Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Article 1-73 of the Family Code of the PhilippineJune 23, 2009Case Digests
Article 1- Definition of Marriage
Marriage is a special contract of a permanent union between a man and woman entered into inaccordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Marriage is the foundationof the family and an inviolable institution whose nature, consequences and incidents aregoverned by law and not subject to stipulation except that marriage settlements may fixproperty relations within the limits provided by the Family Code of the Philippines.
Case: Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P. ArqueroNature:
Administrative Case
Facts:
On June 1, 1994,
Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero, Process Server of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke’s Point, Palawan for immorality.
Complainant alleged that
his wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo
, a former stenographer of the MTCBrooke’s Point, and respondent unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as husband and wife atBancudo Pulot, Brooke’s Point, Palawan as a result of which a girl, Desiree May Irader Arquero,was born to the two on May 21, 1989. Attached to the letter-complaint was the girl’s BaptismalCertificate reflecting the names of respondent and Dedje Irader as her parentsRespondent claimed that the immorality charge by the petitioner was just a mere harassmentand a product of complainnat’s hatred and jealousy. By respondent’s own admission however, hehad an illicit relationship with the petitioner’s wife for 8-9 months. The reason for having thisillicit relationship was explained by the respondent that the petitioner and his wife had a“kasunduan” in writing and duly notarized. The Kasunduan indicated that they would sever theirmarriage ties and allow themselves to live with other possible partner and that no one would goto court to institute any action against the other.
Issue: Whether or not the “Kasunduan” is enough ground to sever the marriage tie.
Ruling:
SC ruled that respondent’s justification fails, being an employee of the judiciary,respondent ought to have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on thevalidity of the marriage between complainant and his wife. Art 1 of the family code provides thatmarriage is “an inviolable social institution whose nature and consequences, and incidents aregoverned by law and not subject to stipulation.” It is an institution of public order and policy,governed by rules established by law which cannot be made inoperative by stipulation of theparties.
Respondent is suspended for 6 months.
1
 
Article 1-73 of the Family Code of the PhilippineJune 23, 2009Case Digests
Article 3- Formal Requisites of Marriage/ Authority of Solemnizing OfficerCase: Zenaida Beso vs Judge Juan Daguman, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-PagsanjanNature:
Administrative Complaint
Facts:
Zenaida S. Beso charged Judge Juan J. Daguman, Jr.,
for solemnizing marriage outsideof his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering themarriage contract with the office of the Local Registrar.
The respondent acting as asolemnizing officer solemnized the wedding of the pertitioner and his fiancée in Calbayog City. The judge having jurisdiction only in Sta. Margarita, Samar.
After the wedding the husband abandoned the petitioner, Smelling something fishythe petitioner went to the local civil registrar to search for the marriage documentsbut to no avail her marriage was no registered.
Petitioner went to the judge to search forthe marriage documents but said judge did not possess the documents, it was in fact within thepossession of the husband and he left no copy to the judge.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage was valid?Whether or not the judge was authorized to solemnize the marriage in this case?Whether or not the judge is duty bound to process the papers for registering themarriage?
Ruling:
With regard to the solemnization of marriage, Article 7 of the Family Code provides, amongothers, thatArt. 7.
Marriage my be solemnized by 
:(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdictionIn relation thereto, Article 8 of the same statute mandates that:Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the
chambers of the judge or inopen court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the counsel-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere
,
except incases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or were both parties request the solemnizing officer in writing inwhich case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in asworn statement to that effect 
.As the above-quoted provision clearly states,
a marriage can be held outside the judge'schambers or courtroom only in the following instances: 1.]
at the point of death
; 2.]
in2
 
Article 1-73 of the Family Code of the PhilippineJune 23, 2009Case Digests
remote places in accordance with Article 29, or
3.]
upon the request of 
both parties
in writingin a sworn statement to this effect.In this case, there is no pretense that either complainant Beso or her fiancé Yman was at thepoint of death or in a remote place. Neither was there a sworn written request made by thecontracting parties to respondent Judge that the marriage be solemnized outside his chambers orat a place other than his sala.What, in fact, appears on record is that respondent Judge was prompted more by urgency tosolemnize the marriage of Beso and Yman because complainant was "an overseas worker, who,respondent realized deserved more than ordinary official attention under present Governmentpolicy." Respondent Judge further avers that in solemnizing the marriage in question, "[h]ebelieved in good faith that by doing so he was leaning on the side of liberality of the law so thatit may not be too expensive and complicated for citizens to get married."
Considering that respondents Judge's jurisdiction covers the municipality of Sta.Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority tosolemnize a marriage in the City of Calbayog.
Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should exerciseextra care in the exercise of his authority and the performance of his duties in its solemnization,he is likewise commanded to observance extra precautions to ensure that the event is properlydocumented in accordance with Article 23 of the Family Code which states in no uncertain termsthat
Art. 23.
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 6and to
send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteendays after the marriage
,
to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriagewas solemnized 
.
Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizingofficer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate
.
The solemnizing officer shall retain in hisfile the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate
,
the original of the marriage license
and, inproper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriagein a place other than those mentioned in Article 8.
Case: Aranes vs. Judge Salavador M. OccianoNature: Administrative ComplaintFacts: Petitioner Mercedita Mata Arañes charges
respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law. Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, CamarinesSur.3
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more