Sunteți pe pagina 1din 49

Title of the Case Recit-Ready Digest Facts Issue Ruling

Complainant Judge Complainant is the 1.) Whether or not Respondent is


De Mijares v. Villaluz Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Presiding Judge of marriage of complainant undeniably guilty
(Requisites for a valid Mijares is the presiding Branch 108 of the and respondent valid of deceit and
marriage), judge in Pasay City while RTC, Pasay City, Yes it is. grossly immoral
respondent Onofre A. while respondent is conduct; he has
274 SCRA 1; June 19, Villaluz, a retired Justice former Justice 2.) Whether or not the made mockery of
1997 of the Court of Appeals, is Onofre A. Villaluz is marriage of complainant marriage which is
a consult at the a consultant at the and respondent was a a sacred
Ponente: Justice Presidential Anti-Crime Presidential Anti sham marriage No it is institution
Regalado Commission. Crime Commission not. demanding
(PACC) headed by respect and
* Regardless of the Judge Mijares is actually Vice-President dignity
intention of respondent widowed by the death of Joseph E. Estrada He himself asserts
in saying I do with her first husband, Widowed by the that at the time of
complainant before a Primitivo Mijares. She death of her first his marriage to
competent authority, all obtained a decree husband, Primitivo herein
ingredients of a valid declaring her husband Mijares, complainant, the
marriage were present; presumptively dead, comoplainant decision of the
his consent thereto was after an absence of 16 commenced a court annulling
freely given; Judge years. Thus, she got special proceeding, his marriage to
Myrna Lim Vernao was married to respondent in and obtained a his first wife,
authorized by law to a civil wedding on decree declaring Librada Pea, has
solemnize the civil January 7, 1994 before the said Primitivo not yet attained
marriage, and both Judge Myrna Lim Verano. Mijares finality; worse,
contracting parties had presumptively four months after
the legal capacity to They (complainant and dead, after an his marriage to
contract such marriage respondent) knew each absence of sixteen petitioner,
other when the latter (16) years respondent
Doctrines to remember: who was at that time the January 7, 1994: married another
1.) Requisites of a valid Presiding Judge of the she got married to woman, Lydia
marriage (Articles 2 and Criminal Circuit Court in respondent in a Geraldez, in
3 of the Civil Code): Pasig, was trying a civil wedding Cavite, after
Legal capacity of murder case involving before Judge Myrna making a false
the contracting the death of the son of Lim Verano, then statement in his
parties (who Mijares. Presiding Judge of application for
must be a male or the MTC of marriage license
a female) During their marriage, Carmona, Cavite that his previous
Consent freely complainant judge and no Judge of the marriage had
given in the discovered that MTC of been annulled
presence of the respondent was having Mandaluyong City
solemnizing an illicit affair with their marriage was Respondents
officer another woman. the culmination of subterfuge that
Authority of the Respondent denied such a long engagement his marriage to
solemnizing rather he uttered harsh After the ceremony petitioner was
officer words to the and reception, just a sham
A valid marriage complainant judge. As a respondent fetched marriage will
license (except in result, they lived complainant from not justify his
the cases separately and did not her house in actuations
provided for in get in touch with one Project 8, Quezon
Chapter 2 of Title another and the City, and reached On the first issue:
I on marriage, respondent did not the condominium What complainant
Family Code) bother to apologize for unit of respondent and respondent
A marriage what happened. two hours later at contracted was a
ceremony with which time, she valid marriage is
the appearance of Through Judge Ramon answered the borne out by law
the contracting Makasiar, complainant phone and the evidence
parties before the knew that respondent At the end of the To be sure, all the
solemnizing married Lydia Geraldez. line was a woman essential and
officer Complainant then filed a offending her formal
Personal complaint against with insulting requisites of a
declaration that respondent for marks valid marriage
they take each disbarment for the latter Complainant under Articles 2
other as husband immorally and confronted and 3 of the
and wife bigamously entered into respondent on the Family Code,
Presence of not a second marriage while identity of such were satisfied
less than two having a subsisting caller, but and complied
witnesses of legal marriage and distorted respondent simply with
age the truth by stating his remarked it would
civil status as single. have been just a On the second issue:
call at the wrong The theory of
In his defense, he number respondent that
contended that his What followed was what was
marriage to the a heated exchange solemnized with
complainant judge was a of harsh words, one complainant was
sham marriage; that he word led to nothing but a
voluntarily signed the another, to a point sham marriage is
marriage contract to help when respondent too incredible to
her in the administrative called complainant deserve serious
case for immorality filed a nagger consideration
against her by her legal Such unbearable Regardless of the
researcher. Likewise, he utterances of intention of
maintained that when he respondent left respondent in
contracted his marriage complainant no saying I do with
with complainant, he had choice, but to leave complainant
a subsisting marriage in haste the place of before a
with his first wife their would-be competent
because the decision honeymoon authority, all
declaring the annulment Since then, the ingredients of a
of such marriage had not complainant and valid marriage
yet become final and respondent have were present;
executory or published. been living his consent
separately because thereto was
Judge Purisima the found as complainant freely given;
respondent guilty of rationalized, Judge Myrna Lim
deceit and grossly contrary to her Vernao was
immoral conduct and expectation authorized by
later on affirmed by the respondent never law to solemnize
Court. got in touch with the civil
her and did not marriage, and
Main issues: even bother to both contracting
1.) Whether or not apologize for what parties had the
marriage of complainant happened legal capacity to
and respondent valid contract such
Yes it is. Several months marriage
afterwards, in a
2.) Whether or not the Bible Study session,
marriage of complainant the complainant
and respondent was a learned from
sham marriage No it is Manila RTC Judge
not. Ramon Makasiar,
that he (Judge
Ruling: Makasiar)solemni
1.) Yes. It was a valid zed the marriage
marriage. All the between former
essential and formal Justice Onofre A.
requisites of a valid Villaluz and a
marriage under Articles certain Lydia
2 and 3 of the Family Geraldez
Code were satisfied and June 6, 1995:
complied. Given the complainant filed
circumstance that he was the instant
facing criminal case for Complaint for
bigamy and assuming for Disbarment against
the sake of argument Judge Villaluz; and
that the judgment in civil on August 7, 1995,
case declaring the the complainant
annulment of marriage executed against
between respondent and respondent her
the first wife had not Supplemental
attained complete Complaint
finality, the marriage Affidavit for
between complainant Falsification, after
and respondent is not she discovered
void but only voidable. another
incriminatory
2). As to the issue that it document against
was a sham marriage is respondent
too incredible to deserve
serious consideration. The marriage
Thus, former Justice contract of
Onofre Villaluz is found respondent Lydia
guilty of immoral Geraldez, dated
conduct in violation of May 10, 1994, was
the Code of Professional offered by
Responsibility; he is complainant to
hereby suspended from prove that
practice of law for two respondent
years with the specific immorally and
warning. bigamously
entered into a
marriage, and to
show that the
respondent
distorted the
truth by stating
his civil status as
SINGLE, when he
married Geraldez

