8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

VOL. 269, MARCH 7, 1997 259

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 83598. March 7, 1997.

LEONCIA BALOGBOG and GAUDIOSO BALOGBOG,

petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
RAMONITO BALOGBOG and GENEROSO BALOGBOG,
respondents.

Marriages; Presumptions; Civil Code of 1889; Articles 42 to

107 of the Civil Code of 1889 of Spain did not take effect, having
been suspended by the Governor General of the Philippines shortly
after

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

the extension of that code in this country.—This Court noted long

ago, however, that Arts. 42 to 107 of the Civil Code of 1889 of
Spain did not take effect, having been suspended by the Governor
General of the Philippines shortly after the extension of that code
of this country. Consequently, Arts. 53 and 54 never came into
force. Since this case was brought in the lower court in 1968, the
existence of the marriage must be determined in accordance with
the present Civil Code, which repealed the provisions of the
former Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights, and the
rules on evidence. 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 only
by cogent proof to the contrary.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

Same; Evidence; Although a marriage contract is considered

primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof
that no marriage took place—other evidence may be presented to
prove marriage.—In this case, petitioners’ claim that the
certification presented by private respondents (to the effect that
the record of the marriage had been lost or destroyed during the
war) was belied by the production of the Book of Marriages by the
assistant municipal treasurer of Asturias. Petitioners argue that
this book does not contain any entry pertaining to the alleged
marriage of private respon-dents’ parents. This contention has no
merit. In Pugeda v. Trias, the defendants, who questioned the
marriage of the plaintiffs, produced a photostatic copy of the
record of marriages of the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite for the
month of January, 1916, to show that there was no record of the
alleged marriage. Nonetheless, evidence consisting of the
testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the
marriage. Indeed, although a marriage contract is considered
primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof
that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented to
prove marriage. Here, private respondents proved, through
testimonial evidence, that Gavino and Catalina were married in
1929; that they had three children, one of whom died in infancy;
that their marriage subsisted until 1935 when Gavino died; and
that their children, private respondents herein, were recognized
by Gavino’s family and by the public as the legitimate children of
Gavino.
Same; Same; Presumptions; An exchange of vows can be
presumed to have been made from the testimonies of the witnesses
who state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for
having a

261

VOL. 269, MARCH 7, 1997 261

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

wedding is to exchange vows of marital commitment—it would

indeed be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows
and quite unnatural for people not to notice its absence.—Neither
is there merit in the argument that the existence of the marriage
cannot be presumed because there was no evidence showing in
particular that Gavino and Catalina, in the presence of two
witnesses, declared that they were taking each other as husband
and wife. An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been
made from the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

wedding took place, since the very purpose for having a wedding
is to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would indeed be
unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and quite
unnatural for people not to notice its absence.
Same; Parent and Child; Filiation; In the absence of titles
indicated in Article 265 of the Civil Code, the filiation of children
may be proven by continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child and by any other means allowed by the Rules of
Court or special laws.—Petitioners contend that private
respondents’ reliance solely on testimonial evidence to support
their claim that private respondents had been in the continuous
possession of the status of legitimate children is contrary to Art.
265 of the Civil Code which provides that such status shall be
proven by the record of birth in the Civil Register, by an authentic
document or by final judgment. But in accordance with Arts. 266
and 267, in the absence of titles indicated in Art. 265, the filiation
of children may be proven by continuous possession of the status
of a legitimate child and by any other means allowed by the Rules
of Court or special laws.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Ramon B. Ceniza for petitioner.
     Antonio T. Bacaltos and Raul D. Bacaltos for private
respondents.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

MENDOZA, J.:
1
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, affirming the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu City (Branch IX), declaring private
respondents heirs of the deceased Basilio and Genoveva
Balogbog entitled to inherit from them.
The facts are as follows. Petitioners Leoncia and
Gaudioso Balogbog are the children of Basilio Balogbog and
Genoveva Arnibal who died intestate in 1951 and 1961,
respectively. They had an older brother, Gavino, but he
died in 1935, predeceasing their parents.
In 1968, private respondents Ramonito and Generoso
Balogbog brought an action for partition and accounting
against petitioners, claiming that they were the legitimate
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as such,

they were entitled to the one-third share of Gavino in the
estate of their grandparents.
In their answer, petitioners denied knowing private
respondents. They alleged that their brother Gavino died
single and without issue in their parents’ residence at Tag-
amakan, Asturias, Cebu. In the beginning they claimed
that the properties of the estate had been sold to them by
their mother when she was still alive, but they later
withdrew this allegation. 2
Private respondents presented Priscilo Y. Trazo, then
81 years old, mayor of the municipality of Asturias from
1928 to 1934, who testified that he knew Gavino and
Catalina to be husband and wife and Ramonito to be their
first child. On cross-examination, Trazo explained that he
knew Gavino and Catalina because they performed at his
campaign rallies, Catalina as “balitaw” dancer and Gavino
Balogbog as her guitarist. Trazo said he attended the
wedding of Gavino and Catalina sometime in 1929, in
which Rev. Father Emiliano

