364 Phil. 613
PURISIMA, J.:
"In view of all the foregoing, plaintiffs Virginia P. Sarmiento and Apolonia P. Catibayan and defendant Simon Arguelles are hereby ordered to partition among themselves the one-half portion of lot No. 926 of the Naic Estate, located in Naic, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21877, pertaining to the deceased Francisco Arguelles.Dissatisfied therewith, the private respondents went to the Court of Appeals on a Petition for Review; theorizing that:
The counterclaim, for lack of merit, is hereby dismissed.
No pronouncement is made as to costs.
SO ORDERED."[6]
"I. The Lower Court erred in holding that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married and that Leogardo (sic) Arguelles was their legitimate daughter.On October 26, 1989, the Court of Appeals handed down its judgment, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of origin and disposing as follows:
II. The Lower Court erred in not holding that the cause of action of the plaintiffs-appellees if any, had already prescribed.
III. The Lower Court erred in ordering the partition of the property involved in this case among the plaintiffs-appellees and the defendant-appellant."[7]
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered REVERSING the decision appealed from and DISMISSING the complaint for judicial partition. Without pronouncement as to costs.With the denial of their Motion For Reconsideration on January 4, 1991, petitioners found their way to this court via the present Petition; posing as issues:
SO ORDERED."[8]
"I. WHETHER OR NOT A MAN AND A WOMAN WHO LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE PRESUMED MARRIED; andThe pivotal issue for determination is: whether or not the petitioners offered sufficient evidence to substantiate their submission that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were legally married.
II. WHETHER THE BORN OUT OF SUCH MARRIAGE IS LEGITIMATE OR NOT."[9]
"Section 3. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted or overcome by other evidence:Guided by the aforecited provision of law, the trial court ratiocinated:
x x x x
(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husbands and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
x x x x"
"The fact that no marriage certificate of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli was submitted in evidence does not lead to the conclusion that the said parties were not legally married and that Leogarda was their illegitimate child. The defendant admitted that his father and Emilia Pineli lived and cohabited together as husband and wife, even staying in the same house where he was also residing. The presumption is that `A man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage (sic) (Sec. 5 (bb), Rule 131, Rules of Court).[10] Every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children (Art. 220, Civil Code). In this case, no evidence adduced by defendant Arguelles to rebut this presumption. Neither did he attempt to show that Francisco and Emilia could not validly marry each other because of some legal impediments to their marriage."[11]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 People vs. Borromeo[12], this Court held that persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed absent any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.[13]
"the Marriage Certificate of Francisco Arguelles married to Emilia Pineli on the 18th day of August, 1918 at Naic, Cavite, is no longer available due to destruction of the records during the Japanese occupation, and as such no certified copy of Marriage could be issued to the parties concerned,"[15]However, Assistant Treasurer Lucila Lucero admitted later[16] on the witness stand that she signed the said certificate prepared by a certain Consuelo Pangilinan, without verifying its correctness. In reality, the records of marriage of Naic are intact. The said records were brought and examined before the trial court, and its pages 20 to 22 containing entries from July 3, 1917 to May 1918 do not reflect the names of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli.
"x x x Emilia would not have allowed Francisco Arguelles to place the property in his name alone as widower if in fact they were legally married to each other. If there was a mistake in indicating in the title Francisco's status as a widower, the same could have been easily cured by presenting a petition for correction in the proper court. If it is true, as Tiburcio Pangilinan testified, that the certificate of title was in the possession of Emilia Pineli and was given to him (Tiburcio) before her death, there is no conceivable reason why Emilia never exerted any effort to correct the mistake in the description of Francisco's status in the certificate of title as `widower' knowing that she would not be able to transmit any part of the property to her heirs upon her death if the error was not corrected. Her omission only serves to bolster the proposition that she had no right to protect, in the first place, because she was not legally married to Francisco."[19]Consequently, with the presumption of marriage sufficiently overcome, the onus probandi of 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.
"x x x Not one of the three witnesses for plaintiffs ever declared having observed that Francisco and Emilia acted as husband and wife. Tiburcio Pangilinan testified mainly on the fact that he is the father of the plaintiffs and husbands of the late Leogarda Arguelles who was the daughter of Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli. The rest of his testimony touched on the certifIcate of tittle covering Lot 926 which Emilia allegedly delivered two weeks before she died but was later on taken from him by defendant. Plaintiffs on their part did not testify that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli lived together as husband and wife, which may be explained by the fact that Virginia Sarmiento and Apolonia Catibayan were only 6 and 5 years old, respectively, when Emilia Pineli died and were then too young to perceive the nature of whatever the relationship existed Francisco and Emilia."[21]Evidently, petitioners relied mainly on the legal presumption that Francisco Arguelles and Emilia Pineli were married, without introducing any evidence to prove the mrriage theorized upon.