Mariategui vs.

Court of Appeals

Facts:
On June 26, 1953, Lupo Mariategui died without a will. During his lifetime, Lupo
Mariategui contracted three marriages. With his first wife, Eusebia Montellano, he begot four
children. With his second wife, Flaviana Montellano, he begot a daughter. Lupo Mariategui and
Felipa Velasco (Lupo's third wife) got married sometime in 1930. They had three children.
Felipa Velasco Mariategui died in 1941. At the time of his death, Lupo Mariategui left certain
properties which he acquired when he was still unmarried. These properties are described in the
complaint as Lots of the Muntinglupa Estate.
On December 2, 1967, Lupo's descendants by his first and second marriages executed a
deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated unto themselves a lot of the
Muntinglupa Estate. Thereafter, the Lot was the subject of a voluntary registration proceedings
filed by the adjudicatees and the land registration court issued a decree ordering the registration
of the lot. Subsequently, the registered owners caused the subdivision of the said lot, for which
separate transfer certificates of title were issued to the respective parties.
On April 23, 1973, Lupo's children by his third marriage with Felipa Velasco filed with
the lower court an amended complaint claiming that Lot together with other Lots owned by their
common father, Lupo Mariategui, and that, with the adjudication of the Lot to their co-heirs, they
(children of the third marriage) were deprived of their respective shares in the lots. Plaintiffs
pray for partition of the estate of their deceased father.
The plaintiffs elevated the case to the CA on the ground that the trial court committed an
error in not finding that the parents of the appellants, Lupo Mariategui and Felipa Velasco were
lawfully married, and in holding that they (appellants) are not legitimate children of their said
parents, thereby divesting them of their inheritance.
On December 24, 1980, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision declaring all the
children and descendants of Lupo Mariategui, including appellants Jacinto, Julian and Paulina
(children of the third marriage) as entitled to equal shares in the estate of Lupo Mariategui;
directing the adjudicatees in the extrajudicial partition of real properties who eventually acquired
transfer certificates of title.

Issue: Whether or not the private respondents, who belatedly filed the action for recognition,
were able to prove their successional rights over said estate?

Held:
Yes, with respect to the legal basis of private respondents' demand for partition of the
estate of Lupo Mariategui, the Supreme Court held 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 that when (his) father was still living, he was able to mention to (him) that he and
(his) mother were able to get married before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig, Rizal. The spouses
deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the community to be such.
Although no marriage certificate was introduced to this effect, no evidence was likewise offered
to controvert these facts. Moreover, 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.
Article 172 of the said Code provides that the filiation of legitimate children may be
established by the record of birth appearing in the civil registrar or a final judgment or by the
open and continuous possession of the status of legitimate child. Evidence on record proves the
legitimate filiation of the private respondents. Jacinto’s birth certificate is a record of birth
referred to in the said article. Again, no evidence which tends to disprove facts contained therein
was adduced before the lower court. In the case of the two other private respondents, Julian and
Paulina, they may not have presented in evidence any of the documents required by Article 172
but they continuously enjoyed the status of children of Lupo Mariategui in the same manner as
their brother Jacinto.