Article 22 Family Code

CASE DIGEST: GR NO. 57062, January 24, 1992

MARIA DE ROSARIO MARIATEGUI et.al., petitioners Versus HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JACINTO MARIATEGUI,
JULIAN MARIATEGUI AND PAULINA MARIATEGUI, respondents

FACTS: Lupo Mariategui died without a will on June 23, 1953. He acquired Muntinlupa estate ( Lot 163, 66, 1346,
156) while he was a bachelor. In his lifetime, he contracted three marriages:

1st wife Eusibia Montellano (died 1904) 2nd wife Flaviana Montellano: 3rd wife Felipa Velasco(died 1941)

Children: Daughter: Children:

-Baldomera -Cresenciana, born 1910 -Jacinto, born 1929
-Maria del Rosario -Julian, born 1931
-Urbana -Paulina, born 1938
-Ireneo

Baldomera died and have children:

-Antero, Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia, Federico Espina
Ireneo died and have a son, Ruperto

-Dec. 2, 1967 Lupo’s descedants by first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby
they adjudicated themselves Lot 163 of the Muntinlupa estate and subjected to a voluntary registration proceedings
hence a decree ordering the registration was issued. In 1973 (6years after), the siblings in the third marriage prayed
for inclusion in the partition of the estate of their father and annulment of the deed of the extrajudicial partition.
-The defendants now the petitioners filed an answer with counterclaim to dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of
action and prescription. They contended that the complaint was one for recognition of natural children. The court
denied the motion because of erroneous application. The plaintiff right to inherent depends upon the recognition of
their continuous enjoyment and possession of status of children of their supposed father. Hence they elevated the
case to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court committed an error…that the parents of appellants
are not lawfully married and they are not legitimate children of their said parents, divesting them of their
inheritance.
CA ruling: All Lupo’s descendants are entitled to equal shares in the estate. Execute Deed of reconveyance in favor
for the shares of Jacinto and siblings or reimburse fair market value of their shares; all parties to submit project of
partition in the net state of Lupo after payment of taxes.
-Cresenciana and Isabel impleaded in the complaint as unwilling defendants. They agreed to the partition of the land
and accounting their fruits. They acknowledged the rights of the plaintiffs.
-Jacinto’s testified that their father was able to mention before that he and their mother was married before a
Justice of Peace in Taguig, Rizal. They deported themselves as husband and wife and known to the community as
such.

ISSUE:
-Whether the marriage of Lupo with Felipa is valid in the absence of marriage license.
-Whether or not the respondents able to prove their successional rights over said estate.

RULING:

-Although no marriage certificate was shown to prove Lupo and Felipa’s marriage, no evidence was likewise offered
to controvert these facts. The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the 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; a child was born in lawful wedlock, no divorce absolute or from bed and
board is legitimate.Hence, Felipa’s children are legitimate and therefore have successional rights.

-Article 172 of Family Code provides that the filiation of legitimate children may be established by the record of birth
appearing in the civil registrar of final judgment or by the open and continuous of the status of a legitimate child. In
Lupo’s lifetime he acknowledged and confirmed plaintiffs as his children and enjoyed such status since their birth.
They lived with their father even after their mother died until Lupo’s death.