Mariategui Mariategui vs CA Case Cas e Digest Mariategui Mariategui vs. CA CA G.R. G.R. No. L-57062 January Jan uary 24, 1992
Facts: Lupo Mariategui contracted three three marriages during his hi s lifetime. On his first wife, Eusebia Montellano, who died on November 8, 1904, he begot four children, Baldomera, Bal domera, Maria Maria del Rosario, Urbana and Ireneo. With his second wife, Flavi ana Montellano, he begot a daughter named Cresenciana. And his third wife, Felipa V elasco, he begot three three children, namely Jacinto, Julian and Paulina.
At the the time of Lupo’s death death he left certain properties properties with which he acquired when he was still unmarried. Lupo died without a will. wi ll. Upon his h is death, descendants from from his first and second marriages marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial extrajudicia l partition on Lot No. 163. However, the children on Lupo’s third marriage filed with wi th the lower court an amended complaint claiming that they were deprive on the partition of Lot No. 163 which were w ere owned by b y their common father. father. The petitioners, children on first and second marriage, filed a counterclaim to dismiss the said complaint. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss and also al so the complaint by the respondents, children on third marriage.
Respondents elevated the case on CA on o n the ground that the trial trial court committed committed an error for for not finding the third marriage marriage to be lawfully married and also in hol ding respondents are not legitimate children of their said parents. CA rendered a decision declaring de claring all the children and descendants of Lupo, including includi ng the respondents, are entitled to equal shares of estate of their father. father. However, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision. decision .
Issue: Whether or not respondents respondents were able abl e to prove their succession rights over the said estate.
Ruling: With respect to the legal basis of private respondents' responden ts' demand for partition partition of o f the estate of Lupo Mariategui, the Court of Appeals aptly held h eld that the private respondents are legitimate children of the deceased.
Lupo Mariategui and Felipa Velasco were alleged to have been lawfully married in or about 1930. This fact is based on the declaration communicated by Lupo Mariategui to Jacinto who testified testified that "when hi s father was still living, livi ng, he was able to mention mention to him that he and his mother were able to get married before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig , Rizal." The T he spouses deported themselves themselves as husband and wife, w ife, and were known iin n the community community to be such. Although no marriage marriage certificate was introduced to to this effect, effect, no evidence was likewise likewi se offered offered to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate invali date the marriage, marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.
Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of li fe.
