Geronimo vs. Court of Appeals

The non-indication of a marriage license number in certified copies of a marriage contract does not prove the non-issuance of the marriage license and cannot invalidate the marriage; at most, it proves only that the number was not recorded.

Ireneo G. Geronimo, a brother of the deceased Graciana Geronimo, contested Antonio A. Esman's claim to be Graciana's surviving husband and his appointment as administrator of her estate. The estate proceeding required a determination of the validity of the marriage between Graciana and Esman because his capacity to inherit and administer the decedent's property depended on that status. The controversy centered on whether the marriage was celebrated without a marriage license, an essential requisite.

Graciana Geronimo died on June 2, 1987 without a will, leaving no descendants or ascendants. She was survived by her two brothers Tomas and Ireneo, her nephew Salvador, and Antonio A. Esman, who claimed to be her husband. The settlement of her estate became contested when Ireneo questioned Esman's capacity to inherit and administer her property on the ground that the marriage between Esman and Graciana had been celebrated without a marriage license.

On June 29, 1987, Ireneo filed a petition for letters of administration of Graciana's estate, naming Esman as one of the heirs and describing him as the deceased's husband. On April 4, 1988, after allegedly finding out that the marriage was a nullity for want of a marriage license, Ireneo filed an amended petition naming Esman as the deceased's "live-in partner." The principal issue before the trial court was whether the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman was valid.

Ireneo relied on a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros showing that the marriage license number was not stated in the marriage contract, and on the marriage contract itself, which did not show the number of the marriage license issued. He also contended that Marriage License No. 5038770, which was supposedly issued to the deceased and Esman by the Civil Registrar of Pateros, was not really issued to Pateros before the marriage was celebrated but to Pasig in October 1959.

Esman countered that Ireneo's arguments were mere concoctions. He maintained that, except for the phrases "not stated" and "not recorded," the certified copies of the marriage contract issued by the Civil Registrar of Pateros and the Parish Church of San Roque were the same as the certified copy attached to the original petition, which named him as the husband of the deceased, and that Ireneo had simply asked that those phrases be incorporated to suit an ulterior motive. He argued that the omission of the marriage license number in the Registry of Marriages of the Local Civil Registrar was not fatal and was not conclusive proof that no marriage license was actually signed on January 7, 1955. He also explained that marriage license forms issued to the Municipality of Pateros were printed by the Bureau of Printing with serialized numbers and distributed to various provinces or municipalities through proper requisitions, and that serial numbers already used in past years were used again in succeeding years.

To prove the marriage, Esman presented David Montenegro, an employee of the National Archives and Records Section, who testified that a copy of the marriage contract between Antonio A. Esman and Graciana Geronimo celebrated on January 7, 1955 was on file with their office. Msgr. Moises Andrade, a parish priest, testified that he knew the spouses Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman, attended to them spiritually, conducted mass for them, gave them communion, visited them socially, and observed that they were close to each other and to the people in their garment business, Gragero Lingerie. Marciana Cuevas, assistant supervisor of the couple's garment business, testified that she was aware of the marriage, that the couple lived together as husband and wife in Bambang, Pasig, after the wedding, and that Esman successfully supervised the lingerie business after Graciana's death. Julie Reyes, supply officer of the governor's office, testified that she was in charge of accountable forms, including marriage licenses, for the fourteen municipalities of Rizal, and that Pad No. 83 covering marriage licenses Nos. 5038751 to 5038800 was taken by the Municipality of Pateros on October 9, 1953. Florenciana Santos, assistant local civil registrar of Pateros, testified that the entry of marriage book of Pateros had no column for the marriage license, that they started putting the marriage license only in 1980, that they had a copy of the questioned marriage contract in which the marriage license number was recorded, and that the records of 1959 were lost during a typhoon but a copy of the marriage contract was sent to the archives section. Esman himself testified that he was married to Graciana Geronimo on January 7, 1955 in Pateros and was issued Marriage License No. 5038770, and that the deceased introduced him to the public as her lawful husband.

