GR 96740; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999
VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO and APOLONIA P. CATIBAYAN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SIMON ARGUELLES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Virginia Sarmiento and Apolonia Catibayan, granddaughters of Francisco Arguelles, filed a complaint for partition of a one-half portion of a parcel of land registered in the names of co-owners Francisco Arguelles and Petrona Reyes. They claimed to be co-owners with their half-uncle, respondent Simon Arguelles, as the only heirs of Francisco, who died in 1949. Their claim rested on the legitimacy of their mother, Leogarda Arguelles, as a child of Francisco and Emilia Pineli.
The respondent opposed the partition, contending that Leogarda was an illegitimate child because Francisco and Emilia were never legally married. Under the Old Civil Code, applicable as Francisco died in 1949, an illegitimate child had no successional rights. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering partition, based on the legal presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are legally married.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners presented sufficient evidence to establish the lawful marriage of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli, thereby proving the legitimacy of Leogarda Arguelles and the petitioners’ right to inherit.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the complaint for partition. The legal presumption of marriage under Section 3(aa), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which the trial court relied upon, was sufficiently rebutted by the respondent’s evidence. The petitioners attempted to justify the absence of a marriage certificate with a municipal certification stating the records were destroyed during the war. However, the official who issued it testified she did not verify its contents, and the actual marriage records of Naic, Cavite, presented in court, contained no entry for the alleged 1918 marriage of Francisco and Emilia.
Furthermore, the death certificate of Francisco Arguelles listed him as “single,” and the respondent testified that the cohabitation was without the benefit of marriage. While the petitioners belatedly invoked a birth certificate of Leogarda to show legitimacy, the Supreme Court found that the totality of the respondent’s evidence preponderated over the petitioners’ heavy reliance on the disputable presumption, which had been overcome. Consequently, the petitioners failed to substantiate the lawful marriage and, thus, their hereditary rights. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, being supported by evidence, were upheld.