Respondents version:
According to him,
what he inked with
the complainant on
January 7, 1994
was merely but a
sham marriage
He explained that
he agreed as, in
fact, he
voluntarily signed
the Marriage
Contract, in an
effort to help
Judge Mijares in
the
administrative
case for
immorality filed
against her by her
Legal Researcher,
Atty. Joseph
Gregorio Naval,
Jr., sometime in
1993
Respondent
theorized that
when his marriage
with complainant
took place before
Judge Myrna Lim
Verano, his
marriage with
Librada Pea, his
first wife, was
subsisting because
the Decision
declaring the
annulment of such
marriage had not
yet become final
and executor, for
the reason that
Said Decision was
not yet published
as required by the
Rules, the service
of summons upon
Librada Pea having
been made by
publication, and
subject Decision
was not yet
published

Anaya v. Palaroan Aurora Anaya and Aurora and Whether or not the non- For fraud as a vice
(Effect of Fraud), Fernando Palaroan were defendant disclosure to a wife by of consent in
married on December 4, Fernando were her husband of his pre- marriage, which
G.R. No. L-27930; 1953. On January 7, married on marital relationship may be a cause for
November 26, 1970 1954, Fernando filed an December 4, 1953; with another woman is its annulment,
action for annulment of defendant filed an a ground for annulment comes under
Ponenete: Justice J.B.L. the marriage on the action for of marriage No, it is Article 85, No. 4,
Reyes ground that his consent annulment of the not. of the Civil Code
was obtained through marriage on There are only
*The enumeration force and intimidation. January 7, 1954 three (3) types of
constituting fraud is Although, this case was on the ground fraud enumerated
exclusive and that non- dismissed and Anayas that his consent in Article 86: (1)
disclosure of a husbands counterclaim for was obtained Misrepresentation
pre-marital relationship damages was granted. through force and as to the identity
is not one of the intimidation of one of the
enumerated While the amount of the Judgement was contracting
circumstances that counterclaim for rendered on parties; (2) Non-
would constitute a damages was being September 23, disclosure of the
ground for annulment negotiated, Fernando 1959, dismissing previous
divulged into Aurora that the complaint of conviction of the
Doctrines to several months prior to Fernando, other party of a
remember: their marriage, he had a upholding the crime involving
1.) For fraud as a vice of pre-marital validity of the moral turpitude,
consent in marriage, relationship with a marriage and and the penalty
which may be a cause for close relative of his. granting Auroras imposed was
its annulment, comes counterclaim; imprisonment for
under Article 85, No. 4, Upon learning of this, that while the two years or
of the Civil Code Aurora then filed a case amount of the more; (3)
for annulment of their counterclaim was Concealment by
2.) There are only three marriage on the being negotiated the wife of the fact
(3) types of fraud ground of fraud the to settle the that at the time of
enumerated in Article non-disclosure of such judgment, the marriage, she
86: (1) pre-marital Fernando had was pregnant by a
Misrepresentation as to relationship. divulged to man other than
the identity of one of the Aurora that her husband
contracting parties; (2) The main issue of this several months No other
Non-disclosure of the case is whether or not prior to their misrepresentati
previous conviction of the non-disclosure to a marriage he had on or deceit as to
the other party of a wife by her husband of pre-marital character, rank,
crime involving moral his pre-marital relationship with fortune or
turpitude, and the relationship with a close relative of chastity shall
penalty imposed was another woman is a his; and that the constitute such
imprisonment for two ground for annulment of non-divulgement fraud as will give
years or more; (3) marriage. The answer is to her of the grounds for
Concealment by the wife no. aforementioned action for the
of the fact that at the pre-marital secret annulment of
time of the marriage, sheThe non-disclosure to a on the part of marriage
was pregnant by a man wife by her husband to defendant that The intention of
other than her husband his pre-marital definitely Congress to
relationship with wrecked their confine the
3.) No other another woman is NOT marriage, which circumstances
misrepresentation or one of the enumerated apparently that can
deceit as to character, circumstances that doomed to fail constitute fraud
rank, fortune or would constitute a even before it had as ground for
chastity shall ground for annulment; hardly annulment of
constitute such fraud and this is further commenced . . . marriage to the
as will give grounds for excluded by the last frank discosure of foregoing three
action for the paragraph of Article 86 which, certitude cases may be
annulment of marriage providing that no other precisely deduced from the
misrepresentation or precluded her, the fact that, of all the
deceit as to . . . chastity Plaintiff herein causes of nullity
shall give ground for an from going thru enumerated in
