Petitioner Arturio Trinidad filed a case seeking partition of four parcels of land left by his grandfather Patricio Trinidad. He claimed to be the son of Patricio's deceased son Inocentes. Respondents denied this and refused to partition the land. The court found that through witness testimony to the marriage, baptismal records naming parents, photos, and consistent use of the surname, petitioner provided preponderant evidence of his parents' marriage and his filiation to Inocentes despite the lack of an official marriage contract or birth certificate destroyed during wartime. Respondents' evidence was found less credible. The court ruled in petitioner's favor.
Petitioner Arturio Trinidad filed a case seeking partition of four parcels of land left by his grandfather Patricio Trinidad. He claimed to be the son of Patricio's deceased son Inocentes. Respondents denied this and refused to partition the land. The court found that through witness testimony to the marriage, baptismal records naming parents, photos, and consistent use of the surname, petitioner provided preponderant evidence of his parents' marriage and his filiation to Inocentes despite the lack of an official marriage contract or birth certificate destroyed during wartime. Respondents' evidence was found less credible. The court ruled in petitioner's favor.
Petitioner Arturio Trinidad filed a case seeking partition of four parcels of land left by his grandfather Patricio Trinidad. He claimed to be the son of Patricio's deceased son Inocentes. Respondents denied this and refused to partition the land. The court found that through witness testimony to the marriage, baptismal records naming parents, photos, and consistent use of the surname, petitioner provided preponderant evidence of his parents' marriage and his filiation to Inocentes despite the lack of an official marriage contract or birth certificate destroyed during wartime. Respondents' evidence was found less credible. The court ruled in petitioner's favor.
Petitioner Arturio Trinidad filed a case seeking partition of four parcels of land left by his grandfather Patricio Trinidad. He claimed to be the son of Patricio's deceased son Inocentes. Respondents denied this and refused to partition the land. The court found that through witness testimony to the marriage, baptismal records naming parents, photos, and consistent use of the surname, petitioner provided preponderant evidence of his parents' marriage and his filiation to Inocentes despite the lack of an official marriage contract or birth certificate destroyed during wartime. Respondents' evidence was found less credible. The court ruled in petitioner's favor.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
ARTURIO TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX TRINIDAD (deceased) and
LOURDES TRINIDAD, respondents. April 20, 1998- Panganiban Facts: 1. Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones were the parents of three (3) children, namely, Inocentes, Lourdes and Felix. When Patricio died in 1940, survived by the above named children, he left four (4) parcels of land, all situated at Barrio Tigayon, Kalibo Aklan. 2. On August 10, 1978, Arturio Trinidad filed an action for partition of four (4) parcels of land, claiming that he was the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad, one of three (3) children of Patricio Trinidad, who was the original owner of the parcels of land. 3. Patricio Trinidad died in 1940, leaving the four (4) parcels of land to his three (3) children, Inocentes, Lourdes and Felix. 4. In 1970, Arturio demanded from the defendants to partition the land into three (3) equal shares and to give him the one-third (1/3) individual share of his late father, but the defendants refused. 5. Defendants denied that plaintiff was the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad. 6. Defendants contended that Inocentes was single when he died in 1941, before plaintiffs birth. 7. Arturio Trinidad, born on July 21, 1943. 8. Defendants also denied that plaintiff had lived with them, and claimed that the parcels of land described in the complaint had been in their possession since the death of their father in 1940 and that they had not given plaintiff a share in the produce of the land. Issue: In the absence of a marriage contract and a birth certificate, how may marriage and filiation be proven? - Whether or not petitioner (plaintiff-appellee) has proven by preponderant evidence the marriage of his parents. - Whether or not petitioner (plaintiff-appellee) has adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he is the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad Ruling:
1. Petitioner secured a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Aklan that all records of births, deaths and marriage were either lost, burned or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of said municipality. This fact, however, is not fatal to petitioners case.
2. Although the marriage contract is considered the primary evidence of the
marital union, petitioners failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place, as other forms of relevant evidence may take its place. Other evidence presented: 1. In place of a marriage contract, two witnesses were presented by petitioner: a. Isabel Meren, who testified that she was present during the nuptial of Felicidad and Inocentes on May 5, 1942 in New Washington, Aklan; and b. Jovita Gerardo, who testified that the couple deported themselves as husband and wife after the marriage. c. Gerardo, the 77-year old barangay captain of Tigayon and former board member of the local parent-teachers association, used to visit Inocentes and Felicidads house twice or thrice a week, as she lived only thirty meters away d. Gerardo dropped by Inocentes house when Felicidad gave birth to petitioner. e. She also attended petitioners baptismal party held at the same house 2. Petitioner also presented his baptismal certificate in which Inocentes and Felicidad were named as the childs father and mother Although a baptismal certificate is indeed not a conclusive proof of filiation, it is one of the other means allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree, as this Court ruled in Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals 3. The first family picture shows petitioner carrying his second daughter and his wife together with the late Felix Trinidad carrying petitioners first daughter, and Lourdes Trinidad. Another picture showing Lourdes Trinidad carrying petitioners first child 4. The totality of petitioners positive evidence clearly preponderates over private respondents self-serving negations. 5. petitioner consistently used Inocentes surname (Trinidad) without objection from private respondents -- a presumptive proof of his status as Inocentes legitimate child Defendants 1. Private respondents thesis is that Inocentes died unwed and without issue in March 1941. Private respondents witness, Pedro Briones, testified that Inocentes died in 1940 and was buried in the estate of the Trinidads, because nobody was willing to carry the coffin to the cemetery in Kalibo, which was then occupied by the Japanese forces. His testimony, however, is far from credible because he stayed with the Trinidads for only three months, and his answers on direct examination were noncommittal and evasive 2. Beatriz Sayon, testified that, when the Japanese occupied Kalibo in 1941, her father brought Inocentes from Manila to Tigayon because he was sick. Inocentes stayed with their grandmother, Eugenia Roco Trinidad, and died single and without issue in March 1941. 3. Taking judicial notice that World War II did not start until December 7, 1941 with the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, the trial court was not convinced that Inocentes died in March 1941. Concept: I. To prove the fact of marriage, the following would constitute competent evidence: a. the testimony of a witness to the matrimony, b. the couples public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock, c. the birth and the baptismal certificates of children born during such union, and d. the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents II. Preponderant evidence means that, as a whole, the evidence adduced by one side outweighs that of the adverse party. - In determining where the preponderance of evidence lies, a trial court may consider
a. all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the
b. witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, c. the nature of the facts, d. the probability or improbability of their testimony, e. their interest or want thereof, and f. their personal credibility
Manuel de Asis V Court of Appeals, Hon. Jaime T. Hamoy, Branch 130, RTC, Kalookan City and Glen Camil Andres de Asis, Represented by Her Mother: Guardian Vircel D. Andres
Steve Ward, Individually and as Father and Next Friend of Tara Ward and Casey Ward, and Dawn Appenzeller, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Adam Appenzeller v. United States Customs Service, Twelve Unknown Agents, 17 F.3d 317, 10th Cir. (1994)
