IRENEO G. GERONIMO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANTONIO ESMAN, RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 33850^[1]
which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Pasig,
Metro Manila in Special Proceeding No. 10036 declaring valid the marriage
between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman and appointing the latter as the
administrator of the estate of the deceased Graciana Geronimo.

The findings of fact of the trial court, adopted by the public
respondent Court of Appeals, are as follows:

“This will resolve Ireneo Geronimo’s petition for letter of
administration of the estate of Graciana Geronimo-Esman.

On June 29, 1987, a petition was filed by petitioner naming as one
of the heirs oppositor Antonio A. Esman and describing the latter as ‘husband
of the deceased’. On April 4, 1988, an
amended petition was filed by petitioner naming as one of the surviving heirs
Antonio A. Esman and now describing the latter as the ‘live-in partner of the
de­ceased’ after finding out that the marriage between oppositor and the
decedent was a ‘nullity for want of a marriage license’.

It is undisputed that the decedent died on June 2, 1987 without a
will leaving no descendants nor ascendants. She was survived by her two brothers Tomas and Ireneo, her nephew
Salvador and her husband-oppositor Antonio A. Esman. x x x However, the husband’s capacity to inherit and administer
the property of the decedent is now being questioned in view of the discovery
by the petitioner that the marriage between oppositor and the decedent was
celebrated without a marriage license.

The principal issue now which has to be resolved by this Court
before it can appoint a judicial administrator is whether or not the marriage
between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman was valid.

Petitioner contends that the marriage between her (sic) deceased
sister and oppositor Antonio A. Esman was null and void since there was no
marriage license issued to the parties at the time the marriage was
celebrated. In fact, petitioner
contends that a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros
shows that the marriage license number was not stated in the marriage contract
(Exh. “I”); and that the marriage contract itself does now (sic) show
the number of the marriage license issued (Exh. “J”). Moreover, marriage license number 5038770
which was issued to the deceased and the oppositor by the Civil Registrar of
Pateros, Rizal was not really issued to Pateros before the marriage was
celebrated but to Pasig in October 1959.

On the other hand, oppositor contends that the arguments raised by
petitioner are mere concoctions; that a close scrutiny of the aforementioned
documents (Exhs. “I” and “J”) 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 the oppositor as the husband of the deceased; that petitioner simply
asked that these phrases be incorporated to suit his ulterior motive; 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 to Graciana Geronimo
and Antonio A. Esman; 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 of 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.

Various witnesses were presented by oppositor to prove that indeed
the deceased and oppositor 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 was asked to come over to teach in Guadalupe seminary and
stayed in Pasig as assistant priest of the parish of Immaculate Concepcion from
1975 to 1983. Here, he came to know the
spouses Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman whom he attended to spiritually,
conducted mass for, gave communion, and visited them socially. He had occasions to go to the couple’s
garment business, Gragero Lingerie, 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 Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman; that they lived together as husband and
wife in Bambang, Pasig, after the wedding; and that it is the oppositor who has
been successfully supervising the lingerie business after the death of Graciana
Geronimo.

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.

Oppositor Antonio A. Esman testified that he was married to
Graciana Geronimo on January 7, 1955 in Pateros and were (sic) issued marriage
license no. 5038770; and that he was introduced by the deceased to the public
as her lawful husband. (Decision, pp.
1-3)”^[2]

In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the public
respondent 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 (No. 5038776, [sic] dated January 7, 1955) does appear in the certified
archives copy of the marriage contract (Exhibit 7 and sub-markings). 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.”^[3]

Unfazed by his successive defeats, and maintaining his adamantine
stand that the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio Esman is void,
and, perforce, the latter had no right to be appointed as the administrator of
the estate of the former, the petitioner artfully seeks to avoid any factual
issue by now posing the following question in this petition: “Can there be a valid marriage where
one of the essential requisites — license — is absent?” Doubtless, the
query has been framed so as to apparently present a question of law. In reality, however, the question assumes
that there was no marriage license, which is, of course, a factual
contention. Both the trial court and
the public respondent found and ruled otherwise.

In BPI Credit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,^[4]
which collated representative cases on the rule of conclusiveness of the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the exceptions thereto, we stated:

“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. It is not the function of this Court to
analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited
to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower
court. Barring, therefore, a showing
that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record, or
that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of
discretion, they must stand.

There are, however, exceptions to this rule, namely:

(1) When the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) When there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of facts
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.”

Petitioner fails to convince us that the instant case falls under
any of the above exceptions.

On this score alone, the petition must inevitably fail. However, if only to disabuse the mind of the
petitioner, we shall proceed to discuss the issue regarding the alleged absence
of a marriage license.

Petitioner contends that there was no marriage license obtained
by the spouses Esman because the copies of the marriage contract he presented
(Exhibits “I” and “J”) did not state the marriage license
number. The flaw in such reasoning is
all too obvious. Moreover, this was
refuted by the respondent when he presented a copy of the marriage contract on
file with the National Archives and Records Section (Exhibit “7”)
where the marriage license number (No. 5038770, dated 7 January 1955) does
appear. Petitioner tried to assail this
piece of evidence by presenting Exhibit “V,” a certification of the Office
of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City that Marriage License No. 5038770
was issued on 1 October 1976 in favor of Edwin G. Tolentino and Evangelina
Guadiz. This was sufficiently explained
by the Court of Appeals thus:

“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. These forms are
distributed upon proper requisition by the city/municipal treasurers
concerned. But the serial numbers
printed or used in a particular year are the same numbers used in the
succeeding years when the same forms are again printed for distribution. However, the distribution of the
serially-numbered forms do not follow the same pattern.

This is exactly what happened to Marriage License No. 5038770 which
the appellant refused to acknowledge. Thus, it appears that while marriage License No. 5038770 was
requisitioned and received by the Municipality of Pateros on October 09, 1953
thru the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Rizal (as explained by Mrs.
Julita Reyes and borne out by Exhibits “1” and “2”) and
later used by Antonio A. Esman and Graciana Geronimo in their marriage on
January 07, 1955, another marriage license bearing the same number (No. 5038770)
was also issued to the municipality of Pasig in October, 1959 (Exhibit
“L-1”). Subsequently, still
another marriage license bearing No. 5038770 was also issued to the Treasurer
of Pasay City on June 29, 1976 (Exhibit “U-1”) that was used by a
certain Edwin G. Tolentino and Evangelina Guadiz (Exhibit “V”). (Appellee’s Brief, pp. 31-32)”^[5]

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.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1] Entitled “Ireneo Geronimo vs. Antonio
Esman.” Per Associate Justice Serafin V.C. Guingona, concurred in by
Associate Justices Vicente V. Mendoza and Jaime M. Lantin; Rollo, 24-
35.

^[2]
Rollo, 25-27.

^[3]
Id., 30.

^[4] 204 SCRA 601, 608-609 [1991]. Footnotes citing cases are omitted.

^[5]
Rollo, 32-33.