Case Digest

LEONCIA BALOGBOG and GAUDIOSO BALOGBOG

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 83598 March 7, 1997 MENDOZA,
J
.:
Facts:
In 1968, the respondents brought an action for the partition and accounting, claiming that they were
the legitimate children of Gavino, the brother of the petitioners who died in 1935 and as such
they were entitled to the one third share Gavino in Basilios estate. The petitioners denied
knowing the respondents. They alleged that Gavino died single and that they are not aware that he has
two sons. The petitioners further questioned the validity of marriage between their brother and
Catalina. On the trial of the case, petitioners presented witnesses that will prove the invalidity of the
marriage between their brother and Catalina. They were contending that the marriage was not valid
because there was no record showing in the Local Civil Registry that a marriage transpired between
them. The respondent, on the other hand, averred that records were destroyed during the time war as
well as the certificate that there was no record of birth of Ramonito which were presumable lost or
destroyed.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage between Gavino and Catalina is valid even in the absence of a marriage
certificate. Whether or not Ramonito and Generoso are legitimate children of Gavino and Catalina
Ruling:
Yes. 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 when there is a proof to the
contrary. Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to
present such is not a proof that no marriage took place. Other pieces of evidence may be shown prove
the marriage. In the case at bar, testimonial evidence was presented. Yes. The Supreme Court held that
the fact the there was no record of birth in the civil registry does not mean that the private respondents
were not legitimate children. The legitimacy was proved by the testimonies of the witnesses including
Catalina. Moreover, although made in another case, Gaudioso admitted that Ramonito is his nephew.
ase Digest
MARIA APIAG
vs.
JUDGE ESMERALDO G. CANTERO

A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070 February 12, 1997 PANGANIBAN,
J
.:
Facts:
The wedding of Maria Apiag (one of the complainants) and Esmeraldo Cantero(respondent-judge) took
place on August 11, 1947. They begot two children, Teresita andGlicero (complainants). Thereafter,
Esmeraldo left the conjugal home and abandoned his wife and children without any means of support.
Later on, the complainants learned that Esmeraldo contracted another marriage with Nieves Ygay and
they have 5 children of their own. In all the documents filed by Esmeraldo such as his sworn statement
of assets and liabilities, personal data sheet, income tax return, and insurance policy with GSIS, he
misrepresented himself as being married to Nieves. Herein complainants charged Esmeraldo with gross
misconduct for allegedly having committed bigamy and for falsifying public documents. In his comment,
Esmeraldo denied the validity of the marriage alleging that it was dramatized and that his parents called
him to appear in a certain drama marriage and was forced to sign a duly prepared marriage contract. He
pressed the idea that his consent was not freely given. The fact, however, is undisputed that he and
Maria were engaged in a love affair which resulted in the pregnancy of the latter prior to the marriage. It
is only for the preservation of the family name that their parents agreed to their marriage but not to live
together as husband and wife. To bolster his defense, Esmeraldo alleged that Maria has been living with
another man during her public service as a teacher and have begotten a child, named Manuel Apiag. He
arg
ued the he who seek justice must seek justice with clean hands. He didnt
file any annulment or judicial declaration of the alleged marriage because he believed that said marriage
was void from the beginning. Thus, nothing is to be nullified because the marriage
never existed. However, in view of the complainants request in their letter to the respondent
dated September 21, 1993, both parties have agreed that Teresita shall: (1) get of the retirement that
Esmeraldo will receive from GSIS; (2) be included as one of the beneficiaries in case of the
latters death; (3) inherit the properties of the latter; and (2) receive and collect Php4000 monthly
as support
Issue:
WON the previous marriage of the judge was valid.
Ruling:
No. Since the second marriage occurred before the promulgation of Wiegel v Sempio-Diy and before
the effectivity of the FC, the doctrine of Odayat v. Amante (will be applied in favor of the respondent.
Although there did not exist any grave misconduct (since the acts were committed in
relation to the judges personal life), he will still be held administratively liable because of his
position as a judge of high principles and ethics. Man is not perfect. At one time or another, he may
commit a mistake. But we should not look only at his sin. We should also consider the man's sincerity in
his repentance, his genuine effort at restitution and his eventual triumph in the reformation of his life.
This respondent should not be judged solely and finally by what took place some 46 years ago. He may
have committed an indiscretion in the past. But having repented for it, such youthful mistake should not
forever haunt him and should not totally destroy his career and render inutile his otherwise
unblemished record. Indeed, it should not demolish completely what he built in his public life since then.
Much less should it absolutely deprive him and/or his heirs of the rewards and fruits of his long and
dedicated service in government. For these reasons, dismissal from service as recommended by the
Office of the Court Administrator would be too harsh. Considering that he was remiss in attending to the
needs of the children of his first marriage (whose filiations he did not deny), the court would impose a
penalty. But since he is dead, the case will merely be dismissed.