Lex Rex Ph

Balogbog vs. CA

When marriage contract was destroyed by war


Petitioners are the children of the deceased Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog. They have an older brother, Gavino, who died in 1935, ahead of their parents. In 1968, respondents filed a claim that they were the legitimate children of Gavino, and therefore, are entitled to one-third of the inheritance. The petitioners denied the claim, and verred that Gavino died as a single man. 

The respondents brought witnesses that testified that they attended the wedding of their parents, and they are the children of Gavino and Catalina. Catalina testified of her marriage and children, but claims that records were destroyed by war. The respondents also produced a certificate that they do not have a record of the marriage and  birth certificate due to them being destroyed by the war. 

Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals AFFIRMED that the respondents are the legitimate grandchildren, and therefore heirs.


Whether or not the respondents are the children of the deceased Gavino Balogbog, even WITHOUT MARRIAGE & BIRTH DOCUMENTS and just personal testimonies, making them heirs to one third of the inheritance of their grandparents. 


Yes. The Supreme Court puts weight on testimonial evidence and police report vis-a-vis the favor of the law towards marriage.

Decision of appealed from is AFFIRMED.

The petitioners argued that the marriage should not be valid because there is NO DOCUMENT to prove it, as in this case, destroyed by war, but the High Court puts weight on the testimonial evidence. The law favors the validity of marriage because the sanctity of the family is a Constitutional concern. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio — [The law] ALWAYS PRESUME MARRIAGE.

The claim of the respondents to be the true children was also proven by a police report evidence, in which petitioner Gaudioso testified that Ramonito WAS HIS NEPHEW.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

YHT Realty vs. CA Digest

Topic: Necessary deposits Facts McLoughlin, an Australian businessman, stayed in Tropicana hotel from 1984 to 1987. He rented a safety deposit box which could be

Read More »

Rebus Sic Stantibus

The contract can only be valid if the conditions prevailing at the time of contracting continue to exist at the time of performance. If the

Read More »

Jocson v. CA Digest

Jocson vs. CA 170 SCRA 333G.R. No. L-55322. February 16, 1989Full Text Link Complete Names of PartiesMOISES JOCSON, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSON-VASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ,

Read More »