ARTURIO TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
G.R. No. 118904 April 20, 1998
Facts:
Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones were the parents of three (3) children, namely, Inocentes, Lourdes and Felix. When Patricio died in 1940, survived by the above named children, he left four (4) parcels of land, all situated at Barrio Tigayon, Kalibo Aklan.
Arturio Trinidad, born on July 21, 1943, claimed to be the legitimate son of the late Inocentes Trinidad. Sometime after the marriage, he demanded from the defendants to partition the land into three equal shares and to give him the (1/3) individual share of his late father, but the defendants refused.
Arturio Trinidad filed, an action for partition of four parcels of land. Defendants denied that plaintiff was the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad. Defendants contended that Inocentes was single when he died in 1941, before plaintiff’s birth. Defendants also denied that plaintiff had lived with them, and claimed that the parcels of land described in the complaint had been in their possession since the death of their father in 1940 and that they had not given plaintiff a share in the produce of the land.
Arturio presented witnesses to prove his position. Jovita Gerardo testified that Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato are the parents of Arturio; that Felix and Lourdes as the uncle and aunt of Arturio; and also identified pictures where the respondents were with Arturio and his family.(At this stage of the trial, Felix Trinidad [died] without issue and he was survived by his only sister, Lourdes Trinidad.) Another witness, ISABEL MEREN, 72 years old and a widow testified that she knows Inocentes Trinidad as the father of Arturio Trinidad; that she knew Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato as the parents of Arturio and that she was present when they were married in New Washington, Aklan, by a protestant pastor by the name of Lauriano Lajaylajay. She further testified that upon the death of Inocentes, Lourdes took Arturio and cared for him. ARTURIO TRINIDAD, himself, was presented as witness. As proof that he is the son of Inocentes Trinidad and Felicidad Molato, he showed a certificate of baptism, and a certificate of loss issued by the LCR that his birth certificate was burned during World War 2. He also testified that he lived with Felix and Lourdes and provided for his needs.
On the other hand, defendants presented Pedro Briones who testified that Inocentes was not married when he died in 1940s. Lourdes Trinidad also testified that she was not aware that his brother married anybody and denied that Arturio lived with them. Beatriz Sayon also testified that Inocentes died in 1941, and that Felicidad Molato had never been married to Inocentes. The trial court rendered a twenty-page decision in favor of Arturio. The CA reversed the decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner presented sufficient evidence of his parent’s marriage and his filation.
Ruling:
The partition of the late Patricios real properties requires preponderant proof that petitioner is a co-owner or co-heir of the decedent’s estate. His right as a co-owner would, in turn, depend on whether he was born during the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage between his mother (Felicidad) and his putative father (Inocentes).
When the question of whether a marriage has been contracted arises in litigation, said marriage may be proven by relevant evidence. To prove the fact of marriage, the following would constitute competent evidence: the testimony of a witness to the matrimony, the couple’s public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock, the birth and the baptismal certificates of children born during such union, and the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents.
In the case at bar, petitioner secured a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Aklan that all records of births, deaths and marriages were lost, burned or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of said municipality. Although the marriage contract is considered the primary evidence of the marital union, petitioner’s failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place, as other forms of relevant evidence may take its place. In place of a marriage contract, two witnesses were presented by petitioner: Isabel Meren and Jovita Gerardo. It further gives rise to the disputable presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Petitioner also presented his baptismal certificate in which Inocentes and Felicidad were named as the child’s father and mother, and family pictures.
The totality of petitioner’s positive evidence clearly preponderates over private respondent’s self- serving negations.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The trial courts decision is REINSTATED.
