G.R. No. 96740 - Sarmiento vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96740)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Trial court (RTC, Trece Martires City, Branch XV) ordered partition among petitioners and private respondent. The private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and dismissed the partition complaint. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstatement of the RTC decision.

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Applicable constitution for the decision: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision dated after 1990).
Pertinent substantive law: Old Civil Code rules on illegitimacy and succession apply to succession questions because Francisco Arguelles died in 1949 (pre‑New Civil Code application referenced in the record). Procedural and evidentiary law: Rule 131, Section 3(aa) of the Revised Rules of Court (presumption that man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into lawful marriage) and Article 220 Civil Code (presumption favoring validity of marriage and legitimacy).

Contested Factual Question

Central factual dispute: Whether Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married so that Leogarda Arguelles (mother of petitioners) is legitimate and entitled to succession rights as an heir of Francisco, thereby entitling petitioners to a share in the one‑half portion of Lot No. 926.

Evidentiary Presumptions and Legal Standards

The trial court relied on the disputable presumption in Section 3(aa), Rule 131, that cohabitation as husband and wife gives rise to a presumption of lawful marriage, coupled with the general intendment favoring the validity of marriage and legitimacy of children (Art. 220, Civil Code). The Supreme Court recognized, however, that such presumptions are rebuttable by evidence to the contrary and, if overcome, the burden shifts to the party asserting the marriage to prove it by evidence recognized in Trinidad v. Court of Appeals (testimony of a witness to the marriage, open cohabitation after the alleged wedlock, birth/baptismal certificates of children born during the union, mention of the nuptial in subsequent documents).

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found that Francisco and Emilia cohabited as husband and wife and, in the absence of contrary proof, inferred that they were legally married and that Leogarda was legitimate. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered partition among petitioners and respondent based on that finding.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal: Reasons

The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the presumption of marriage had been satisfactorily rebutted by the evidence adduced by private respondent. The CA emphasized documentary and testimonial indications that contradicted the alleged legal marriage and legitimacy of Leogarda.

Documentary and Testimonial Evidence Weighing Against Marriage

The purported marriage certificate offered by petitioners was supported by a certification from an Assistant Treasurer of Naic stating records were destroyed during the Japanese occupation; however, the assistant treasurer later admitted she signed a certificate prepared by another without verification.
Actual civil registrar records for Naic covering July 3, 1917 to May 1918, examined in court, did not contain entries for Francisco and Emilia.
The death certificate of Francisco Arguelles listed his surviving spouse as “none,” indicating he died a widower on February 18, 1949; his deceased wife was recorded as Petrona Reyes (mother of private respondent).
TCT No. 21877 and a reconstituted TCT also listed Francisco’s status as “widower.” The CA reasoned that if Emilia had been his legal wife she would have had motive and opportunity to correct a title status error; her failure to do so was probative against the assertion of marriage.

Assessment of Petitioners’ Proof and Failure to Meet Burden

Once the presumption of marriage was rebutted by respondent’s evidence, the burden shifted to petitioners to affirmatively prove legal marriage. Petitioners f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 96740)

Procedural History

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside:
- Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 26, 1989 (CA-G.R. CV No. 11750) reversing the Regional Trial Court; and
- Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 4, 1991 denying reconsideration.
Originating action: Complaint for partition filed in Branch XV, Regional Trial Court, Trece Martires City, Civil Case No. NC-75; decision of the trial court dated May 30, 1986 ordering partition of the subject 1/2 portion of Lot No. 926.
Defendant (private respondent) appealed to the Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint for judicial partition on October 26, 1989.
Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals denied on January 4, 1991.
Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution.

Relevant Facts

Subject property: Lot No. 926 of the Naic Estate, G.L.R.O., Record No. 8340, Naic, Cavite; area 1,779 square meters; covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21877 issued September 1, 1941 to co-owners Francisco Arguelles and Petrona Reyes.
Petitioners: Virginia P. Sarmiento and Apolonia P. Catibayan — sisters; daughters of Tiburcio Pangilinan and Leogarda Arguelles (died 1946).
Ancestry: Leogarda Arguelles alleged daughter of Francisco Arguelles (died February 18, 1949) and Emilia Pineli (died May 2, 1950).
Private respondent: Simon Arguelles — half brother of Leogarda, sharing Francisco Arguelles as common father.
Petitioners’ claim: As grandchildren and heirs of Francisco Arguelles, petitioners and Simon Arguelles are co-owners of the one-half portion of Lot No. 926, and thus entitled to partition.
Private respondent’s counterclaim/position: Leogarda was allegedly an illegitimate child because Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were not legally married; under the Old Civil Code (applicable because Francisco died in 1949), an illegitimate child had no successional rights.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling (Branch XV, RTC)

Trial court findings and disposition:
- Ordered partition among plaintiffs Virginia P. Sarmiento and Apolonia P. Catibayan and defendant Simon Arguelles of the one-half portion of Lot No. 926 pertaining to the deceased Francisco Arguelles.
- Dismissed the counterclaim for lack of merit.
- Made no pronouncement as to costs.
Trial court rationale emphasized the disputable presumption under Rule 131 (now Section 3(aa)) that “a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage,” and observed:
- Defendant admitted that his father and Emilia Pineli lived and cohabited together as husband and wife and even stayed in the same house where he resided.
- No evidence was introduced by defendant to rebut the presumption or to show legal impediment to the marriage.
- Cited the maxim that “Every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children (Art. 220, Civil Code).”

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Appellant’s assigned errors before the Court of Appeals:
- That the RTC erred in holding that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married and that Leogarda was their legitimate daughter.
- That the RTC erred in not holding that plaintiffs’ cause of action, if any, had prescribed.
- That the RTC erred in ordering partition of the property among the parties.
Court of Appeals judgment (October 26, 1989):
- Reversed the decision of the RTC and dismissed the complaint for judicial partition.
- Denied costs.
Court of Appeals reasoning summarized and relied upon by the Supreme Court:
- The presumption of marriage was sufficiently offset by available contrary evidence.
- Documentary and testimonial evidence weighed against the existence of a legal marriage between Francisco and Emilia.
- Observations included the death certificate of Francisco indicating “none” under “surviving spouse,” title entries showing Francisco as “widower,” and the absence of the names Francisco and Emilia in the municipal marriage register pages covering July 3, 1917 to May 1918.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Stated issues in the petition to the Supreme Court:
- “I. WHETHER OR NOT A MAN AND A WOMAN WHO LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE PRESUMED MARRIED; and II. WHETHER THE BORN OUT OF SUCH MARRIAGE IS LEGITIMATE OR NOT.”
Pivotal legal question as framed by the Court:
- Whether petitioners offered sufficient evidence to substantiate their submission that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married.

Applicable Law and Presumptions

Rule 131, Section 3(aa) (Disputable presumptions): “That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husbands and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.”
Article 220, Civil Code (as cited): an intendment that leans toward the validity of marriage and legitimacy of children.
Old Civil Code's successional rules applicable because Francisco died in 1949: an illegitimate child did not have successional rights.
Precedents referenced in the Court’s analysis:
- People v. Borromeo — presumption that persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed to be married absent counterpresumption or special evidence.
- Trinidad v. Court of Appeals — list of admissible proofs of marriage: (a) testimony of a witness to the matrimony; (b) public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock; (c) birth and baptismal certificates of children born during such union; and (d) mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents.
- Additional cited j