Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Geronimo V CA GR No 105540

    Uploaded by

    Yshi Alizee
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's ruling that Antonio and Graciana's marriage was valid. While the marriage contract copies presented did not state the license number, this only proved non-recording, not non-issuance of the license. Witnesses testified that Antonio and Graciana lived as husband and wife and were known publicly as such. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the marriage's validity, as the license number's absence in copies was not fatal to the marriage's validity under law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain

    Geronimo V CA GR No 105540

    Uploaded by

    Yshi Alizee
    28 views13 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's ruling that Antonio and Graciana's marriage was valid. While the marriage contract copies presented did not state the license number, this only proved non-recording, not non-issuance of the license. Witnesses testified that Antonio and Graciana lived as husband and wife and were known publicly as such. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the marriage's validity, as the license number's absence in copies was not fatal to the marriage's validity under law.

    Original Description:

    Subject : Persons and Family Law Topic : Marriage License (No Rights Reserved)

    Original Title

    Geronimo v CA GR No 105540

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's ruling that Antonio and Graciana's marriage was valid. While the marriage contract copies presented did not state the license number, this only proved non-recording, not non-issuance of the license. Witnesses testified that Antonio and Graciana lived as husband and wife and were known publicly as such. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the marriage's validity, as the license number's absence in copies was not fatal to the marriage's validity under law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    28 views13 pages

    Geronimo V CA GR No 105540

    Uploaded by

    Yshi Alizee
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower court's ruling that Antonio and Graciana's marriage was valid. While the marriage contract copies presented did not state the license number, this only proved non-recording, not non-issuance of the license. Witnesses testified that Antonio and Graciana lived as husband and wife and were known publicly as such. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the marriage's validity, as the license number's absence in copies was not fatal to the marriage's validity under law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    of 13

    IRENEO G.

    GERONIMO
    vs.
    Topic:
    COURT OF APPEALS and
    MARRIAGE LICENSE
    ANTONIO ESMAN
    G.R. No. 105540 July 5, 1993
    Article 3 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

    The formal requisites of marriage are:

    1. Authority of the solemnizing officer;

    2. A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in


    Chapter 2 of this Title; and

    3. A marriage ceremony which takes place with the


    appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing
    officer and their personal declaration that they take each other
    as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two
    2
    witnesses of legal age.
    FACTS
    This is an appeal of certiorari from the decision of Court of Appeals which
    affirmed the judgment of Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Pasig Metro Manila
    in Special Proceeding No. 10036 declaring valid the marriage between
    Graciana Geronimo and Antonio Esman and appointing Antonio as the
    administrator of the estate of the deceased Graciana Geronimo.
    On June 2, 1987 Graciana Geronimo died without leaving a will, no
    descendants nor ascendants.
    She was survived by her two brothers, Tomas and Ireneo, her nephew Salvador,
    and her husband Antonio Esman.

    However, the husband’s capacity to inherit and administer the property is now
    being questioned in view of the discovery by Graciana’s brother, Ireneo, the
    herein petitioner, that the marriage between the Antonio and Graciana was
    celebrated without marriage license.
    6
    FACTS
    Irenio, contends that the marriage between her deceased sister Graciana and
    husband Antonio was null and void since there was no marriage license issued
    when it was celebrated.

    The petitioner also contends that the a certification issued by Local Civil
    Registrar of Pateros shows that the marriage license number was not stated in
    the marriage contract and that the marriage contract itself does now show the
    number of the marriage license issued.

    Moreover, Marriage License No. 5038770 which was issued to Graciana and
    Antonio by the Civil Registrar of Pateros, Rizal was not really issued to
    Pateros before the marriage was celebrated but to Pasig in October 1959.

    6
    FACTS
    On the other hand, respondent Antonio contends that the arguments raised by
    petitioner are mere concoctions;
    ..that a close scrutiny of the mentioned documents would show that except for
    the phrases "not stated" and "not recorded" the two certified copies of the
    marriage contract issued by the Civil Registrar of Pateros, Rizal (now Metro
    Manila) and the Parish Church of San Roque were the same as the certified
    copy of the marriage contract which was attached to the original petition which
    named him as the husband of the deceased.

