NAVARRO VS.

DOMAGTOY 259 SCRA 129July 19, 1996FACTS:Complainant Mayor Rodolfo Navarro of Dapa, Suriga o del Norte filed this case to theSupreme Court against respondent Judge Henando Domagtoy of MCTC of Monica-Burgos,Surigao del Norte, for gross misconduct as we ll as inefficiency and ignorance of the law.First, on Sept. 24, 1994, Judge Doma gtoy solemnized the marriage of Gaspar Tagadanand Arlyn Borja despite his knowle dge that Tagadan was merely separated from his wife.Second, her performed a marr iage ceremony between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosarioin October 1994 at r espondent judge s residence in Dapa, SDN. As to the first, Domagtoycontended that he merely relied on the affidavit issued by the RTC Judge of Bassey, Samar,which s tated that Tagadan and his wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. However, the certified true copy of the marriage contract between Tagadan and Bo rja showedthat his civil status was separated . ISSUE:(1) Whether or not a court may solemnize another marriage of a husband who was merelyseparated from his wife for almost seven years.(2) Whether or not a J udge may solemnize a marriage at his residence. HELD:(1) Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides that a marriage contra cted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null a nd void, unless before thecelebration of the subsequent marriage the prior spous e had been absent for four consecutiveyears and the spouse present had a well-fo unded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.In case of disappearance wh ere there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be suffici ent.For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding p aragraph,the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in t he Code for the declaration of presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains t o be married toPearanda. Wittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the pa rt of respondent judge tohave accepted the joind affidavit submitted by Tagadan. Such neglect or ignorance of the lawhas resulted in a bigamous and therefore vo id marriage.(2) Art. 7. A marriage may be solemnized by (1) any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court s jurisdiction xxx . Article 8, however, states t hat marriages shall besolemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in ope n court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general , consul or vice consul, as the case may be, and notelsewhere, except in cases o f marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places inaccordance wi th Art. 29 of the Family Code, or where both parties in which case the marriagem ay be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the p oint of death or in aremote place. Moreover, the written request presented addre ssed to the respondent judge is the authority of the solemnizing officer . Under Art. 8, which is only a discretionary provision,refers only to the venue of the marriag e ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing office r as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance herewith willnot invali date the marriage.Judges who are appointed to specific jurisdiction may officiat e in marriages onlywithin said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3 whichwhile it may not affect the validit y of the marriage, may subject the officiating official toadministrative liabili ty.Judge Domagtoy was suspended for six months for demonstrating gross ignorance of the law.