_______________

1 Per Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, J., concurred in by Justices Ricardo

J. Francisco and Jose C. Campos, Jr.
2 TSN, December 3, 1969, pp. 2-6.

263

VOL. 269, MARCH 7, 1997 263

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

Jomao-as officiated and Egmidio Manuel, then a municipal

councilor, acted as one of the witnesses. 3
The second witness presented was Matias Pogoy, a
family friend of private respondents, who testified that
private respondents are the children of Gavino and
Catalina. According to him, the wedding of Gavino and
Catalina was solemnized in the Catholic Church of
Asturias, Cebu and that he knew this because he attended
their wedding and was in fact asked by Gavino to
accompany Catalina and carry her wedding dress from her
residence in Camanaol to the poblacion of Asturias before
the wedding day. He testified that Gavino died in 1935 in
his residence at Obogon, Balamban, Cebu, in the presence
of his wife. (This contradicts petitioners’ claim made in
their answer that Gavino died in the ancestral house at
Tagamakan, Asturias.) Pogoy said he was a carpenter and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

he was the one who had made the coffin of Gavino. He also
made the coffin of the couple’s son, Petronilo, who died
when he was six.
Catalina
4
Ubas testified concerning her marriage to
Gavino. She testified that after the wedding, she was
handed a “re-ceipt,” presumably the marriage certificate,
by Fr. Jomao-as, but it was burned during the war. She
said that she and Gavino lived together in Obogon and
begot three children, namely, Ramonito, Petronilo, and
Generoso. Petronilo died after an illness at the age of six.
On crossexamination, she stated that after the death of
Gavino, she lived in common law relation with a man for a
year and then they separated.
Private respondents produced a certificate from the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar (Exh. P) that the
Register of Marriages did not have a record of the marriage
of Gavino and Catalina, another certificate from the Office
of the Treasurer (Exh. L) that there was no record of the
birth of Ramonito in that office and, for this reason, the
record must be presumed to have been lost or destroyed
during the war, and a certificate by the Parish Priest of
Asturias that there was likewise

_______________

3 TSN, July 9, 1970, pp. 3-28.

4 TSN, July 25, 1980, pp. 3-28.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

no record of birth of Ramonito in the church, the records of

which were either lost or destroyed during the war. (Exh.
M)
On the other hand, as 5
defendant below, petitioner
Leoncia Balogbog testified that Gavino died single at the
family residence in Asturias. She denied that her brother
had any legitimate children and stated that she did not
know private respondents before this case was filed. She
obtained a certificate (Exh. 10) from the Local Civil
Registrar of Asturias to the effect that the office did not
have a record of the names of Gavino and Catalina. The
certificate was prepared by Assistant Municipal Treasurer
Juan Maranga, who testified that there was no record of
the marriage of Gavino and Catalina
6
in the Book of
Marriages between 1925 to 1935.
7
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269
7
Witness Jose Narvasa testified that Gavino died single
in 1935 and that Catalina lived with a certain Eleuterio
Keriado after the war, although he did not know whether
they were legally married. He added, however, that
Catalina had children by a man she had married before the
war, although he did not know the names of the children.
On cross-examination, Narvasa stated that Leoncia
Balogbog, who requested him to testify, was also his
bondsman in a criminal case filed by a certain
8
Mr. Cuyos.
Ramonito Balogbog was presented to rebut Leoncia
Balog-bog’s testimony.
On June 15, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Cebu
City rendered judgment for private respondents (plaintiffs
below), ordering petitioners to render an accounting from
1960 until the finality of its judgment, to partition the
estate and deliver to private respondents one-third of the
estate of Basilio and Genoveva, and to pay attorney’s fees
and costs.
Petitioners filed a motion for new trial and/or
reconsideration, contending that the trial court erred in not
giving weight to the certification of the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer of

