THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254054. September 15, 2021.]
ANTONIO G. FLORENTINO, JR., petitioner,vs. MARILOU JARMIN and THE CIVIL REGISTRAR FOR BIÑAN, LAGUNA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 15, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254054 (Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. v. Marilou Jarmin and the Civil Registrar for Biñan, Laguna). — The Court resolves this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated December 11, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated September 21, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109679. The CA dismissed the appeal filed by herein petitioner Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. (petitioner), assailing the Decision dated February 23, 2016 and Order dated December 1, 2016, both issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144 in Civil Case No. 12-327.
In contesting the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, petitioner imputes the following errors upon the CA: (a) in ruling that the May 8, 1984 4 marriage contract enjoys the presumption of regularity in its due execution, which ruling is contrary to the facts, law, and jurisprudence; (b) in disregarding the preponderance of evidence presented by the prosecution, which were never controverted by the State as the public prosecutor did not even present any countervailing evidence during trial; (c) in not finding that the marriage between petitioner and respondent Marilou Jarmin (respondent) is an absolute nullity on the grounds of (1) absence of a marriage ceremony, and (2) lack of authority of the solemnizing officer/absence of solemnizing officer; and (d) in disregarding the reality that the respondent has not returned to the country when she left in 1984, in effect shackling the petitioner to a marriage where there is no spouse.
The Court finds no merit to the petition.
It is settled that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and that the function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. The rule admits of exceptions, which includes, but are not limited to: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, and conjectures; (2) where the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. 5
This case does not fall under any of the exceptions.
The CA correctly found that the marriage contract between petitioner and respondent, signed by then Municipal Mayor Cesar E. Nepomuceno (Mayor Nepomuceno), is prima facie evidence that Mayor Nepomuceno solemnized the parties' marriage, and that petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to prove otherwise.
A marriage contract is a public document; as such, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of the facts it contains, such as the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent and the presence of the solemnizing officer during the marriage ceremony. To contradict these facts and the presumption of regularity in the document's favor, the petitioner's contrary evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant; 6 absent the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of faith and credit. 7
Here, aside from the testimonies of petitioner and his two (2) close friends who were witnesses to the parties' marriage, no independent evidence was presented to show that Mayor Nepomuceno did not solemnize the parties' marriage.
The petitioner having not shown any reason for us to disturb the ruling of the courts a quo, we are constrained to affirm the decision of the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The December 11, 2019 Decision and the September 21, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 109679 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2834 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 9.
2.Id. at 47-55. The December 11, 2019 CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Louis P. Acosta.
3.Id. at 56-57. The September 21, 2020 CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Louis P. Acosta.
4. Should be May 18, 1984.
5.Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heir of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 178-179 (2017), citing Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 855 (2015) and Uyboco v. People, 749 Phil. 987, 992 (2014).
6.So v Valera, 606 Phil. 309, 323 (2009), citing Calahat v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 311 Phil. 379, 385 (1995) and Yturralde v. Azurin, 138 Phil. 432, 442 (1969).
7.Yap v. Lagtapon, 803 Phil. 652, 663 (2017), citing Guanzon v. Arradaza, 539 Phil. 367, 375 (2006).