Case Digest (G.R. No. 83598)
Facts:
Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog v. Honorable Court of Appeals, Ramonito Balogbog and Generoso Balogbog, G.R. No. 83598, March 07, 1997, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog are children of Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal, who died intestate in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They had an older brother, Gavino, who allegedly died in 1935. In 1968 respondents Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog (plaintiffs below) filed an action for partition and accounting in the Court of First Instance of Cebu City (Branch IX), asserting they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and thus entitled to Gavino’s one-third share in their grandparents’ estate.
At trial respondents offered testimonial evidence: Priscilo Trazo (former mayor) testified he attended the wedding of Gavino and Catalina in about 1929; Matias Pogoy testified he accompanied Catalina to the wedding and later made Gavino’s coffin and the coffin of a deceased son Petronilo; Catalina Ubas testified she and Gavino lived together in Obogon and had three children — Ramonito, Petronilo (died in childhood) and Generoso — and that the parish records and civil registers for the relevant period were lost or destroyed during the war (certificates from the Local Civil Registrar, the Treasurer and the parish priest were offered to that effect).
Petitioners denied knowledge of respondents and asserted Gavino died single at the family residence in Tag-amakan, Asturias; they produced a certificate from the Assistant Municipal Treasurer asserting that the Book of Marriages for 1925–1935 did not contain an entry for Gavino and Catalina. Other defense witnesses testified Gavino died single and that Catalina later lived with another man. Ramonito testified in rebuttal. The trial court, on June 15, 1973, ruled for plaintiffs and ordered an accounting, partition and delivery to respondents of one-third of Basilio and Genoveva’s estate, with attorneys’ fees and costs.
Petitioners’ motion for new trial and a second motion were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, applying presumptions that persons deporting themsel...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the presumption of marriage and legitimacy when civil-registration entries were absent?
- Substantive: Were respondents’ testimonial proofs and other evidence sufficient to establish the marriage of Gavino and Catalina and the filiation of Ramonito and Generoso under the Civil Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)