A.M No.
MTJ-02-1390
MERCEDITA MATA ARAES, petitioner,
vs JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO,
respondent.
Authority of the solemnizing officer
PONENTE: Puno, J.
DOCTRINE: Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980 or B.P. 129, the authority of the regional trial court
judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is
confined to their territorial jurisdiction defined by the Supreme
Court.
RULING FORMAT:
Office of the Court Administrator:
(2000, November 15) found the respondent judge guilty of
solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued marriage license
and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction.
Office of the Chief Justice: (2001, May 28) the case
that was filed by the complainant on May 23, 2001 was then
referred by this office to the Acting Court Administrator,
Zenaida N. Elepao, for appropriate action.
Office of the Court Administrator: (2001, June 8)
the office required respondent to comment:
Respondent commented that;
(1) Before the ceremony, he carefully examined the documents
submitted to him by the petitioner. He was able to find out that
there is no marriage license and then he refused to solemnize
the wedding;
(2) Despite of the missing requisite, marriage license, he still
solemnized the wedding for the reason of human compassion,
to be specific, this is the plea made by Orobia because of
physical incapacity to travel to Balatan and settling to Nabua as
their location of solemnization. (Nabua is out of the territiorial
jurisdiction of the respondent)
(3) Petitioner and Orobia assured the respondent that they will
follow through the submission of the marriage license but still
was not able to submit it; failure to submit will render their
marriage null and void;
(4) He denied that he told the contracting parties that the
marriage is valid despite of the marriage licenses absence;
FACTS:
Araes and Dominador B. Orobia lived together as husband and
wife until her husband (Orobia) passed away. Since the
marriage is null, the complainant was not able to receive the
pensions of Orobia, which is a retired Commodore of the
Philippine Navy.
1.) (2000, January 5) Petitioner and Orobia filed an
application of marriage license. It was stamped that it will be
issued on January 17, 2000 but neither the petitioner nor
Orobia claimed it. Both the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
General and Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua stated
that they do not have any records of such marriage.
2.) (2000, February 17) The respondent solemnized the
wedding of Araes and Dominador B. Orobia without the
requisite marriage license at Nabua, Camarines Sur, which is
out of his territorial jurisdiction.
There is no such record of marriage that allegedly took place
on February 17, 200 as the OCR General issued a certification
that testifies that claim. So as the OCR of Nabua, Camarines
Surs certification that no records have been recorded of their
marriage.
4.) (2001, May 8) Petitioner sought assistance of the
respondent judge so that they could communicate with the
OCR of Nabua to fix the marriage records. The respondent
wrote a letter to OCR of Nabua.
The OCR of Nabua informed that they cannot issue the
marriage license as Orobia was not able to submit a death
certificate of his previous spouse.
5.) (2001, September 12) Petitioner filed her Affidavit of
Desistance which was dated back in August 28, 2001 to the
OOTCA.
ISSUE/S:
1.) WON, the respondent was liable of solemnizing a marriage
without the requisite of marriage license;
2.) WON, the respondent is still subject to a disciplinary action
despite of the complainants withdrawal of complain
HELD:
1.) YES, according to the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980 or B.P. 129, the authority of the regional trial court
judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is
confined to their territorial jurisdiction defined by the Supreme
Court. Despite of the alleged reason for his solemnization of
the petitioners marriage, he is still liable to the fact that he
exhibited ignorance of elementary provisions of law.
2.) YES, despite of the Affidavit of Desistance filed by the
petitioner, the withdrawal of complaint does not necessarily
have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from
disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, the respondent is fined 5,000.00 pesos with
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
offense in the future will be dealt with more severly.