_______________

5 TSN, Aug. 12, 1972, pp. 5-18.

6 TSN, Aug. 28, 1972, p 13.
7 TSN, Sept. 16, 1972, pp. 4-20.
8 TSN, July 7, 1983, pp. 3-5.

265

VOL. 269, MARCH 7, 1997 265

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

Asturias (Exh. 10) to the effect that no marriage of Gavino

and Catalina was recorded in the Book of Marriages for the
years 1925-1935. Their motion was denied by the trial
court, as was their second motion for new trial and/or
reconsideration based on the church records of the parish of
Asturias which did not contain the record of the alleged
marriage in that church.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that
private respondents failed to overcome the legal
presumption that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife are in fact married, that a
child is presumed to be legitimate, and that things happen

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

according to the
9
ordinary course of nature and the ordinary
habits of life. Hence, this petition.
We find no reversible error committed by the Court of
Appeals.
First. Petitioners contend that the marriage of Gavino
and Catalina should have been proven in accordance with
Arts. 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889 because this was
the law in force at the time the alleged marriage was
celebrated. Art. 53 provides that marriages celebrated
under the Civil Code of 1889 should 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, or unless they are questioned in the courts, in which
case any other proof, such as that of the continuous
possession by parents of the status of husband and wife,
may be considered, provided that the registration of the
birth of their children as their legitimate children is also
submitted in evidence.
This Court noted long ago, however, that Arts. 42 to 107
of the Civil Code of 1889 of Spain did not take effect,
having been suspended by the Governor General of the
Philippines
10
shortly after the extension of that code of this
country. Consequently, Arts. 53 and 54 never came into
force. Since this case was brought in the lower court in
1968, the existence of

_______________

9 1964 Rules of Court, Rule 131, §5 (z), (bb), and (cc).

10 Benedicto v. De la Rama, 3 Phil. 34 (1903).

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

the marriage must be determined in accordance with the

present Civil Code, which repealed the provisions of the 11
former Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights,
and the rules on evidence. Under the Rules of Court, the
presumption is that a man and a woman conducting 12
themselves as husband and wife are legally married. This
presumption
13
may be rebutted only by cogent proof to the
contrary. In this case, petitioners’ claim that the
certification presented by private respondents (to the effect
that the record of the marriage had been lost or destroyed
during the war) was belied by the production of the Book of
Marriages by the assistant municipal treasurer of Asturias.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

Petitioners argue that this book does not contain any entry
pertaining to the alleged marriage of private respondents’
parents. 14
This contention has no merit. In Pugeda v. Trias, the
defendants, who questioned the marriage of the plaintiffs,
produced a photostatic copy of the record of marriages of
the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite for the month of
January, 1916, to show that there was no record of the
alleged marriage. Nonetheless, evidence consisting of the
testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the
marriage. Indeed, although a marriage 15
contract is
considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to
present it is not proof that no marriage took place.
16
Other
evidence may be presented to prove marriage. Here,
private respondents proved, through testimonial evidence,
that Gavino and Catalina were married in 1929; that they
had three children, one of whom died in

_______________

11 Civil Code, Art. 2270.

12 1964 Rules of Court, Rule 131, §5(bb).
13 Alavado v. City Government of Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230, 235 (1985);
Perido v. Perido, 63 SCRA 97, 102-103 (1975).
14 4 SCRA 849 (1962). See Madridejo v. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1 (1930);
Jones v. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179 (1937); People v. Borromeo, 133 SCRA
106 (1984).
15 Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 (1975).
16 Tolentino v. Paras, 122 SCRA 525 (1983); United States v.
Memoracion, 34 Phil. 633 (1916); People v. Borromeo, 133 SCRA 106
(1984).

267

VOL. 269, MARCH 7, 1997 267

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

infancy; that their marriage subsisted until 1935 when

Gavino died; and that their children, private respondents
herein, were recognized by Gavino’s family and by the
public as the legitimate children of Gavino.
Neither is there merit in the argument that the
existence of the marriage cannot be presumed because
there was no evidence showing in particular that Gavino
and Catalina, in the presence of two witnesses, declared
17
that they were taking each other as husband and wife. An
exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from
the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a wedding
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

took place, since the very purpose for having a wedding is

to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would indeed
be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows
and quite unnatural for people not to notice its absence.
The law favors the validity of marriage, because the
State is interested in the preservation of the family and the
sanctity of the family is a matter of constitutional
18
concern.
As stated in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee:

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 counter-
presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.
The reason is that such is the common order to 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. A 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.” (Sec. 334,
No. 28) Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio—Always presume
marriage. (U.S. vs. Villafuerte and Rabano [1905], 4 Phil.

_______________

17 Civil Code, Art. 55.

18 43 Phil. 43, 56 (1922). Accord, Perido v. Perido, 63 SCRA 97 (1975).

