JONES v HALLAHAN

Facts:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court which held that female persons were not
entitled to be issued a marriage license to marry. These 2 women were denied issuance of a marriage
license by the County Court clerk of Jefferson. They now contend that this deprived them of 3 basic
constitutional rights: (1) right to marry; (2) right of association; (3) right to free exercise of religion.
Issue:
Whether or not the 2 women can marry each other since the Kentucky law does explicitly mention
marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Held:
Looking at dictionaries, the common meaning of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Besides, whats preventing them to marry is not the failure to be issued a marriage license, but rather their
own incapability of entering into a marriage. Even if they did marry through false representation that
theyre of the opposite sex, the marriage will be null and void. In the courts opinion, there is not
constitutional issue involved, since there is no constitutional sanction which protects the right of marriage
between persons of the same sex.
B u c c a t
v .
M a n g o n o n
d e
B u c c a t ,
7 2
P h i l
1 9 (1941)
47101 April 25, 1941]
G O D O F R E D O B U C C A T , p l a i n t i ff - a p p e l l a n t , v . L U I D A M A N G O N O N
B U C C AT , d e f e n d a n t - a p p e l l e e Marriage;

[No.
DE

Va l i d i t y M a r r i a g e i s a m o s t s a c r e d i n s t i t u t i o n . I t i s t h e f o u n d a t i o n u p o n
w h i c h s o c i e t y r e s t s . To n u l l i f y i t w o u l d n e e d c l e a r a n d a u t h e n t i c p r o o f. I n t h i s
case no such proof exists.
A p p e a l f r o m a d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f F i r s t Instance
B a g u i o . Carlos,
J.F e l i c i a n o L e v i s t e , T o m s P . P a g a n i b a n a n d S o t e r a , N .
f o r a p p e l l a n t s L u i d a M a n g o n o n d e B u c c a t o n h e r o w n b e h a l f.

of
Megia

T h e f a c t s a r e s t a t e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e c o u r t . Horrilleno, J.:
This case has been elevated to this court from the C o u r t
I n s t a n c e o f B a g u i o , s i n c e i t o n l y r a i s e s a q u e s t i o n p u r e l y o f l a w.
O n M a r c h 2 0 , 1 9 3 9 t h e p l a i n
t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i n w h i c h t
d i d n o t
appear,
despite
O n a c c o u n t o f t h i s , p l a i n t i ff w a s
and the lower court decided in favor

of

Fi r s t

t i ff
i n i t i a t e d
h e d e f e n d a n t
being
duly
summoned.
p e r m i t t e d t o p r e s e n t h i s proof,
of the defendant. Thus this appeal.

T h e p l a i n t i ff
p r a y s f o r t h e a n n u l m e n t o f
H i s m a r r i a g e
t o
L u i d a
M a n g o n o n
d e
B u c c a t
o n Novemb
er 26,
1938 in
the City
of
Baguio,
on
the
g r o u n d s t h a t w h e n a g r e e i n g
t o t h e m a r r i a g e promise, he
d i d s o b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t a s s u r e d him that she was a virgin.
F r o m
t h e
d e c i s i o n
o f
t h e
l o w e r
c o u r t ,
t h e following
f a c t s a r e g i v e n : T h e p l a i n t i ff m e t t h e d e f e n d a n t i n M a r c h 1 9 3 8 . A f t e r
s e v e r a l m e e t i n g s , t h e y b e c a m e e n g a g e d i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 o f t h e s a m e y e a r.
I n N o v e m b e r 2 6 , t h e p l a i n t i ff m a r r i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h e C a t h o l i c c a t h e d r a l o f
Baguio
C i t y.
Aft e r
living
together
for e i g h t y - n i n e
days,
the
defendant
g a v e b i r t h t o a s o n ( o f n i n e m o n t h s ) i n Fe b r u a r y 2 3 , 1 9 3 9 . A s a re s u l t o f
t h i s e v e n t , t h e p l a i n t i ff
l e f t t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d ne ve r re turne d to
m a r r i e d l i f e w i t h h e r. We s e e n o r e a s o n t o r e v o k e t h e a p p e a l e d s e n t e n c e .
In
e ff e c t , i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i ff - a p p e l l a n t
t h a t h e d i d n o t e v e n s u s p e c t the serious situation of the defendant,
being
as
it
is proven, an advanced pregnant condition. On
account of this, there is no reason to consider the fraud of which the
p l a i n t i ff - a p p e l l a n t s p e a k s . T h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t i t i s n o t r a r e t o fi n d
persons
with
developed abdomens, seems to us childish to
d e s e r v e o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a l l t h e m o r e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i ff i s a fi r s t - y e a r
s t u d e n t o f l a w. M a r r i a g e
is
a
most
sacred
institution.
It
is
the
f o u n d a t i o n u p o n w h i c h s o c i e t y r e s t s . To n u l l i f y i t w o u l d n e e d c l e a r
a n d a u t h e n t i c p r o o f . I n t h i s c a s e n o s u c h p ro o f e x i s t s . Fi n d i n g t h e
appealed sentence reconciled to law, i t
must
be
a ffi r m e d ,
and we
hereby
a ffi r m
it in
t o t o . Costs
to
p l a i n t i ff - a p p e l l a n t .
So
orde re d.
Av a n c e a , C . J . , I m p e r i a l , D a z , a n d L a u r e l , J J . , c o n c u r. D e c i s i o n a ffi r m e d .

F a c t s :
G o d o f r e d o B u c c a t a n d L u i d a M a n g o n o n d e Buccat
met
in
March 1938, became engaged in
September, and got married in Nov
2 6 . O n Fe b 2 3 , 1 9 3 9 ( 8 9 d a y s a f t e r g e t t i n g m a r r i e d ) L u i d a , w h o w a s 9 m o n t h s
pregnant, gave birth to a son. Godofredo left Luida and on March 23,
1939, he
fi l e d f o r a n a n n u l m e n t o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t
w h e n h e a g r e e d t o m a r r i e d L u i d a , she assure d him that she was a virgin.
The Lower court decided in favor of Luida.
I s s u e :
WON
Luidas
c o n s t i t u t e d a
(fraud)

concealment
g r o u n d f o r t h e

of
her
a n n u l m e n t o f

pre gn ancy
marriage

H e l d :
No.
Clear
and
authentic
proof
is
needed in
order t o n u l l i f y a m a r r i a g e , a s a c r e d i n
s t i t u t i o n i n which the State is inte re ste d.
In this case, the court did
n o t fi n d a n y p r o o f t h a t t h e r e w a s c o n c e a l m e n t o f p r e g n a n c y c o n s t i t u t i n g
a ground for
annulment; it was unlikely that
G o d o f r e d o , a fi r s t - y e a r l a w s t u d e n t , d i d n o t
s u s p e c t a n y t h i n g a b o u t L u i d a s
c o n d i t i o n c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t s h e w a s i n a n a d v a n c e d s t a g e o f pre gna ncy
when they got married.
D

S C a ffi r m e d t h e l o w e r c o u r t s d e c i s i o n .

NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTOY 259 SCRA 129

FACTS: Navarro is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. He has submitted evidence in relation
to two specific acts committed by Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he
contends, exhibits gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law. First, on
September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga,
despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Domagtoy claimed that he
merely relied on an affidavit acknowledged before him attesting that Tagadans wife has been absent for
seven years. The said affidavit was alleged to have been sworn to before another judge. Second, it is
alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del
Rosario outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Domagtoy counters that he solemnized the
marriage outside of his jurisdiction upon the request of the parties.
ISSUE: Whether or not Domagtoy acted without jurisdiction.
HELD: Domagtoys defense is not tenable and he did display gross ignorance of the law. Tagadan did not
institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wifes presumptive death. Absent this
judicial declaration, he remains married to Ihis former wife. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it was
manifest error on the part of Domagtoy to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom. Such
neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. On the second
issue, the request to hold the wedding outside Domagtoys jurisdiction was only done by one party, the
bride NOT by both parties. More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the
authority of the solemnizing judge. Under Article 3, one of the formal requisites of marriage is the
authority of the solemnizing officer. Under Article 7, marriage may be solemnized by, among others,
any incumbent member of the judiciary within the courts jurisdiction. Article 8, which is a directory
provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of
the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate
the marriage.
CASE DIGEST ON ARAES VS. OCCIANO (Judges Solmenizing Marriage)
Mercedita Araes filed charges against Judge Salvador Occiano of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Batalan, Camarines Sur with Gross Ignorance of Law. Occiano solemnized Araes marriage without the
requisite marriage license in latters house which is outside judges jurisdiction. Araes was not able to
claim her right to inherit his deceased husbands property and she was deprived of receiving her
husbands pension. Occiano avers that the ceremony took place in Araes house because the groom had
a difficulty walking & he couldnt stand traveling. Judge was aware that there was no marriage license but
due to the pleas of the couple and everything was prepared already and the visitors were there, he agreed
to solemnize the marriage. He reminded them that marriage wont be valid without the license. They
promised to give it within the day but they never did. Araes desisted but Court still decided the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is valid?

HELD: No. Judge fined P5,000.00.

RATIO:
1. Judges can only solemnize marriage within their territorial jurisdiction.
2. Marriage license is a requisite for marriage and without it, marriage is void. It is the marriage license
that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. And since there was no license,
Occiano didnt have the authority to officiate the ceremony.