FACTS:
Complainant Mayor Rodolfo Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte filed this case to
the Supreme Court against respondent Judge Henando Domagtoy of MCTC of
Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte, for gross misconduct as well as inefficiency
and ignorance of the law.
First, on Sept. 24, 1994, Judge Domagtoy solemnized the marriage of Gaspar
Tagadan and Arlyn Borja despite his knowledge that Tagadan was merely separated
from his wife. Second, her performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano
Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario in October 1994 at respondent judge’s residence
in Dapa, SDN. As to the first, Domagtoy contended that he merely relied
on the affidavit issued by the RTC Judge of Bassey, Samar, which stated that
Tagadan and his wife have not seen each other for almost seven years.
However, the certified true copy of the marriage contract between Tagadan and
Borja showed that his civil status was “separated”.
ISSUE:
(1)
Whether or not a court may solemnize another marriage of a husband who was
merely separated from his wife for almost seven years.
(2)
Whether or not a Judge may solemnize a marriage at his residence.
HELD:
(1) Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides that a marriage contracted
by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage the prior spouse
had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth
in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two
years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding
paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided
in the Code for the declaration of presumptive death. Absent this
judicial declaration, he remains to be married to Peñaranda. Wittingly or
unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have
accepted the joind affidavit submitted by Tagadan. Such neglect or
ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous and therefore void
marriage.
(2) Art. 7. A marriage may be solemnized by (1) any incumbent member of the
judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction xxx . Article 8, however, states
that marriages shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in
open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the
consul-general, consul or vice consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere,
except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote
places in accordance with Art. 29 of the Family Code, or where both parties in
which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by
them in a sworn statement to that effect.
There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point of
death or in a remote place. Moreover, the written request presented
addressed to the respondent judge is the “authority of the solemnizing officer”.
Under Art. 8, which is only a discretionary provision, refers only to the venue
of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the
solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance
herewith will not invalidate the marriage.
Judges who are appointed to specific jurisdiction may officiate in marriages
only within said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a
marriage outside his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in
the formal requisite laid down in Article 3 which while it may not affect the
validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to
administrative
liability.
Judge Domagtoy was suspended for six months for demonstrating gross ignorance
of the law.
copies
of the certificates not later than fifteen (15) days after the marriage, to the
local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized.
Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing
officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing
officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage
certificate.
There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events.
However, the records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on
respondent Judge’s part.
No comments:
Post a Comment