action to annul a the marriage that Article 85, fraud is
marriage. was solemnized the only one given
between them special treatment
constituted fraud in a subsequent
in obtaining her article within the
consent chapter on void
(contemplating and voidable
No. 4 of Article 85 marriages. If its
of the Civil Code); intention were
she prayed for otherwise,
annulment of Congress would
marriage and for have stopped at
moral damages Article 85, for,
anyway, fraud in
Defendant general is already
Fernando, in his mentioned
answer, denied the therein as a cause
allegation of the for annulment.
complainant and But Article 86 was
denied having had also enacted,
a pre-marital expressly and
relationship with a specifically
close relative dealing with
"fraud referred to
in number 4 of the
Failing in its attempt to preceding article,"
have the parties and proceeds by
reconciled, the court set enumerating the
the case for trial on August specific frauds
26, 1966 but it was (misrepresentatio
postponed; thereafter, n as to identity,
while reviewing the non-disclosure of
expendiente, the court a previous
realized that Auroras conviction, and
allegation of the fraud was concealment of
legally sufficient to pregnancy),
invalidate her marriage making it clear
that Congress
intended to
exclude all other
frauds or deceits.
To stress further
such intention,
the enumeration
of the specific
frauds was
followed by the
interdiction: "No
other
misrepresentatio
n or deceit as to
character, rank,
fortune or
chastity shall
constitute such
fraud as will give
grounds for action
for the annulment
of marriage."
Non-disclosure of
a husband's pre-
marital
relationship with
another woman is
not one of the
enumerated
circumstances
that would
constitute a
ground for
annulment; and it
is further
excluded by the
last paragraph of
the article,
providing that "no
other
misrepresentatio
n or deceit as to ...
chastity" shall
give ground for an
action to annul a
marriage. While a
woman may
detest such non-
disclosure of
premarital
lewdness or feel
having been
thereby cheated
into giving her
consent to the
marriage,
nevertheless the
law does not
assuage her grief
after her consent
was solemnly
given, for upon
marriage she
entered into an
institution in
which society, and
not herself alone,
is interested. The
lawmaker's intent
being plain, the
Court's duty is to
give effect to the
same, whether it
agrees with the
rule or not
Sy v. CA (Formal Petitionier Filipina Sy Petitioner Filipina Whether or not the A marriage
Requisites; Marriage and private respondent Y. Sy and private marriage between license is a
license); Fernando Sy contracted respondent petitioner and private formal
marriage on November Fernando Sy respondent is void from requirement; its
G.R. No. 127263; April 15, 1973 at the Church of contracted the beginning for lack of absence renders
12, 2000 our Lady of Lourdes in marriage on a marriage license at the the marriage
Quezon City, when both November 15, time of the ceremony -- void ab initio
Ponente: Justice of them were 22 years of 1973 at the Yes it is. In addition, the
Quisumbing age. Their union was Church of Our marriage
blessed with two Lady of Lourdes in contract shows
*The purported children. Quezon City; both that the
marriage between were then 22 marriage
petitioner and On September 15, 1983, years old license, was
respondent could not be Fernando left their Their union was issued in
classified among those conjugal dwelling and blessed with two Carmona, Cavite,
enumerated in Articles since then, the spouses children yet, neither
72-79 of the Civil Code; lived separately and The spouses first petitioner nor
the Court concludes their two children were established their private
that under Article 80 of in the custody of Filipina. residence in respondent ever
the Civil Code, the Singalong, Manila, resided in
marriage between On February 11, 1987, then in Apalit, Carmona
petitioner and private Filipina filed a petition Pampanga, and The marriage
respondent is VOID for legal separation later at San Matias, between
FROM THE BEGINNING before the RTC of San Sto. Tomas, respondent and
Fernando, Pampanga and Pampanga; they petitioner had no
*A marriage license is was later amended to a operated a lumber marriage license;
a formal requirement; petition for separation of and hardware Article 80 is
its absence renders property. Judgement was business in Sto. applicable in this
the marriage void ab rendered dissolving their Tomas, Pampanga case
initio conjugal partnership of September 15, The purported
gains and approving a 1983: Fernando marriage between
*In addition, the regime of separation of left their conjugal petitioner and
marriage contract shows properties based on the dwelling; since respondent could
that the marriage Memorandum of then, the spouses not be classified
license, was issued in Agreement executed by lived separately, among those
Carmona, Cavite, yet, the spouses. and their two enumerated in
neither petitioner nor children were in Articles 72-79 of
private respondent ever In May 1988, Filipina the custody of their the Civil Code; the
