Facts:

Ramonito and Generoso filed an action for partition and accounting against their Aunt Leoncia and Uncle Gaudioso. They alleged that their grandparents Basilio and Genoveva have 3 children: Leoncia, Gaudioso and Gavino (who died in 1935, predeceasing his parents) and that they are the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina. As such, they are entitled to the one-third share in the estate of their grandparents.

Ramonito and Generoso presented 3 witnesses: (1) Trazo, former mayor of Asturias, Cebu who testified that he attended the wedding of Gavino and Catalina (2) Pogoy who also testified that he attended the wedding; and, (3) Catalina who testified concerning her marriage to Gavino.

Leoncia and Gaudioso denied knowing private respondents and claimed that Gavino died single. They produced a certificate from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar 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 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 no record of birth of Ramonito in the church, the records of which were either lost or destroyed during the war.

The lower court rendered judgment in favor of Ramonito and Generoso. CA affirmed, holding that Leoncia and Gaudioso 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 according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.


Issues: 

1. WON the marriage between Gavino and Catalina is valid even in the absence of marriage certificate.

2. WON Ramonito and Generoso are legitimate children of Gavino and Catalina.


Held:

1. 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. Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place. Other evidences may be shown to prove the 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.

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 concern. 

2. The fact that there was no record of birth in the Civil Registry does not mean that Ramonito and Generoso were not legitimate children. 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. 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. But 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. That private respondents are the children of Gavino and Catalina 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. 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. 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 mean that Ramonito is indeed the nephew of Gaudioso, the former being the son of Gavino. (Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997)