GR 105540; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105540 July 5, 1993
IRENEO G. GERONIMO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO ESMAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ireneo G. Geronimo filed a petition for letters of administration over the estate of his deceased sister, Graciana Geronimo. He initially named Antonio A. Esman as an heir and “husband of the deceased.” Later, he filed an amended petition describing Esman as the “live-in partner of the deceased,” alleging the marriage was a nullity for want of a marriage license. The decedent died intestate on June 2, 1987, survived by her two brothers (including petitioner), a nephew, and Esman. The principal issue for the appointment of a judicial administrator was the validity of the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio Esman. Petitioner contended the marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license, citing certified copies of the marriage contract from the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros and the Parish Church which did not state the marriage license number. Oppositor Esman contended the marriage was valid, presenting witnesses and evidence, including a certified archives copy of the marriage contract showing marriage license number 5038770 dated January 7, 1955. The trial court declared the marriage valid and appointed Esman as administrator, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the marriage between Graciana Geronimo and Antonio A. Esman is valid despite the petitioner’s claim of absence of a marriage license.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The marriage was declared valid. The Court held that the petitioner’s evidence, which showed the non-indication of the marriage license number on certain certified copies of the marriage contract, only proved non-recording, not the non-issuance of the license. The oppositor sufficiently proved the existence of a marriage license through a certified archives copy of the marriage contract containing the license number. The Court further explained that the serial numbers on government-issued marriage license forms are reused in succeeding years, accounting for the same number appearing on licenses issued in different years and municipalities. The findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive, and the petitioner failed to show any exception to this rule.