resided in Carmona filed a criminal action mother Court concludes
case for attempted that under
parricide against her February 11, 1987: Article 80 of the
husband. RTC of Manila Filipina filed a Civil Code, the
convicted Fernando only petition for legal marriage
Doctrines to of the lesser crime of separation, before between
remember: slight physical injuries, the RTC of San petitioner and
1.) Article 80 of the and sentenced him to 20 Fernando, private
Civil Code, particularly days of imprisonment. Pampanga respondent is
paragraph three (3) Later, upon motion VOID FROM THE
(void marriages from the Petitioner then filed a of petitioner, the BEGINNING
beginning): Those petition for the action was later
solemnized without a declaration of absolute amended to a Reasons:
marriage license, save nullity of her marriage to petition for Petitioner states
marriages of exceptional Fernando on the ground separation of that though she
character of psychological property on the did not
incapacity on August 4, ground that her categorically state
1992. The RTC and the husband in her petition for
CA denied the petition abandoned her annulment of
and motion for without just marriage before
reconsideration. Hence, cause; that they the trial court that
petitioner appealed by have been living the incongruity in
certiorari, raising the separately for the dates of the
issue of the marriage more than one marriage license
being void for a lack of a year; and that and the
valid marriage license at they voluntarily celebration of the
the time of its entered into a marriage itself
celebration. Memorandum of would lead to the
Agreement dated conclusion that
The date of issue of September 29, her marriage to
marriage license and 1983, containing Fernando was
marriage certificate is rules that would void from the
contained in their govern the beginning, she
marriage contract, which dissolution of points out that
was attached in her their conjugal these critical
petition for absolute partnership dates were
declaration of nullity of Judgment was contained in the
marriage before the RTC. rendered documents she
The date of the actual dissolving their submitted before
celebration of their conjugal the court
marriage and the date of partnership of The date of issue
issuance of their gains and of the marriage
marriage certificate and approving a license and
marriage license are regime of marriage
different and separation of certificate,
incongruous properties based September 17,
on the 1974, is contained
The main issue in this Memorandum of in their marriage
case is whether or not Agreement contract
the marriage between executed by the The date of
petitioner and private spouses; the RTC celebration of
respondent is void from also granted their marriage at
the beginning for lack of custody of the Our Lady of
a marriage license at the children to Lourdes, Sta.
time of the ceremony. Filipina Teresita Parish,
The answer is yes. on November 15,
May 1988: Filipina 1973, is admitted
Ruling of the SC: filed a criminal by both parties
A marriage license is a action for November 15,
formal requirement; its attempted 1973 also
absence renders the parricide against appears as the
marriage void ab initio. her husband; RTC date of marriage
The pieces of evidence ruled a lesser of the parents in
presented by petitioner crime of slight both their sons
at the beginning of the physical injuries and daughters
case, plainly and and sentenced birth certificates
indubitably show that on Fernando to 20 These pieces of
the day of the marriage days of evidence on
ceremony, there was no imprisonment record plainly
marriage license. and indubitably
Petitioner then show that on the
The marriage contract filed a new action day of the
also shows that the for legal marriage
marriage license was separation ceremony, there
issued in Carmona, against private was no marriage
Cavite yet neither respondent on the license
petitioner nor following Petitioner did not
respondent ever resided grounds: (1) expressly state in
in Carmona. From the repeated physical her petition
documents she violence; (2) before the RTC
presented, the marriage sexual infidelity; that there was
license was issued (3) attempt by incongruity
almost one year after the respondent between the date
ceremony took place. against her life; of the actual
(4) abandonment celebration of
Article 80 of the Civil of her husband their marriage
Code is clearly applicable without justifiable and the date of
in this case there being cause for more the issuance of
no claim of exceptional than one year their marriage
character enumerated in license
articles 72-7 of the Civil The RTC of San The marriage
Code. The marriage Fernando, license was issued
between petitioner and Pampanga in its on September 17,
private respondent is decision dated 1974, almost one
void from the beginning. December 4, 1991, year after the
granted the ceremony took
petition on the place on
grounds of November 15,
repeated physical 1973
violence and
sexual infidelity, Dispositive:
and issued a petition is hereby
decree of legal GRANTED.
separation; it
awarded custody
of their daughter
to petitioner, and
their son to
respondent