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

476; Son Cui vs. Guepangco, supra; U.S. vs. Memorancion and Uri
[1916], 34 Phil. 633; Teter vs. Teter [1884], 101 Ind., 129.)

Second. Petitioners contend that private respondents’

reliance solely on testimonial evidence to support their
claim that private respondents had been in the continuous
possession of the status of legitimate children is contrary to
Art. 265 of the Civil Code which provides that such status
shall be proven by the record of birth in the Civil Register,
by an authentic document or by final judgment. But in
accordance with Arts. 266 and 267, in the absence of titles
indicated in Art. 265, the filiation of children may be
proven by continuous possession of the status of a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

legitimate child and by any other means allowed by the

Rules of Court or special laws. Thus the Civil Code
provides:

ART. 266. In 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.
ART. 267. In 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 Rules
of Court and special laws.

Petitioners contend that there is no justification for

presenting testimonies as to the possession by private
respondents of the status of legitimate children because the
Book of Marriages for the years 1928-1929 is available.
What is in issue, however, is not the marriage of Gavino
and Catalina but the filiation of private respondents as
their children. The marriage of Gavino and Catalina has
already been shown in the preceding discussion. The
treasurer of Asturias, Cebu certified that the records of
birth of that municipality for the year 1930 could not be
found, presumably because they were lost or destroyed
during the war (Exh. L). But Matias Pogoy testified that
Gavino and Catalina begot three children, one of whom,
Petronilo, died at the age of six. Catalina testified that
private respondents Ramonito and Generoso are her
children by Gavino Balogbog. That private

269

VOL. 269, MARCH 7, 1997 269

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

respondents are the children of Gavino and Catalina

Balogbog cannot therefore be doubted.
Moreover, the evidence in the record shows that
petitioner Gaudioso Balogbog admitted to the police of
Balamban, Cebu that Ramonito is his nephew. As the
Court of Appeals found:

Ironically, it is appellant Gaudioso himself who supplies the

clincher that tips the balance in favor of the appellees. In an
investigation before the Police Investigating Committee of
Balamban, Cebu, held on March 8, 1968, conducted for the
purpose of inquiring into a complaint filed by Ramonito against a
patrolman of the Balamban police force, Gaudioso testified that
the complainant in that administrative case is his nephew.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

Excerpts from the transcript of the proceedings conducted on that

date (Exhs. “N”, “N-1”, “N-2, “N-3” and “N-4”) read:

“Atty. May it please this investigative body.

Kiamco
—
“Q.— Do you know the complainant in this
Administrative Case No. 1?
“A.— Yes I know.
“Q.— Why do you know him?
“A.— I know because he is my nephew.
“Q.— Are you in good terms with you nephew, the
complainant?
“A.— Yes.
“Q.— Do you mean to say that you are close to him?
“A.— Yes. We are close.
“Q.— Why do you say you are close?
“A.— We are close because aside from the fact that he is
my nephew we were also leaving (sic) in the same
house in Butuan City, and I even borrow (sic)
from him money in the amount of P300.00, when I
return to Balamban, Cebu.
  x x x      x x x      x x x
“Q.— Why is Ramonito Balogbog your nephew?
“A.— Because he is the son of my elder brother.”

This admission of relationship is admissible against Gaudioso

although made in another case. It is considered as a reliable
declaration against interest (Rule 130, Section 22). Significantly,
Gaudioso did not try to offer any explanation to blunt the effects
of that declaration. He did not even testify during the trial. Such
silence can only

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals

mean that Ramonito is indeed the nephew of Gaudioso, the

former being the son of Gavino.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
8/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 269

          Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Puno and Torres,

Jr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The prohibition in Article 280 of the Civil Code

against the identification of the father or mother of a child
applies only in voluntary recognition and not in compulsory
recognition. (Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 150
[1995])
Children born prior to marriage cannot be legitimated
nor in any way considered legitimate if at the time they
were born there was an existing valid marriage between
the father and his first wife. (Abadilla vs. Tabiliran, Jr.,
249 SCRA 447 [1995]).
The government’s interest in molding the young into
patriotic and civic spirited citizens is “not totally free from
a balancing process” when it intrudes into other
fundamental rights such as those specifically protected by
the Free Exercise Clause, the constitutional right to
education and the unassailable interest of parents to guide
the religious upbringing of their children in accordance
with the dictates of their conscience and their sincere
religious beliefs. (Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of
Schools of Cebu, 251 SCRA 569 [1995])

——o0o——

271

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cc45e9e8de73828ba003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12