The trial court found the marriage between Graciana and Esman valid and found that a marriage license had been issued. The Court of Appeals, adopting the trial court's findings, found that the non-indication of the license number in the copies presented by Ireneo proved only that the number was not recorded, not that no license was issued, and that the marriage license number appeared in the certified archives copy of the marriage contract. It also found no law requiring the marriage license number to be indicated in the marriage contract itself.

• Absence of Marriage License: Petitioner contended that the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio Esman was null and void because no marriage license was issued to the parties at the time the marriage was celebrated; he cited a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros showing that the marriage license number was not stated in the marriage contract and the marriage contract itself did not show the number.
• Improper License Number: Petitioner argued that Marriage License No. 5038770, supposedly issued to the deceased and Esman by the Civil Registrar of Pateros, was not actually issued to Pateros before the marriage was celebrated but to Pasig in October 1959.
• Question of Law: Petitioner framed the issue as whether a valid marriage can exist where one essential requisite—the license—is absent, maintaining that Esman had no right to be appointed as administrator of the estate of the deceased.

• Documents Not Conclusive: Respondent countered that petitioner's arguments were mere concoctions; except for the phrases "not stated" and "not recorded," the certified copies of the marriage contract from the Civil Registrar of Pateros and the Parish Church of San Roque were the same as the certified copy attached to the original petition naming him as husband, and that petitioner had those phrases incorporated to suit an ulterior motive.
• Omission Not Fatal: Respondent argued that omission of the marriage license number in the Registry of Marriages of the Local Civil Registrar was not fatal and was not conclusive proof that no marriage license was actually signed on January 7, 1955.
• Serialized Forms: Respondent maintained that marriage license forms issued to the Municipality of Pateros were printed by the Bureau of Printing with serialized numbers distributed through requisitions, and that serial numbers used in past years were used again in succeeding years.
• Evidence of Marriage: Respondent presented witnesses and an archives copy of the marriage contract showing Marriage License No. 5038770 dated January 7, 1955, to prove the marriage and his status as husband.

• Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact: Whether the Court of Appeals' findings of fact are conclusive on appeal under Rule 45, absent any of the recognized exceptions.
• Proof of Non-Issuance of Marriage License: Whether the non-indication of the marriage license number in the copies of the marriage contract presented by petitioner proves that no marriage license was issued.
• Validity of Marriage: Whether the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman is valid despite the alleged absence of a marriage license.
• Appointment as Administrator: Whether Antonio A. Esman may be appointed as administrator of the estate of Graciana Geronimo.

• Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact: No. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive under Rule 45, and petitioner failed to show any recognized exception.
• Proof of Non-Issuance of Marriage License: No. The non-indication of the license number in the copies presented proved only non-recording, not non-issuance; the archives copy showed Marriage License No. 5038770 dated January 7, 1955.
• Validity of Marriage: Yes. The marriage was valid; the alleged absence of a marriage license was not established, and the non-indication of the license number in the marriage contract is not fatal to its validity.
• Appointment as Administrator: Yes. The affirmance of the marriage's validity and of the trial court's judgment sustains Esman's appointment as administrator of the estate.

• Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact: Rule 45 limits review to questions of law, and the Court of Appeals' findings of fact are conclusive unless one of the recognized exceptions applies. The Court collated the exceptions in BPI Credit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, including conclusions grounded entirely on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, findings beyond the issues, findings contrary to the trial court, conclusions without citation of specific evidence, undisputed facts, and findings premised on the supposed absence of evidence but contradicted by the record. Petitioner failed to show any exception. The question "Can there be a valid marriage where one of the essential requisites — license — is absent?" assumed that there was no marriage license, a factual contention contrary to the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The petition therefore failed on this score alone.