August 4, 1992:
Filipina filed a
petition for the
declaration of
absolute nullity of
her marriage to
Fernando on the
ground of
psychological
incapacity
Filipina points out
that the final
judgment rendered
by the RTC in her
favour, in her
petitions for
separation of
property and legal
separation, and
Fernandos
infliction of
physical violence
on her which led to
the conviction of
her husband for
slight physical
injuries are
symptoms of
psychological
incapacity

Grounds invoked
by Filipina that
constitute
psychological
incapacity: (1)
Habitual
alcoholism; (2)
Refusal to live with
her without fault
on her part, and
choosing to live
with his mistress
instead; (3) Refusal
to have sex with
her, performing the
marital act only to
satisfy himself
(Also alleges that
such psychological
incapacity existed
from the time of
the celebration of
their marriage)

Decision of the RTC:


The RTC of San
Fernando,
Pampanga in its
decision, denied
the petition of
Filipina for the
declaration of
absolute nullity of
her marriage to
Fernando; it
stated that the
alleged acts of the
respondent, as
cited by petition,
do not constitute
psychological
incapacity which
may warrant the
declaration of
absolute nullity of
their marriage

Decision of the CA:


Petitioner
appealed to the
CA which affirmed
the decision of the
RTC
Decision of the CA
dated May 21,
1996: it ruled that
the testimony of
petitioner
concerning
respondents
purported
psychological
incapacity falls
short of the
quantum of
evidence required
to nullify a
marriage
celebrated with all
the formal and
essential requisites
of law
In addition, it held
that petitioner
failed to show that
the alleged
psychological
incapacity of
respondent had
existed at the time
of the celebration
of their marriage in
1973
CA reiterated the
finding the RTC
that the couples
marital problems
surfaced only in
1983, or almost ten
years from the date
of the celebration
of their marriage

