Apiag v Cantero

Doctrine: Void marriages. Before the promulgation of the Family Code and Wiegel v
Sempio-Diy, the prevailing rule for marriages is the doctrine in Odayat v Amante:
void marriages do not need to be judicially declared void.
Petitioner(s)/Complainant(s): Maria Apiag, Teresita canter Securom, Glicerio
Cantero
Respondent(s): Judge Esmeraldo Cantero
Ponente: Panganiban, J
Facts:

Maria Apiag and Esmeraldo Cantero were married Aug 11, 1947, because of
the birth of their child, Teresita Cantero. They lived together and had another
child, Glicero Cantero, in 1953. Respondent judge, without any apparent
cause, left his family around 1960 and was never heard of again. Cantero
would later claim that their marriage was void because they were close
relatives and that he unknowingly walked and was forced into a marriage
ceremony
Without the judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Apiag, Cantero
contracted another marriage with Nieves Ygay, with whom he had eight other
children. That he was married to Ygay appeared in his public documents
In March 1994, Teresita Cantero, also acting in behalf of her mother and
brother, entered into a compromise agreement with Esmeraldo Cantero. It
was agreed that:
o Teresita, her mother, and brother will get of the retirement benefits
that Esmeraldo will receive from GSIS
o That in the case of his death, Teresita and her brother will be one of his
beneficiaries
o That they shall inherit from Esmeraldo property from his parents
o That Esmeraldo shall give P4,000 to Teresita and her brother monthly
o The agreement would only be effective if Teresita et al would withdraw
their complaint of grave misconduct against the judge
The Investigating Judge found Esmeraldo guilty of grave misconduct and
recommended suspension for a year, without pay; the Office of the Court
Administrator recommended dismissal
Cantero died while the case was pending resolution. However, the Court
decided to resolve the case because it would affect his death and retirement
benefits

Issue(s), Held, Ratio:

1. Was the subsequent marriage of Cantero to Ygay void because of his
failure to declare his previous marriage null and void?
 No. Canteros marriage to Apiag was before the promulgation of the Family
Code and the Wiegel v Sempio-Diy decision (rule: a marriage though void still
needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party thereto can marry
again; otherwise, the second marriage will also be void). The doctrine
affecting his marriage(s) would be that in Odayat v Amante, that void
marriages do not need to be judicially declared void.

2. Was Cantero guilty of gross misconduct?

No. Misconduct refers to acts done affecting ones performance of ones
duties as an officer, and not such affecting ones character as a private
individual. The Court emphasized the distinction between the character of the
man and the character of the officer, and ruled that Canteros mistakes in his
youth are separate from his official duties. However, despite his clean record
in office, the Court also reiterated the level of propriety that is expected from
a judge, both in his personal and public lives. Cantero was found deserving of
suspension, but not of dismissal from office, which would be too harsh given
his track record.

3. Was there falsification in Canteros public documents where he stated that he

was married to Ygay?
No. The charge of falsification was based on the supposed bigamous
marriage of Cantero to Ygay. Since the Court ruled that the said marriage was
valid and not bigamous, there was no falsification on the respondents part.