DSADASDSAD

Rodolfo Navarro vs. Judge Hernando Domagtoy

Facts:

Judge Domagtoy solemnized the wedding between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn
Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his wife. For the
second time, he allegedly performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador
Sumaylo and Gemma G. Del Rosario outside his court’s jurisdiction in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The wedding was
solemnized at the respondent judge’s residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does
not fall within his jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos,
located some 40 to 45 kilometers away from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte.

These two acts were the subjects of the complaint against Judge Domagtoy. In
response, he claimed that he merely relied on the affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial
Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not
seen each other for almost seven years. With respect to the other charge, he maintains
that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate
Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family code which states that: “Marriage may be
solemnized by : (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s
jurisdiction; and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question. These were brought
to the attention of the court and found respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the
law. The legal principles applicable in the cases brought to our attention are elementary
and uncomplicated, prompting us to conclude that respondent’s failure to apply them is
due to a lack of comprehension of the law.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriages solemnized by Judge Domagtoy are valid.

Ruling:

The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered bigamous
and void, there being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Pearanda.
Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife’s
presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration he remains to be married to Ida
Pearanda.

The second marriage involves the solemnization of a marriage ceremony outside

the court’s jurisdiction, covered by Articles 7 and 8 of the Family Code. In as much as
Judge Domagtoy is clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of
Dapa, Surigao, Del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the exceptions therein as grounds for
the exercise of his misplaced authority, Judge Domagtoy demonstrated a lack of
understanding of the basic principles of civil law.
 Republic vs Court of Appeals

Facts:

Alan and Lea were married on January 20, 1995 in Catbalogan, Samar. He alleged
that, on February 6, 1995, Lea arrived home late in the evening and he berated her for
being always out of their house. He told her that if she enjoyed the life of a single person,
it would be better for her to go back to her parents. The following day, before he reported
for work, Lea was still in the house but when he returned she was already gone. He
thought she was in her parent’s house, but when he went to the latter, her whereabouts
were unknown and she never returned. He asked all her friends but received no positive
response. He, then, decided to go to Manila after the town fiesta in Catbalogan in hopes
of her possible return. When he arrived in Manila, he asked Janeth, Lea’s friend, about
the whereabouts of Lea and he even worked part-time as a taxi driver to conveniently
look for her but still to no avail.

In June 20, 2001, Alan reported Lea’s disappearance to the local police station,
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Issue:

Whether or not there was a well-founded belief on the part of Alan in his
search for Lea.

Ruling:

Although testimonial evidence may suffice to prove the well-founded belief of the
present spouse that the absent spouse is already dead, the court must assure whether there
exist a collusion between the parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital
bonds through existing legal means.

He also failed to present the people to whom he allegedly made inquiries from to
corroborate his testimony. It was only the Barangay Captain Juan Magat who appeared.
Moreover, he admitted that when he returned to the house of his parents-in-law on
February 14, 1995, his father in law told him that Leah had just been there but that she
left without notice. It also noteworthy that he did not even inquired from his parents-in-
law about the whereabouts of Lea before he filed his petition in the RTC.

The respondent did reported to the local police authorities and the National
Bureau of Investigation to locate Lea but this was only an afterthought after the Office of
the Solicitor General filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the Regional Trial Court.

Therefore, the respondent failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief that his
spouse was already dead.
 Yambao vs Republic

Facts :

Cynthia and Patricio were married. Their relationship, however, lasted only for 35
years until Cynthia filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due to
Patricio’s alleged psychological incapacity.

Among the reasons stated therein were his difficulty to find a stable job, failure in
the family business, jealousy towards relatives and acquaintances to whom she interacts
with, his indolence (eating and sleeping all day), propensity to gambling and even to the
point of threatening to kill her. All these were, however, not appreciated by court to have
satisfied the grounds for psychological incapacity.

Issue:

Whether or not Patricio suffered from psychological incapacity.

Ruling:

Psychological capacity must be judged according to gravity, juridical antecedence

and incurability. Gravity pertains to the seriousness of the case causing the party alleged
to have been suffering from the incapacity to incognitive of the basic marital covenants
that concomitantly must be given and accepted mutually. On the other hand, juridical
antecedence refers to that which is rooted in the history of the party. As for the
incurability, this implies the permanence, medically or clinically, of the illness.

It can be inferred from the given facts that the reasons cited by the petitioner do
not satisfy the above qualifications for psychological incapacity. It is also noteworthy to
consider the fact that they had already been married for 35 years.
 Republic vs Nestor Galang

Facts: Nestor and Juvy got married in Pampanga on March 9, 1994. They resided
in the house of Nestor’s parents. Nestor worked as an artist-illustrator at the Clark
Development Corporation, while Juvy stayed at home as a housewife. They had
only one child, Christopher.

Nestor, then, filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of
his marriage with Juvy, under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. He
alleged in his petition that Juvy was suffering from kleptomaniac that she stole
money from his parents, his ATM card and often asks money from their friends
and relatives with the pre-text that their son was confined in the hospital. He also
claimed that Juvy was immature and indolent. He even testified catching Juvy
playing mah-jong and kuwaho three times that she would leave their child to the
care of their neighbours.

Issues:

Whether or not the declaration of nullity of the marriage under the

grounds provided under Article 36 of the Family Code be
appreciated.

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the totality of evidence presented by the respondent
was insufficient to establish Juvy’s psychological incapacity to perform her
essential marital obligations. The petitioner additionally argues that the
respondent failed to show the juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of
Juvy’s condition. No sufficient basis exists to annul the marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity under the terms of Article 36 of the Family Code.