Article 16, Family Code - Case Digest: Geronimo Vs CA

 

IRENEO G. GERONIMO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO ESMAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 105540 July 5, 1993

Facts:

               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. 338501 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.

               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. 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.

               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.

Issue:

               Whether the non indication of the marriage license no. in the marriage contract is a sufficient ground to declare the marriage of Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman void.

Held:

               NO. Petitioner contends that there was no marriage license obtained by the spouses Esman because the copies of the marriage contract he presentedndid 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 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.

               It is a known fact, and it is of judicial notice, that all printed accountable forms of the Government like the Marriage License 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 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. Subsequently, still another marriage license bearing No. 503877() 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.

               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.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more