    He testified that he was married to Graciana on January 7, 1955 in Pateros


    and were issued marriage license no. 5038770; and that he was introduced by
    the deceased to the public as her lawful husband.

    6
    FACTS
    He also contends that even the omission of the marriage license number on the
    Registry of Marriages in the Local Civil Registrar is not fatal in itself and is not
    conclusive proof that no marriage license was actually signed on January 7,
    1955;
    and that the marriage license form issued to the Municipality of Pateros are
    printed by the Bureau of Printing with serialized numbers and distributed to
    various provinces or municipalities thru proper requisitions which serial
    numbers even if already used in the printing of the marriage license forms in
    the past years are used again in the printing of the same forms in the succeeding
    years.

    6
    FACTS
    Various witnesses were presented by Antonio to prove that indeed they were
    married.
    David Montenegro, an employee of the National Archives & Records Section,
    testified that a copy of the marriage contract between Antonio A. Esman and
    Graciana Geronimo celebrated on January 7, 1955, is on file with their office.
    Msgr. Moises Andrade, parish priest of Barasoain, Malolos, Bulacan, testified
    that he came to know the spouses Graciana and Antonio whom he attended to
    spirituality, conducted mass for, gave communion, and visited them socially and
    observed that the couple were quite close with each other and with the people
    working in their business.
    Marciana Cuevas, assistant supervisor of the couple's garment business testified
    that she was aware of the marriage which took place between Graciana and
    Antonio; that they lived together as husband and wife in Bambang, Pasig, after
    the wedding; and that Antonio has been successfully supervising the business
    after the death of Graciana. 6
    FACTS
    Julie Reyes, supply officer of the governor's office testified that she is in charge
    of all accountable forms being taken in the fourteen (14) municipalities of the
    province of Rizal which include marriage licenses;
    and pad no. 83 covering marriage licenses nos. 5038751 to 5038800 was taken by
    the Municipality of Pateros way back in October 9, 1953.

    Florenciana Santos, assistant local civil registrar of Pateros, Metro Manila,


    testified that in the entry of marriage book of Pateros, particularly page no. 23 of
    book no. 2 and reg. no. 51, there is no column for the marriage license;
    that they started putting the marriage license only in 1980; that they have a copy
    of the questioned marriage contract in which the marriage license number is
    recorded; and that the records of 1959 were lost during a typhoon, but they sent a
    copy of the marriage contract to the archives section.
    6
    ISSUE

    Whether or not the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and


    Antonio Esman was valid?

    3
    CA RULING

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of


    Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Pasig Metro Manila in
    Special Proceeding No. 10036 declaring valid the
    marriage between Graciana and Antonio and appointing
    Antonio as the administrator of the estate of the
    deceased Graciana.

    5
    CA RULING
    In affirming the judgment of the RTC, the public respondent CA
    stated:
    “It may be conceded that (Exhibits “ I ” and “ J “) of the petitioner-
    appellant do not bear the number of the marriage license relative to
    the marriage of Graciana Geronimo and the herein oppositor-appellee.
    But at best, such non-indication of the number could only serve to
    prove that the number was not recorded. It could not be accepted as
    convincing proof of non-issuance of the required marriage license.
    On the other hand, the marriage license number does not appear in the
    certified archives copy of the marriage contract. The non-indication of
    the license number in the certified copies presented by the petitioner-
    appellant could not be deemed as fatal vis-à-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 be indicated in
    the marriage contract itself.”
    5
    SC RULING

    The instant petition is DENIED and the decision


    appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
    Costs against the petitioner.

    5
    SC RULING

    The contention that there was no marriage license


    obtained by the spouses because the copies of the
    marriage contract presented did not state the marriage
    license number, is flawed. 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.

    You might also like