of their grandparents. - They merely relied upon the legal presumption that their grandparents were married, without introducing any evidence to prove the marriage. - In SC petitioners have theorized for the first time that "the birth certificate of Leogarda Arguelles which they allegedly presented during the trial below, shows the legitimate status of Leogarda Arguelles. Concededly, such birth certificate may be used to show the alleged marriage. But be that as it may, the totality of evidence for the private respondent preponderates over petitioners." DISPO Petition is DENIED