You are on page 1of 3

FORMAL REQUISITES or in the office of the consul-general, consul

or vice-consul, as the case may be, and NOT


Art 28 FC. elsewhere; EXCEPT in cases of marriages
contracted at the point of death or in
Art 17 CC.
remote places in accordance with Article 29
of this Code, or where both of the parties
request the solemnizing officer in writing in
FORMAL REQUISITES; AUTHORITY OF which case the marriage may be
SOLEMNIZING OFFICER solemnized at a house or place designated
by them in a sworn statement to that effect
Art 4 FC. (57a).
Art 7 FC. ISSUE:
Art 8 FC. Whether or not the solemnization of the marriage of
Art 10 FC. Sumaylo and Del Rosario was within the respondent’s
court’s jurisdiction.
Art 31 FC.
HELD:
Art 32 FC.
NO.
Art 35 Par 2 FC.
Marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and
Art 3 CC. bigamous there being a subsisting marriage between
Tagadan and his wife
*NAVARRO V DOMAGTOY (1996)
1. Though hubby had a well-founded belief that the
FACTS:
absent spouse was dead, Tagadan did not institute
1. Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, a summary proceeding as provided in the Civil Code
Rodolfo Navarro, has submitted evidence for two for the declaration of presumptive death of the
specific acts committed by the Domagtoy: absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
a. September 27, 1994. Gaspar Tagahan and reappearance of the absent spouse.
Arlyn Borga, despite the knowledge that
The solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del
the groom is merely separated from his first
Rosario was NOT within the respondent’s court’s
wife (gone for 7 years).
jurisdiction.
b. October 27, 1994. Floriano Dador Sumaylo
and Gemma Del Rosario outside of the 1. Article 7 of the Family Code, “Marriage may be
respondent’s court’s jurisdiction. solemnized by: (1) any incumbent member of the
Solemnized at the Domagtoy’s residence in judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction…”
Dapa, which does not fall within a. Not allowing respondent judge to solemnize
Domagtoy’s jurisdictional area, Municipal a marriage in the municipality of Dapa,
Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica, Burgos Surigao del Norte since his [and the Court’s]
(40-50 km away). jurisdiction only covers the municipalities
2. Domagtoy, in one of his letter-comment to the of Sta. Monica and Burgos.
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), argued: 2. Article 8. Only three instances provided by Art 8: (1)
a. Solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo In the chambers of the judge or in open court; (2) in
and Del Rosario did NOT violate Article 7(1) the church, chapel or temple; (3) or in the office of
of the Family Code, which states that the consul-general, consul or vice-consul as the case
“Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any EXCEPT in cases of marriages contracted at the
incumbent member of the judiciary within point of death or in remote places in accordance
the court’s jurisdiction.”; with Article 29; or were both of the parties request
b. Article 8 thereof applies to the case in the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the
question: “The marriage shall be solemnized marriage may be solemnized at a house or place
publicly in the chambers of the judge or in designated by them in a sworn statement to that
open court, in the church, chapel or temple, effect”.
a. No pretense that Sumaylo or del Rosario 5. Judge Occiano: Upon examination, he
was at the point of death or in a remote discovered that the parties have no
place. requisite Marriage License and refused to
b. Written request addressed to the solemnize the marriage. Parties pleaded. He
respondent judge was made by only one
proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of
party, Gemma del Rosario.
human compassion.
3. In this case, the solemnization of the marriage of
Sumaylo and Del Rosario was outside the 6. After the solemnization, he reiterated the
respondent’s court’s jurisdiction. necessity for the marriage license and
admonished the parties that their failure to
give it would render the marriage void.
*ARANES V OCCIANO (2002) Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent
judge that they would give the license to him,
MERCEDITA MATA ARAÑES, petitioner, but they failed to comply.
vs. 7. Office of the Court Administrator - It found
JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent. respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390 marriage without a duly issued marriage license
April 11, 2002 and for doing so outside his territorial
jurisdiction. Thus, a fine was imposed on him.
NATURE: Administrative case filed against
respondent judge for gross ignorance of the law. ISSUE: WON Respondent Judge is guilty of
DOCTRINE: Judges, who are appointed to specific solemnizing a marriage without a marriage license
jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction.
said areas and not beyond. Where a judge
HELD: YES
solemnizes a marriage outside his court's
jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the
8. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P.
formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while
129: authority of the RTC judges and judges of
it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may
inferior courts to solemnize marriages is
subject the officiating official to administrative
liability. Further, except in cases provided by law, it confined to their territorial jurisdiction as
is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing defined by the Supreme Court.
officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. a. "A priest who is commissioned and
allowed by his local ordinance to marry
FACTS: the faithful is authorized to do so only
within the area or diocese or place
1. Mercedita Arañes charges Judge Occiano allowed by his Bishop.
(Presiding MTC Balatan, Camarines Sur) with b. An appellate court Justice or a Justice
Gross Ignorance of the Law. of this Court has jurisdiction over the
2. 17 February 2000, Occiano solemnized Aranes’ entire Philippines to solemnize
marriage late groom Dominador Orobia marriages, regardless of the venue, as
a. without a Marriage License long as the requisites of the law are
b. at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is complied with.
outside his territorial jurisdiction. c. However, judges who are appointed to
3. Marriage null  not recognized Aranes’ right specific jurisdictions, may officiate in
to inherit Orobia’s “vast properties” weddings only within said areas and
4. Prayer: Sanctions be imposed upon respondent not beyond. Otherwise, there is a
judge Occiano for his illegal acts and unethical resultant irregularity in the formal
misrepresentations that caused her so much requisite laid down in Article 3, which
hardships, embarrassment and sufferings. while it may not affect the validity of
the marriage, may subject the
officiating official to administrative BORJA-MANZANO V SANCHEZ (2001)
liability." (Navarro vs. Domagtoy)
9. Should also be faulted for solemnizing a
marriage without the requisite Marriage
License.
a. People vs. Lara: marriage prior to
issuance of the Marriage License is void,
and that the subsequent issuance of
such license cannot render valid or
even add an iota of validity to the
marriage.
b. MARRIAGE LICENSE = AUTHORITY.
EXCEPT in cases provided by law, it is
the marriage license that gives the
solemnizing officer the authority to
solemnize a marriage. Respondent
judge did not possess such authority
when he solemnized the marriage of
petitioner. In this respect, respondent
judge acted in gross ignorance of the
law.

PALMA V JUDGE OMELIO, AM (2017)

KEUPPERS V JUDGE MURCIA (2018)

FORMAL REQUISITES; MARRIAGE LICENSE


Art 9 – 34 FC
PD 965 (1976)
RA 10354 (RH Law) Sec 15.
RA 10354 (RH Law) Sec 23 (d).

IMBONG V OCHOA (2014)


REPUBLIC V CA (1994)
SEVILLA V CARDENAS (2006)
ALCANTARA V ALCANTARA (2007)
SEGUISABAL V CABRERA (1981)
MORENO V BERNABE (1995)
DE CASTRO V ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO (2008)