Delgado vs Rustia Vda de Damian
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA DELGADO AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA and other HEIRS OF LUIS DELGADO, petitioners, v. HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, respondents.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATES OF THE DECEASED JOSEFA DELGADO AND GUILLERMO RUSTIA CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DE LA ROSA and other HEIRS OF LUIS DELGADO, petitioners, v.
HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006.
Civil Law; Marriages; Although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place. Delgado Vda. de De la Rosa vs. Heirs of Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian, 480 SCRA 334, G.R. No. 155733 January 27, 2006
Facts:
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado died intestate and without descendants. Guillermo outlived Josefa by two years. Petitioners and respondents are their respective relatives claiming rights to their intestate estate.
The petition for letters of administration stated that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia were never married. According to petitioners, sometime in 1917, Guillermo proposed marriage to Josefa. Josefa and Guillermo eventually lived together as husband and wife but were never married.
To prove their assertion, petitioners point out that no record of the contested marriage existed in the civil registry.
Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of the sponsors referred to her as “Señorita” or unmarried woman.
Josefa was the daughter of Felisa Delgado by one Lucio Ocampo with five other children without the benefit of marriage. Felisa had another son by way of Ramon Osorio who is Luis Delgado, one of the claimants in Josefa‘s estate. But, unlike her relationship with Lucio Campo which was admittedly one without the benefit of marriage, the legal status of Ramon Osorio’s and Felisa Delgado’s union is in dispute.
The question of whether Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio ever got married is crucial to the claimants because if Ramon Osorio and Felisa Delgado had been validly married, then their only child Luis Delgado was a legitimate half-blood brother of Josefa Delgado and therefore excluded from the latter’s intestate estate. He and his heirs would be barred by the principle of absolute separation between the legitimate and illegitimate families. Conversely, if the couple were never married, Luis Delgado and his heirs would be entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado’s intestate estate, as they would all be within the illegitimate line.
On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado, the sister of Josefa, filed a Petition on Letters of Administration of the estate of deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia (died 1972 and 1974 respectively). Such letter was opposed by Marciana Rustia, a sister of Guillermo, claiming that they should be the beneficiaries of the estate.
The trial court then allowed Guillerma Rustia, a legitimate child of Guillermo, to intervene in the case as she claimed that she possessed the status of an acknowledged legitimate natural child, hence, she should be the sole heir of the estate.
Later, Luisa Delgado said that the spouses were living together without marriage. Luisa Delgado died and was substituted dela Rosa (herein petitioner) in this case. The RTC appointed dela Rosa as the administrator of the estates of the deceased.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid marriage between Guillermo and Josefa and between Felisa and Ramon.
Ruling:
The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado
On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao, the daughter of Luis Delgado, filed the original petition for letters of administration of the intestate estates of the “spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia” with the RTC of Manila. It was grounded on the theory that Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao and the other claimants were barred under the law from inheriting from their illegitimate half-blood relative Josefa Delgado.
The motion was denied on the ground that the interests of the petitioners and the other claimants remained in issue and should be properly threshed out upon submission of evidence.
Rule 131, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: xxx xxx xxx
(aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted. Their family and friends knew them to be married. Their reputed status as husband and wife was such that even the original petition for letters of administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in 1975 referred to them as “spouses.”
Yet, petitioners maintain that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia had simply lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. They make much of the absence of a record of the contested marriage, the testimony of a witness attesting that they were not married, and a baptismal certificate which referred to Josefa Delgado as “Señorita” or unmarried woman.
We are not persuaded.
First, although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place. Once the presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support thereof. The evidence need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage but must at least be enough to strengthen the presumption of marriage.
Here, the certificate of identity issued to Josefa Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia, the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia, the declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo Rustia that he was married to Josefa Delgado and the titles to the properties in the name of “Guillermo Rustia married to Josefa Delgado,” more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are public documents which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. No clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recitals therein was presented by petitioners.
Second, Elisa vda. de Anson, petitioners’ own witness whose testimony they primarily relied upon to support their position, confirmed that Guillermo Rustia had proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado and that eventually, the two had “lived together as husband and wife.” This again could not but strengthen the presumption of marriage.
Third, the baptismal certificate was conclusive proof only of the baptism administered by the priest who baptized the child. It was no proof of the veracity of the declarations and statements contained therein, such as the alleged single or unmarried (“Señorita”) civil status of Josefa Delgado who had no hand in its preparation.
Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans toward legitimizing matrimony.
Persons dwelling together apparently in marriage are presumed to be in fact married. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties are not what they hold themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.
The marriage of Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio
Little was said of the cohabitation or alleged marriage of Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio. The oppositors (now respondents) chose merely to rely on the disputable presumption of marriage even in the face of such countervailing evidence as (1) the continued use by Felisa and Luis (her son with Ramon Osorio) of the surname Delgado and (2) Luis Delgado’s and Caridad Concepcion’s Partida de Casamiento identifying Luis as “hijo natural de Felisa Delgado” (the natural child of Felisa Delgado).
All things considered, we rule that these factors sufficiently overcame the rebuttable presumption of marriage. Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married.
The Court held, through the testimonies of the witnesses, that marriage between Josefa and Guillermo never occurred. Although it is presumed that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage, such testimonies shall prevail.
Since, no marriage had occurred between the two, the estate must be settled in different proceedings. Therefore, dela Rosa cannot be appointed as the sole administrator of the estate of the deceased.
Read Full Case
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.php