• Proof of Non-Issuance of Marriage License: Petitioner relied on Exhibits "I" and "J," copies of the marriage contract that did not state the marriage license number. That omission, however, could only prove non-recording of the number, not non-issuance of the license. Respondent presented Exhibit "7," a copy of the marriage contract on file with the National Archives and Records Section, where Marriage License No. 5038770, dated January 7, 1955, appeared. Petitioner tried to assail this evidence with Exhibit "V," a certification that Marriage License No. 5038770 was issued in 1976 to Edwin G. Tolentino and Evangelina Guadiz. The Court of Appeals explained that printed accountable forms of the government, such as marriage licenses, come from the National Printing Office with serial numbers; they are distributed upon requisition, and the same serial numbers may be used in succeeding years, with distribution not following the same pattern. Pateros received Pad No. 83 covering marriage licenses Nos. 5038751 to 5038800 on October 9, 1953; License No. 5038770 was used by Esman and Geronimo on January 7, 1955; another license bearing the same number was later issued to Pasig in October 1959 and still another to Pasay City in 1976. The evidence thus proved only non-recording, not non-issuance.

• Validity of Marriage: Because the alleged absence of the essential requisite of a marriage license was not established, the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman remained valid. The non-indication of the license number in the certified copies presented by petitioner was not fatal to the validity of the marriage, since there is nothing in the law requiring that the marriage license number be indicated in the marriage contract itself. The lower courts' conclusion that a license was issued was supported by the archives copy and the other evidence.

• Appointment as Administrator: The trial court's judgment declaring the marriage valid and appointing Esman as administrator was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and, in turn, affirmed in toto by the Supreme Court. Because the marriage's validity was sustained, Esman's status as surviving husband and his capacity to administer the estate remained undisturbed.

• Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact of the Court of Appeals — Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari; the Court of Appeals' findings of fact are conclusive on the Supreme Court. The rule admits exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. The Court found no exception and treated petitioner's claim as a factual challenge.

• Non-Indication of Marriage License Number — The absence of the marriage license number in certified copies of a marriage contract does not prove that no license was issued; at most, it proves non-recording. There is no law requiring the license number to be indicated in the marriage contract itself. The Court applied this to uphold the marriage where the archives copy showed the license number.

• Judicial Notice of Serialized Government Forms — Printed accountable forms of the government, such as the marriage license (Municipal Form 95-A), come from the National Printing Office with serial numbers; they are distributed upon requisition, and the same serial numbers may be used in succeeding years, with distribution not following the same pattern. This explained why Marriage License No. 5038770 appeared in Pateros in 1955 and later in Pasig and Pasay, defeating petitioner's inference of non-issuance.

• Marriage License as Essential Requisite — The decision treats a marriage license as an essential requisite of marriage, but the party alleging its absence must prove it. The evidence showed only non-recording of the number, not non-issuance of the license, so the marriage was not invalidated.

• "At most, the evidence adduced by the petitioner could only serve to prove the non-recording of the marriage license number but certainly not the non-issuance of the license itself." — This states the ratio decidendi on the central factual issue: the absence of the license number in certain copies did not establish that no license was issued.
• "The non-indication of the license number in the certified copies presented by the petitioner-appellant could not be deemed as fatal vis-a-vis the issue of the validity of the marriage in question because there is nothing in the law which requires that the marriage license number would (sic) be indicated in the marriage contract itself." — This defines the controlling rule that the omission of the license number from the marriage contract does not invalidate the marriage.
• "Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive." — This articulates the procedural standard that disposed of the petition on the threshold issue of reviewability.
• "It is a known fact, and it is of judicial notice, that all printed accountable forms of the Government like the Marriage License (Municipal Form 95-A) come from the National Printing Office and are printed with serial numbers." — This supports the explanation for the repeated use of the same marriage license number and defeats petitioner's inference of non-issuance.

• BPI Credit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 601, 608-609 [1991] — Cited for the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 and that the Court of Appeals' findings of fact are conclusive, subject to enumerated exceptions; the Court used it to reject petitioner's factual challenge.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for certiorari; the Court applied it to decline review of the Court of Appeals' factual finding that a marriage license was issued.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ.