Navarro vs.

Domagtoy
AM No. MTJ 96-1088, July 19, 1996
FACTS:
Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro filed a complaint on two specific acts
committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of
gross misconduct, ineffiency in offce and ignorance of the law.

It was alleged that Domagtoy solemnized marriage of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borja on September 27,
1994 despite the knowledge that the groom has a subsisting marriage with Ida Penaranda and that they
are merely separated. It was told that Ida left their conjugal home in Bukidnon and has not returned and
been heard for almost seven years. The said judge likewise solemnize marriage of Floriano Dadoy
Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. The judge
holds his office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta Monica-Burgos, Surigao del
Norte but he solemnized the said wedding at his residence in the municipality of Dapa located 40 to 50
km away.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriages solemnized were void.
HELD:
The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and bigamous there being a
subsisting marriage between Tagadan and Penaranda. Albeit, the latter was gone for seven years and
the spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was dead, Tagadan did not institute a
summary proceeding as provided in the Civil Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

With regard to the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario, the latter only made the written request where it
should have been both parties as stated in Article 8 of the Family Code. Their non-compliance did not
invalidate their marriage however, Domagtoy may be held administratively liable.
BESO vs. DAGUMAN (323 SCRA 566 , January 28, 2000 )
FACTS:

Respondent Juan Daguman, MCTC Judge of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan_Pagsanjan, Samar, solemnized

the marriage of complainant Zenaida Beso to Bernardito Yman, on August 28, 1987, at the Judges
residence in Calbayog City, Samar, or outside his jurisdiction, because complainant was to leave for
abroad the same day as she was an OFW, among other reasons. After the wedding, Yman abandoned
Beso for no clear reason. She then went to check the marriage contract with the Local Civil Registrar of
Calbayog, from which she learned that said marriage was not registered. Responding to Besos letter
about the matter, Daguman told her that all copies of the marriage contract were taken by Yman, and
none was retained by the judge.

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not respondent Judge is liable for solemnizing the marriage outside of his courts
jurisdiction;

(2) Whether or not respondent Judge is liable for negligently not retaining a copy and not registering
the marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registry.

HELD: A marriage can be held outside the judges chambers or courtroom only (1) at the point of death;
(2) in remote places in accordance with Article 29; or (3) upon the request of both parties in writing in a
sworn statement to this effect. None of these instances was present in this case.

Considering that Judge Dagumans jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Margarita,
Tarangan and Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize marriages in
CAlbayog City. Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should
exert extra care in the exercise of his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observe
extra precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in accordance with Article 23 of the
Family Code which states in no uncertain terms that It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the
marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the marriage contract referred to in
Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate
 People vs. Bustamante
January 27, 1959
G.R. No. L-11598
.
FACTS:
1. Federico Bustamante was charged and convicted of the crime of bigamy in the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan.
2. The records disclose that defendant-appellant Bustamante was united in wedlock to one Maria Perez
on August 9, 1954, before the Justice of Peace of Binaloan, Pangasinan, a little over a year late, or on
September 16, 195, he contracted a second marriage with Demetria I. Tibayan, solemnized before Vice-
Mayor Francisco B. Nato of Mapandan, Pangasinan, who was then acting as mayor of the said
municipality, while the first marriage was still subsisting.
3. The defendant contended that there could not have been a second marriage to speak of, as Nato was
merely acting as mayor when he celebrated the same, hence, without authority of law to do so. He lays
stress on the distinction between Acting Mayor and Vice Mayor acting as Mayor, urging that while the
former may solemnize marriages, the latter could not.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the second marriage was valid.
2. Whether or not the Vice Mayor has the authority to solemnize the second marriage.

HELD:
Yes, the marriage was valid and Vice Mayor Federico Nato, acting as mayor, has the authority to
solemnize the marriage. As acting mayor, he discharges all duties and wields the power appurtenant to
said office. This instance does not involve a question of title to the office, but the performance of the
functions thereunto appertaining by one who is admitted to be temporarily vested with it. The case even
concedes and recognizes the powers and duties of the Mayor to devolve upon the Vice Mayor whenever
the latter is in an acting capacity. The word acting, when preceding the title of an office connotes merely
the temporary character as nature of the same.
Ninal vs. Bayadog
328 SCRA 122
FACTS:
Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely
Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on
April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later,
Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating
that they had lived together for at least 5 years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito
died in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage
license.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepitos marriage
after his death?
HELD:

The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. They cannot be
exempted even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years
because from the time of Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma,
only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter
both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact
remains that their five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his
marriage to Norma is still void.
Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of rights. It can be
questioned even after the death of one of the parties and any proper interested party may attack a void
marriage.
Manzano vs. Sanchez
AM No. MTJ-001329, March 8, 2001
FACTS:
Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano having been married on May 21,
1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish in Caloocan. They had four children. On March 22, 1993, her
husband contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. The marriage
contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were separated thus, respondent Judge ought to
know that the marriage was void and bigamous. He claims that when he officiated the marriage of David
and Payao, he knew that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years as
manifested in their joint affidavit that they both left their families and had never cohabit or communicated
with their spouses due to constant quarrels.
ISSUE: Whether the solemnization of a marriage between two contracting parties who both have an
existing marriage can contract marriage if they have been cohabitating for 5 years under Article 34 of
Family Code.
HELD:
Among the requisites of Article 34 is that parties must have no legal impediment to marry each
other. Considering that both parties has a subsisting marriage, as indicated in their marriage contract that
they are both separated is an impediment that would make their subsequent marriage null and
void. Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least 5 years does
not severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated
gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage.

OCA vs Judge Necessario

Facts:

Due to an administrative case filed on july 6, 2007, the office of the court administrator judge Necessario
solemnized marriages with questionable documents even where one of the contracting parties (foreigner)
submitted an affidavit instead of a certificate of legal capacity from his embassy: and unfer article 34 (one
of the contracting parties was a minor during cohabitation). Judge Acosta failed to make sure the
solemnization fee has been paid and solemnized marriage between foreigner who only submitted an
affidavit: also solemnized a marriage without the marriage license.

JUDGE ANATALIO S. NECESSARIO is guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for solemnizing
marriages with questionable documents and wherein one of the contracting parties is a foreigner who
submitted a mere affidavit of his capacity to marry in lieu of the required certificate from his embassy. He
is also guilty of gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code
wherein one or both of the contracting parties were minors during the cohabitation.

JUDGE GIL R. ACOSTA is guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for failure to make sure that the
solemnization fee has been paid. He is also guilty of gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing marriages
under Article 34 of the Family Code wherein one or both of the contracting parties were minors during the
cohabitation.

JUDGE EDGEMELO C. ROSALES is guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for solemnizing
marriages with questionable documents, for failure to make sure that the solemnization fee has been paid
and for solemnizing marriages wherein one of the contracting parties is a foreigner who submitted a mere
affidavit of his capacity to marry in lieu of the required certificate from his embassy. He is also guilty of
gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license.

JUDGE ROSEBELLA M. TORMIS is guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for solemnizing
marriages with questionable documents, for failure to make sure that the solemnization fee has been
paid, for solemnizing marriages wherein one of the contracting parties is a foreigner who submitted a
mere affidavit of his capacity to marry in lieu of the required certificate from the embassy and for
solemnizing a marriage with an expired license.

HELEN MONGGAYA is guilty of grave misconduct for violating Section 2, Canon I of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel [that] prohibits court personnel from soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or
benefit based on any or explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence
their official actions and for giving false information for the purpose of perpetrating an irregular marriage.

RHONA RODRIGUEZ is guilty of gross misconduct for violating Section 2, Canon I of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel and for inducing Maricel Albater to falsify the application for marriage license
by instructing her to indicate her residence as Barili, Cebu.

DESIDERIO ARANAS and REBECCA ALESNA are guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service for providing couples who are to be married under Article 34 of the Family Code with the required
affidavit of cohabitation.

CELESTE RETUYA, EMMA VALENCIA and REBECCA ALESNA are guilty of violating Section 2(b),
Canon III of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which prohibits court personnel from receiving tips
or other remuneration for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions
or proceedings with the Judiciary.[64]
The OCA, however, recommended the DISMISSAL of the complaints against Judge Geraldine Faith A.
Econg, Corazon P. Retuya, and Marilou Cabaez, for lack of merit.

THE ISSUE
The issue now before this Court is whether the judges and personnel of the MTCC and RTC in Cebu City
are guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross neglect of duty or gross inefficiency and gross misconduct,
and in turn, warrant the most severe penalty of dismissal from service.
Issue:WON a valid marriage license was issued to Syed and Gloria

Held:No. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, proof does exist of a diligent search having been conducted, as
Marriage License No. 996967 was indeed located and submitted to the court. The fact that the names in
said license do not correspond to those of Gloria and Syed does not overturn the presumption that the
registrar conducted a diligent search of there cords of her office. In the case of Cario v. Cario, it was
held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license
was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license.No marriage license was proven to have been
issued to Gloria and Syed, based on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite
and Glorias failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license. All the evidence cited by the CA to
show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed,does not operate to
cure the absence of a valid marriage license.Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, "The
absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall renderthe marriage void ab initio, except as
stated in Article 35(2)." This marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and thus,
having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio.

Aranes vs. Judge Occiano

AM No. MTJ 02-1309, April 11, 2002

FACTS:

Petitioner Mercedita Mata Aranes charged respondent Judge Occiano with gross ignorance of the
law. Occiano is the presiding judge in Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. However, he solemnized the
marriage of Aranes and Dominador Orobia on February 17, 2000 at the couples residence in Nabua,
Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction and without the requisite of marriage license.
It appeared in the records that petitioner and Orobia filed their application of marriage license on January
5, 2000 and was stamped that it will be issued on January 17, 2000 but neither of them claimed it. In
addition, no record also appeared with the Office of the Civil Registrar General for the alleged marriage.
Before Judge Occiano started the ceremony, he carefully examined the documents and first refused to
conduct the marriage and advised them to reset the date considering the absence of the marriage
license. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors and fear that the
postponement of the wedding might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered from
stroke, he solemnized the marriage on the assurance of the couple that they will provide the license that
same afternoon. Occiano denies that he told the couple that their marriage is valid.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Occiano is guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued marriage
license and conducting it outside his territorial jurisdiction.
HELD:
The court held that the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan,
Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur
therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross
ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless,
he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of
Balatan, Camarines Sur, is fined P5,000.00 pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Cosca vs. Palaypayon
237 SCRA 249
FACTS:
The following are the complainants: Juvy N. Cosca (Stenographer 1), Edmundo B. Peralta (Interpreter 1),
Ramon C. Sambo (Clerk II) and Apollo Villamora (Process Server). Respondents are Judge Lucio
Palaypayon Jr., the presiding judge, and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy, clerk of court II. All work in MTC-
Tinambac, Camarines Sur.

Complainants alleged that Palaypayon solemnized marriages even without the requisite of a marriage
license. Hence, the following couples were able to get married just by paying the marriage fees to
respondent Baroy: Alano P. Abellano & Nelly Edralin; Francisco Selpo & Julieta Carrido; Eddie Terrobias
& Maria Gacer; Renato Gamay & Maricris Belga; Arsenio Sabater & Margarita Nacario; Sammy Bocaya &
Gina Bismonte. As a consequence, the marriage contracts of the following couples did not reflect any
marriage license number. In addition, Palaypayon did not sign the marriage contracts and did not
indicate the date of solemnization reasoning out that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to
be submitted by the parties which happens usually several days after the marriage ceremony.

Palaypayon contends that marriage between Abellano & Edralin falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code
thus exempted from the marriage license requirement. According to him, he gave strict instructions to
complainant Sambo to furnish the couple copy of the marriage contract and to file the same with the civil
registrar but the latter failed to do so. In order to solve the problem, the spouses subsequently formalized
the marriage by securing a marriage license and executing their marriage contract, a copy of which was
then filed with the civil registrar. The other five marriages were not illegally solemnized because
Palaypayon did not sign their marriage contracts and the date and place of marriage are not included. It
was alleged that copies of these marriage contracts are in the custody of complainant Sambo. The
alleged marriage of Selpo & Carrido, Terrobias & Gacer, Gamay & Belga, Sabater & Nacario were not
celebrated by him since he refused to solemnize them in the absence of a marriage license and that the
marriage of Bocaya & Bismonte was celebrated even without the requisite license due to the insistence of
the parties to avoid embarrassment with the guests which he again did not sign the marriage contract.

An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged against the respondents.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage solemnized by Judge Palaypayon were valid.

HELD:

Bocaya & Besmontes marriage was solemnized without a marriage license along with the other
couples. The testimonies of Bocay and Pompeo Ariola including the photographs taken showed that it
was really Judge Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared that they were advised by
judge to return after 10 days after the solemnization and bring with them their marriage license. They
already started living together as husband and wife even without the formal requisite. With respect to the
photographs, judge explained that it was a simulated solemnization of marriage and not a real
one. However, considering that there were pictures from the start of the wedding ceremony up to the
signing of the marriage certificates in front of him. The court held that it is hard to believe that it was
simulated.

On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he solemnized marriage between Abellano & Edralin
and claimed it was under Article 34 of the Civil Code so the marriage license was dispensed with
considering that the contracting parties executed a joint affidavit that they have been living together as
husband and wife for almost 6 years already. However, it was shown in the marriage contract that
Abellano was only 18 yrs 2months and 7 days old. If he and Edralin had been living together for 6 years
already before they got married as what is stated in the joint affidavit, Abellano must have been less than
13 years old when they started living together which is hard to believe. Palaypayon should have been
aware, as it is his duty to ascertain the qualification of the contracting parties who might have executed a
false joint affidavit in order to avoid the marriage license requirement.

Article 4 of the Family Code pertinently provides that in the absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio whereas an irregularity in the formal requisite shall not
affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly,
criminally, and administratively liable.
COSCA V. PALYPAYON JR. 237 SCRA 249
FACTS:
Complainants (Juvy Cosca et al.,) are employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines
Sur. Respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon Jr., is the Presiding Judge of the same Court while Nelia
Esmeralda-Baroy is the Clerk of Court. An administrative complaint
was field with the Office of the Court Administrator charging respondents , among others, illegal
solemnization of marriage. Complainants alleged that respondent Judge solemnized 6 marriages even
without the requisite marriage license. As a consequence, their marriage contracts did not reflect any
marriage license number. The respondent Judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate
the date of solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be
submitted by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony.
Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the action of respondent Judge proper.

HELD:
[i]The Family Code pertinently proves that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid
marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. Complementarily, it declares that the absence
of any of the essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that ,
while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly , criminally and administratively liable.

* The civil aspect is addressed to the contracting parties and those affected by the illegal marriage, and
what we are providing for herein pertains to the administrative liability of respondents, all without
prejudice to their criminal responsible. The Revised Penal Code provides that priests or ministers of any
religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage
ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law. This is of course,
within the province of the prosecutorial agencies of the Government.