Petitioner filed for


a motion for
reconsideration,
which the CA
denied

Kho v. Republic (Duties Raquel filed a petition for Challenged in this Whether or not the The marriage of
of the Civil Registrar), declaration of his petition are the Honorable Court of petitioner and
marriage to Veronica, Decision and Appeals (CA) erred in respondent was
G.R. No. 187462; June presenting a Certification Resolution of the setting aside or celebrated on
1, 2016 issued by the Municipal CA, Cebu City; the reversing the lower June 1, 1972,
Registrar of Arteche, assailed CA courts judgment prior to the
Ponente: Justice Eastern Samar which decision reversed declaring the marriage effectivity of the
Peralta attested to the fact that and set aside the between petitioner and Family Code;
the Office of the Local Decision of the respondent a nullity for accordingly,
* The rationale for the Civil Registrar has RTC of Borongan, absence of the requisite Article 53 of the
compulsory character of neither a record nor a Eastern Samar, marriage license Yes. Civil Code spells
a marriage license under copy of the marriage Branch 2, which out the essential
the Civil Code is that it is license issued to ruled in requisites of
the authority granted by petitioner and petitioners marriage as a
the State to the respondent with respect favour in an contract
contracting parties, after to their marriage action he filed for Article 58 of the
the proper government celebrated on June 1, declaration of Civil Code makes
official has inquired into 1972. nullity of his explicit that no
their capacity to contract marriage with marriage shall be
marriage; stated Veronica, the private solemnized
differently, the respondent, opposed the respondent, while without a license
requirement and petition, arguing that the the CA Resolution first being issued
issuance of a marriage petition should be denied by the local civil
license is the States outrightly dismissed for petitioners registrar of the
demonstration of its lack of cause of action motion for municipality
involvement and because there is no reconsideration where either
participation in every evidence to prove contracting party
marriage, in the petitioners allegation Facts coming from the habitually resides,
maintenance of which that their marriage was RTC petition: save marriages of
the general public is celebrated without the Sometime in the an exceptional
interested requisite marriage afternoon of May character
license and that, on the 31, 1972, authorized by the
contrary, both petitioner petitioners parents Civil Code, but not
Doctrines to and respondent summoned one those under
remember: personally appeared Eusebio Colongon, Article 75
before the local civil now deceased, Article 80(3) of
1.) Jurisprudence registrar and secured a then clerk in the the Civil Code also
Nicdao Cario v. Yee marriage license which office of the makes it clear that
Cario: certification of they presented before municipal marriage
the Local Civil Registrar, their marriage was treasurer, performed
that their office had no solemnized. instructing said without the
record of a marriage clerk to arrange corresponding
license, was adequate to After trial, the RTC and prepare marriage license
prove the non-issuance granted Raquels whatever is void, this being
of said license; it was petition, but the Republic necessary papers nothing more
further held that the and Raquel appealed to were required for than the
presumed validity of the the CA. the intended legitimate
marriage of the parties marriage between consequence
had been overcome, and The CA held that since a petitioner and flowing from the
that it became the marriage was, in fact, respondent fact that the
burden of the party solemnized between the supposedly to license is the
alleging a valid marriage contending parties, there take place at essence of the
to prove that the is a presumption that a around midnight marriage contract
marriage was valid, and marriage license was of June 1, 1972, so The rationale for
that the required issued for that purpose as to exclude the the compulsory
marriage license had and that the petitioner public from character of a
been secured failed to overcome such witnessing the marriage license
presumption. The CA marriage under the Civil
*Take note of Articles 17, also ruled that the ceremony Code is that it is
18 and 19 specifies the absence of any indication Petitioner and the authority
functions/duties of the in the marriage respondent granted by the
local civil registrar certificate that a exchanged marital State to the
marriage license was vows in a marriage contracting
issued is a mere defect in ceremony which parties, after the
the formal requisites of actually took place proper
the law, which does not at around 3:00 government
invalidate the parties oclock before official has
marriage. dawn of June 1, inquired into
1972, on account their capacity to
The main issue is that there was a contract
whether or not the public dance held marriage; stated
Honorable Court of in the town plaza, differently, the
Appeals (CA) erred in which is just requirement and
setting aside or reversing situated adjacent to issuance of a
the lower courts the church whereas marriage license
judgment declaring the the venue of the is the States
marriage between wedding, and the demonstration
petitioner and dance only finished of its
respondent a nullity for at around 2:00 involvement and
absence of the requisite oclock of the same participation in
marriage license. The early morning of every marriage,
answer is yes. June 1, 1972 in the
Petitioner has maintenance of
Ruling of the SC: never gone to the which the
The marriage of office of the Local general public is
petitioner and Civil Registrar to interested
respondent was apply for marriage
celebrated on license and had not Petitioner insists
June 1, 1972, seen much less that the
prior to the signed any papers Certification
effectivity of the or documents in issued by the Civil
Family Code; connection with Registrar of
accordingly, the procurement of Arteche, Eastern
Article 53 of the a marriage license Samar, coupled
Civil Code spells Considering the with the
out the essential shortness of period testimony of the
requisites of from the time the former Civil
marriage as a aforenamed clerk Registrar, is
contract of the treasurers sufficient
Article 58 of the office was told to evidence to prove
Civil Code makes obtain the the absence of the
explicit that no pertinent papers in subject marriage
marriage shall be the afternoon of license the
solemnized May 31, 1972 so Court agrees
without a license required for the with the
first being issued purpose of the petitioner
by the local civil forthcoming
registrar of the marriage up to the Jurisprudence
municipality moment the actual Nicdao Cario v.
where either marriage was Yee Cario:
contracting party celebrated before certification of the
habitually resides, dawn of June 1, Local Civil
save marriages of 1972, no marriage Registrar, that
an exceptional license therefore their office had no
character could have been record of a
authorized by the validly issued, marriage license,
Civil Code, but not thereby rendering was adequate to
those under the marriage prove the non-
Article 75 RTC therefore issuance of said
Article 80(3) of ruled that the license; it was
the Civil Code also contract of further held that
makes it clear that marriage between the presumed
marriage petitioner and validity of the
performed respondent held marriage of the
without the on June 1, 1972 is parties had been
corresponding null and void ab overcome, and
marriage license initio and of no that it became the
is void, this being legal effect burden of the
nothing more party alleging a
than the Among the pieces valid marriage to
legitimate of evidence prove that the
consequence presented by marriage was
flowing from the petitioner is a valid, and that the
fact that the Certification issued required marriage
license is the by the Municipal license had been
essence of the Civil Registrar of secured
marriage contract Arteche, Eastern
The rationale for Samar which Based on the
the compulsory attested to the fact Certification
character of a that the Office of issued by the
marriage license the Local Civil Municipal Civil
under the Civil Registrar has Registrar of
Code is that it is neither record nor Arteche, Eastern
the authority copy of a marriage Samar, coupled
granted by the license issued to with respondents
State to the petitioner and failure to produce
contracting respondent with a copy of the
parties, after the respect to their alleged marriage
proper marriage license or of any
government celebrated on June evidence to show
official has 1, 1972 that such license
inquired into was ever issued,
their capacity to Respondent filed the only
contract her answer, conclusion that
marriage; stated praying that the can be reached is
differently, the petition be that no valid
requirement and outrightly marriage license
issuance of a dismissed for lack was, in fact,
marriage license of cause of action, issued
is the States because there is no
demonstration evidence to prove Contrary to the
of its petitioners ruling of the CA, it
involvement and allegation that their cannot be said
participation in marriage was that there was a
every marriage, celebrated without simple defect, not
in the the requisite a total absence, in
maintenance of marriage license the requirements
which the and that, on the of the law which
general public is contrary, both would not affect
interested petitioner and the validity of the
respondent marriage; the fact
Petitioner insists personally remains that the
that the appeared before respondent
Certification the local civil failed to prove
issued by the Civil registrar and that the subject
Registrar of secured a marriage marriage license
Arteche, Eastern license which they was issued and
Samar, coupled presented before the law is clear
with the their marriage was that a marriage
testimony of the solemnized which is
former Civil performed
Registrar, is Upon the request of without the
sufficient the petitioner, the corresponding
evidence to prove venue of the marriage license
the absence of the action was is null and void
subject marriage subsequently
license the transferred to the Dispositive:
Court agrees RTC of Borongan, Instant petition is
with the Eastern Samar, GRANTED
petitioner Branch 2

