140 Sison V Ambalada

140 Sison v Ambalada (Lahoz) 1.
Julian Ambalada and Modesta Afable lived together as husband and

March 18, 1915 | Arellano, C.J. | Admission by Declaration wife from 1870 until 1886, when Modesta died.
2. According to Julian’s testimony, they had 8 children but only one
survived her mother – Maria Ambalada.
Petitioner: Vicente Sison, et. al. 3. Maria married Sancho Sison. They had 3 children: Vicente, Maria
Respondents: Julian Ambalada Consolacion and Conrado (petitioners/grandchildren).
4. Now, the grandchildren of Julian instituted the present suit for the
SUMMARY: Julian and Modesta lived as husband and wife from 1870 to liquidation of the estate belonging to the conjugal partnership between
1886, when Modesta died. They had 8 children, one of whom was Maria. Julian and Modesta. They wanted to claim the half share of Modesta.
Maria married Sancho Sison and had 3 children with him, the petitioners in For this purpose, they enumerated 6 parcels of land constituting the
this case. The petitioners brought the present action for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
estate belonging to the conjugal partnership of Julian and Modesta. They 5. Julian denied the existence of the conjugal partnership, claiming
wanted to claim the share of Modesta in the partnership. Julian denied the that he was never legally married to Modesta. He claims that they
existence of the conjugal partnership and claimed that he was never legally were supposed to get married but then Modesta backed out; a day after
married to Modesta. The CFI found that Julian and Modesta entered into the supposed marriage, his mother just told the priest that they were
religious marriage and that the conjugal partneship existed. Julian appealed then married since they were already living together. However, he
the finding that they were legally married. acknowledged in his answer that he had other children with Modesta
aside from Maria.
W/N Julian and Modesta were legally married – YES. 6. With respect to the properties, he averred the ff:
a. Lots 1-5: Belonged to Fr. Gavino de los Reyes, for whom he
The Court considered the parole and documentary evidence presented at acted as mere agent;
trial. i. he later inherited lots 1 & 3 from Fr. Gavino in 1897
Parole Evidence ii. Fr. Gavino sold lots 2, 4, & 5 to Victorino Buhay
Testimony of Julian where he admitted that: b. Lot 6: Owned by Martina Ambalada
a. He was capitan municipal and Modesta was called capitana because 7. The CFI of Batangas found that the:
she was publicly accepted as his lawful wife a. Conjugal partnership existed and that in 1870, Julian and
b. After Modesta’s death, he tried to get married and represented himself Modesta entered into a religious marriage
as a widower b. Property sought belonging to the conjugal partnership did not
c. In his cedula, he was stated to be married partake of partnership property because it never belonged to
Testimony of eyewitnesses that there was a marriage ceremony between said conjugal partnership
Julian and Modesta 8. Julian appealed the decision with respect to the finding that he was
married to Modesta. He bases his claim on the absence of the parish
Documentary evidence certificate of the performance of the marriage ceremony. He also
1. Baptismal certificates of their children, stating that they were the questions the subsidiary parole evidence presented by petitioners.
legitimate issue of the marriage between Julian and Modesta
2. Burial certificates, stating that Julian was married to Modesta ISSUE/S:
3. Property title where it was stated that Julian was married 1. W/N the marriage between Julian and Modesta was proven - YES
DOCTRINE: The disputable presumption of marriage arises from the fact, and RATIO:
as admitted by him, of cohabitation and other documents showing that they On whether the marriage between Julian and Modesta was proven - YES
were married to each other. (from Yrreverre) 1. The Court considered the parole and documentary evidence presented
at trial.
2. Among the parole evidence considered was the testimony of Julian
FACTS:
where he admitted that:
1
a. He was capitan municipal in his town and Modesta was called
capitana because she was publicly accepted in that town as
his lawful wife;
b. After Modesta’s death, he tried to get married in Navotas and Notes:
represented himself to be a widower. With regard to the lots, the Court made the following rulings:
c. In his personal cedula, he was stated to be married, when he 1. Lot 1 – Julian was not able to prove that he inherited the land from Fr.
sought title to Lot 2. Gabino
3. Other parole evidence consistent of the testimony of witnesses Manuel, 2. Lot 2 – Registered in the name of Julian; belonged to the conjugal
Telesforo and Eugenio, the first two having been eyewitnesses to the property as it was acquired when Modesta was still alive; sold to Buhay
marriage. 3. Lot 3 – no proof of inheritance
a. Manuel: After the curate celebrated mass, he married Julian and 4. Lot 4 & 5 – sold by Julian to Buhay
Modesta 5. Lot 6 – Proven by witnesses to have been acquired by Julian and
b. Telesforo: His house is near the church; he went to mass at Modesta
daybreak and saw the marriage between Julian and Modesta
celebrated DISPOSITION:
c. Eugenio: It is the custom in their town to ascribe the ringing of bells The judgment appealed from is affirmed in so far as it declares that there was a
as daybreak to a wedding; when he heard the bells, he saw the legal marriage between Julian Ambalada and Modesta Afable; and it is reversed
bridal couple Julian and Modesta in customary ceremonial dress in so far as it declares that the property set forth in paragraph 10 of the complaint
4. The Court considered the ff documentary evidence: is not partnership property. It is held on the contrary that said property is such,
a. Baptismal certificates where it was certified that the boys and girls and that it is proper to proceed to liquidate such partnership property in
baptized are all legitimate issue of the lawful marriage of Julian accordance with the provisions of section 7, chapter 5, title 3, book 4, of the Civil
and Modesta, some of which were attested by Fr. Gavino, the Code; without special finding as to the costs in this instance. So ordered.
parish priest
b. Parish burial certificates of Modesta where it is stated: “Dona
Modesta Afable, married to Don Julian Ambalada”
c. Parish burial certificates of their children where it is stated:
“children of Don Julian and Dona Modesta Afable”
d. Marriage certificate of Maria Ambalada and Sancho Sison where
Maria is stated to be the child of Julian and Modesta
e. Baptismal certificates of the grandchildren where it was stated that
their maternal grandparents are Julian and Modesta
f. Property title where Julian described himself as married – since he
was then living with Modesta, it would not be understood that he
was married to anyone else other than Modesta
5. The legal presumption is that a man and a woman living together as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful marriage, unless proof to the
contrary is presented. In this case, Julian was not able to present any.
6. The lack of record of an act or fact in certain books of registry is not per se
proof of the non-existence of the fact or act, except in cases where the law
specifically requires as essential evidence the record itself or the inscription
of the fact or act to be proven.
7. The Court also noted that since Fr. Gabino was a priest of acknowledged
probity, he had no reason to falsely attest the entry in the church records of
the baptism of Julian and Modesta’s children by registering them as
legitimate issues of their marriage.

140 Sison V Ambalada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

140 Sison V Ambalada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

140 Sison V Ambalada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

140 Sison v Ambalada (Lahoz) 1.

Julian Ambalada and Modesta Afable lived together as husband and

You might also like