Sarmiento vs. Court of Appeals

The disputable presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage may be overcome by contrary evidence; once rebutted, the burden of proof shifts to the party asserting the marriage to substantiate the claim. Because petitioners failed to present evidence proving the marriage of their grandparents, their claim of legitimacy and successional rights must fail.

Virginia P. Sarmiento and Apolonia P. Catibayan are the daughters of Tiburcio Pangilinan and Leogarda Arguelles. Leogarda was the daughter of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli. Private respondent Simon Arguelles is Francisco's son with Petrona Reyes. Upon the deaths of Francisco and Emilia, petitioners claimed co-ownership over a half-portion of Lot No. 926 in Naic, Cavite, covered by TCT No. 21877, asserting successional rights as Francisco's legitimate granddaughters.

• The Property: Lot No. 926 of the Naic Estate, covered by TCT No. 21877 issued to co-owners Francisco Arguelles and Petrona Reyes.
• The Claim: Petitioners filed a complaint for partition, claiming a share in the 1/2 portion pertaining to Francisco Arguelles as his legitimate heirs through their mother, Leogarda.
• The Dispute: Private respondent Simon Arguelles opposed, contending Leogarda was an illegitimate child of Francisco and Emilia Pineli, who were not married, and thus had no successional rights under the Old Civil Code (applicable as Francisco died in 1949).
• The Evidence on Marriage: Petitioners relied on the presumption of marriage given Francisco and Emilia's cohabitation. They presented a certification that the marriage certificate was destroyed during the Japanese occupation, but the certifying officer admitted she signed it without verification, and the actual intact records showed no marriage between them. Francisco's death certificate indicated "none" for surviving spouse. TCT No. 21877 listed Francisco as a "widower" (his deceased wife being Petrona Reyes). Emilia never sought to correct the title during her lifetime. No witness testified to the marriage or to Francisco and Emilia acting as husband and wife.

• Petitioners maintained that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli lived together as husband and wife, thus triggering the disputable presumption of marriage under Rule 131, Section 3(aa) of the Rules of Court.
• Petitioners argued that Leogarda, born of such union, was legitimate and that they, as her heirs, are entitled to partition the estate of Francisco Arguelles.

• Respondent countered that Leogarda was illegitimate because Francisco and Emilia were not legally married.
• Respondent presented evidence to rebut the presumption of marriage, pointing to the absence of a marriage record, Francisco's death certificate indicating no surviving spouse, and the title listing Francisco as a widower.
• Respondent argued that under the Old Civil Code, an illegitimate child had no successional rights.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioners offered sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married.
  • Whether the disputable presumption of marriage was overcome by contrary evidence.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court held that the presumption of marriage was sufficiently rebutted by the respondent's evidence. The certification regarding the destroyed marriage record was discredited, the actual records showed no marriage, the death certificate showed no surviving spouse, and the title listed Francisco as a widower. Emilia's failure to correct the title further indicated she had no right to protect. Once the presumption was overcome, the burden shifted to petitioners to prove the marriage. Petitioners failed to present any witness to the matrimony, testimony of public cohabitation as husband and wife after the wedlock, birth or baptismal certificates of children born during the union, or mention of the nuptial in subsequent documents (as required by Trinidad v. CA). Consequently, petitioners' evidence did not preponderate, and Leogarda was deemed illegitimate, without successional rights under the Old Civil Code.

• Presumption of Marriage — Section 3(aa), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. This presumption is disputable and may be overcome by contrary evidence. In this case, the presumption was overcome by the absence of a marriage record, the indication in the death certificate and title that Francisco was a widower with no surviving spouse, and the lack of any action by Emilia to correct the title.
• Burden of Proof upon Rebuttal of Presumption — Once the disputable presumption of marriage is contradicted and overcome by adverse evidence, the burden of proof shifts to the party asserting the marriage to substantiate the claim with independent evidence.

• "While it is true that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli cohabited as husband and wife, private respondent Simon Arguelles testified that the said cohabitation was without the benefit of marriage... In the case under consideration, the presumption of marriage, on which the trial court premised its decision, has been sufficiently offset."
• "Consequently, with the presumption of marriage sufficiently overcome, the onus probandi of the private respondent shifted to the petitioners. It then became the burden of the petitioners, Virginia P. Sarmiento and Apolonia P. Catibayan, to prove that their deceased grandparents, Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli, were legally married."

• People vs. Borromeo, 133 SCRA 106 — Cited for the principle that persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed married absent any counter presumption or evidence special to the case.
• Fernandez vs. Puatu, et al., 102 Phil. 363 — Cited as authority that the presumption of marriage can be sufficiently offset/overcome.
• Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 118904, April 20, 1998 — Cited for the enumeration of proof that may be presented to prove a marriage: a) testimony of a witness to the matrimony; b) the couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock; c) the birth and baptismal certificate of children born during such union; and d) the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents.

• Section 3(aa), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court — Disputable presumptions: That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Applied to initially favor petitioners, but ultimately held to be rebutted by contrary evidence.
• Old Civil Code — Governs the successional rights of the parties because Francisco Arguelles died in 1949, before the effectivity of the New Civil Code. Under the Old Civil Code, an illegitimate child did not have successional rights, barring Leogarda (and petitioners) from inheriting from Francisco.
• Article 220, Civil Code — Every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children. Cited by the trial court but held insufficient to overcome the specific rebutting evidence presented.

Romero, Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.