Jurisprudence September 25,


Nicdao Cario v. 2000: the RTC
Yee Cario: rendered its
certification of the Decision granting
Local Civil the petition the
Registrar, that Court declares the
their office had no marriage
record of a contracted
marriage license, between Raquel
was adequate to G. Kho and
prove the non- Veronica Borata
issuance of said on June 1, 1972
license; it was null and void ab
further held that initio, pursuant to
the presumed Article 80 of the
validity of the Civil Code and
marriage of the Articles 4 and 5 of
parties had been the Family Code;
overcome, and the foregoing is
that it became the without prejudice
burden of the to the application
party alleging a of Articles 50 and
valid marriage to 51 of the Family
prove that the Code
marriage was
valid, and that the The RTC found that
required marriage petitioners
license had been evidence
secured sufficiently
established the
Based on the absence of the
Certification requisite marriage
issued by the license when the
Municipal Civil marriage between
Registrar of petitioner and
Arteche, Eastern respondent was
Samar, coupled celebrated
with respondents
failure to produce Respondent then
a copy of the filed an appeal
alleged marriage with the CA in
license or of any Cebu City; on
evidence to show March 30, 2006,
that such license the CA
was ever issued, promulgated its
the only assailed decision,
conclusion that which reversed
can be reached is and set aside the
that no valid decision of the
marriage license RTC of Borongan,
was, in fact, Eastern Samar
issued
The CA held that
Contrary to the since a marriage
ruling of the CA, it was, in fact,
cannot be said solemnized
that there was a between the
simple defect, not contending parties,
a total absence, in there is a
the requirements presumption that
of the law which a marriage license
would not affect was issued for
the validity of the that purpose and
marriage; the fact that petitioner
remains that the failed to
respondent overcome such
failed to prove presumption; it
that the subject also ruled that the
marriage license absence of any
was issued and indication in the
the law is clear marriage certificate
that a marriage that a marriage
which is license was issued
performed is a mere defeat in
without the the formal
corresponding requisites of the
marriage license law which does not
is null and void invalidate the
parties marriage

