ARANES v. OCCIANO
Topic: Formal Requisites;
Authority of the solemnizing officer; how authorized
Nature of the Case: Petitioner
Arañes charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law
Doctrine: Judges who are
appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings 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(FAMILY CODE),
which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating
official to administrative liability.
Facts:
Respondent is the Presiding
Judge of the MTC of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that on 17 February
2000, respondent solemnized her marriage to her late groom Dominador B. Orobia
without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is
outside his territorial jurisdiction.
When her husband passed away,
petitioner’s right to inherit the “vast properties” left by Orobia was not
recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the pensions of Orobia, a
retired Commodore of the Philippine Navy since the marriage was a nullity.
Respondent averred that he
was requested by a certain Juan Arroyo on 15 February 2000 to solemnize the
marriage of the parties on 17 February 2000. Having been assured that all the
documents to the marriage were complete, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in
his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur.
However, on 17 February 2000,
Arroyo informed him that Orobia had a difficulty walking and could not stand
the rigors of travelling to Balatan which is located almost 25 kilometers from
his residence in Nabua. Arroyo then requested if respondent judge could
solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded.
Respondent judge further
avers that before he started the ceremony, he carefully examined the documents
submitted to him by petitioner. When he discovered that the parties did not
possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnize the marriage
and suggested its resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas
of the parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for the
occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion.
He also feared that if he
reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just
suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity
for the marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to give
it would render the marriage void. Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent
judge that they would give the license to him in the afternoon of that same
day. When they failed to comply, respondent judge followed it up with Arroyo but
the latter only gave him the same reassurance that the marriage license would
be delivered to his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines
Sur.
Respondent judge vigorously
denies that he told the contracting parties that their marriage is valid
despite the absence of a marriage license. He attributes the hardships and
embarrassment suffered by the petitioner as due to her own fault and
negligence.
Petitioner filed her
Affidavit of Desistance and attested that respondent judge initially refused to
solemnize her marriage due to the want of a duly issued marriage license and
that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he eventually
solemnized the same.
Reviewing the records of the
case, it appears that petitioner and Orobia filed their Application for
Marriage License on 5 January 2000. It was stamped in this Application that the
marriage license shall be issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither
petitioner nor Orobia claimed it.
It also appears that the
Office of the Civil Registrar General issued a Certification that it has no
record of such marriage that allegedly took place on 17 February 2000.
Likewise, the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur
issued another Certification dated 7 May 2001 that it cannot issue a true copy
of the Marriage Contract of the parties since it has no record of their
marriage.
The Office of the Court
Administrator, in its Report and Recommendation dated 15 November 2000, found
the respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued
marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction. A fine
of P5,000.00 was recommended to be imposed on respondent judge.
Issue/s:
1)
WON the
respondent may validly solemnize a marriage outside his jurisdiction
2)
WON
Respondent should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the
requisite marriage license
Ruling:
1)No
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 as defined by the Supreme Court.
The case at bar is not
without precedent. In Navarro vs. Domagtoy, 259 SCRA 129, a judge held office
and had jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta.
Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. However, he solemnized a wedding at his
residence in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte which did not fall
within the jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos.
“A priest who is commissioned
and allowed by his local ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do so
only within the area or diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate
court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire
Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the
requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to
specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings 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.”
In the case at bar, the
territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of
Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and
Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to
administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law
for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but
nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.
2) Yes
In People vs. Lara,[4] we
held that a marriage which preceded the 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. 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.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge
Salvador M. Occiano, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan,
Camarines Sur, is fined P5,000.00 pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
No comments:
Post a Comment