8/6/2019 Case Digest Balogbog vs. CA

1/2

Balogbog vs CA

Balogbog vs. CA

GR No. 83598, March 7, 1997

FACTS:

Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog filed an action for partition and accounting against their Aunt

Leoncia and Uncle Gaudioso for partition and accounting of their grandparents estate at the Court of

First Instance of Cebu City which was granted by the latter. Leoncia and Gaudioso appealed to theCourt of Appeals but the latter affirmed the lower courts decision.

Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal died intestate in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They have threechildren, Leoncia, Gaudioso and Gavino, their older brother who died in 1935. Ramoncito and

Generoso was claiming that they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as

such they were entitled to the one-third share in the estate of their grandparents. However, Leoncia and

Gaudioso claimed they are not aware that their brother has 2 sons and that he was married. They

started to question the validity of the marriage between their brother Gavino and Catalina despite howGaudioso himself admitted during a police investigation proceeding that indeed Ramonito is his

nephew as the latter is the son of his elder brother Gavino.

In the efforts of Ramoncito and Generoso to prove the validity of their parents marriage, they

presented Priscilo Trazo, 81 years old then mayor of Asturias from 1928 to 1934 and Matias Pogoywho both testified that he knew Gavino and Catalina to be husband and wife and that they have three

children. Catalina herself testified that she was handed a receipt presumably the marriage certificate

by Fr. Jomao-as but it was burned during the war.

On the other hand,Leoncia claimed that her brother Gavino died single at the family residence in

Asturias. She obtained a certificate from the local Civil Registrar of Asturias to the effect that the officedid not have a record of the names of Gavino and Catalina which was prepared by Assistant MunicipalTreasurer Juan Maranga who testified in the hearing as well.

Leoncia and Gaudioso contended that the marriage of Gavino and Catalina should have been proven inaccordance with Arts. 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889 because this was the law in force at the time

of 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, providedthat the registration of the birth of their children as their legitimate children is also submitted in

evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Gavino and Catalinas marriage is valid.

HELD:

Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in rendering Gavino and

8/6/2019 Case Digest Balogbog vs. CA

2/2