Petitioner filed a
motion for
reconsideration,
but the CA denied it
in its Resolution
dated January 14,
2009

1.) Whether or not the On the first issue:


Beso v. Daguman Judge Daguman In this respondent solemnized Yes. The judge
(Duties of the solemnized the marriage administrative a marriage outside his solemnized a marriage
solemnizing officer), of Zenaida Beso with complaint, jurisdiction Yes. outside of his
Nardito A. Yman out respondent Judge jurisdiction.
323 SCRA 566; January from his jurisdiction as a stands charged 2.) Whether or not the
28, 2000 judge. After the marriage with Neglect of respondent committed Article 7 of the Family
was solemnized, the man Duty and Abuse of negligence by not Code provides that
Ponente: Justice just abandoned his wife Authority; In a retaining a copy and not marriage may be
Ynares-Santiago without any light or Complaint-Affidavit registering the solemnized by, Any
reason. Because of this, dated December complainants marriage incumbent member of
*Referring to Article 8 the woman had to go to 12, 1997, Zenaida before the office of the the judiciary with the
of the Family Code: In the registrar to secure S. Beso charged Local Civil Registrar courts jurisdiction.
this case, there is no their marriage Judge Juan J. Yes.
pretense that either contract but to her Daguman, Jr. with In relation thereto,
complainant Beso or her surprised, no marriage solemnizing according to Article 8 of
fiance Yman was at the contract that has marriage outside the Family Code, there
point of death or in a been registered in the of his jurisdiction are only three instances
remote place. Neither office of the registrar, so, and of negligence with which a judge may
was there a sworn however, in not retaining a solemnize a marriage
written request made by the registrar gave advice copy and not outside of his
the contracting parties to Zenaida Beso to write registering the jurisdiction:
to respondent Judge that the judge who marriage contract (1.1) when either or both
the marriage be solemnized their with the office of the contracting parties is
solemnized outside his marriage but likewise to the Local Civil at the point of death;
chambers or at a place her surprised, judge Registrar alleging (1.2) when the residence
other than his sala. Daguman who the following: of either party is located
What, in fact, appears on solemnized their in a remote place;
record is that marriage told her that August 28, 1997: (1.3) where both of the
respondent Judge was her husband got sall the petitioner and her parties request the
prompted more by copies of their marriage fianc Bernardito solemnizing officer in
urgency to solemnize the certificate and none was A. Yman got writing in which case the
marriage of Beso and even left to him or was married and their marriage may be
Yman because retained to the judge. marriage was solemnized at a house or
complainant was "[a]n solemnized by place designated by them
overseas worker, who, This is the reason why Judge Daguman in in a sworn statement to
respondent realized Zenaida learned that the his residence in that effect.
deserved more than judge solemnized their J.P.R. Subdivision in
ordinary official marriage out of his Calbayog City, In this case, none of the
attention under present jurisdiction and was Samar three instances is
Government policy." negligent in not retaining That the ceremony present.
Respondent Judge a copy and likewise in was attended by
further avers that in not registering their Pacific Maghacot On the second issue:
solemnizing the marriage to the civil who acted as their Yes. The judge
marriage in question, registrar as prescribed principal sponsor committed negligence.
"[h]e believed in good by law. and spouses Pursuant to Article 23 of
faith that by doing so he Ramon Dean and the Family code, such
was leaning on the side Teresita Dean duty to register the
of liberality of the law so After their marriage is the
that it may not be too wedding, respondents duty. The
expensive and petitioners same article provides, It
complicated for citizens husband shall be the duty of the
to get married." abandoned her for person solemnizing the
no reason marriage to send the
* In view of the Petitioner had a duplicate and triplicate
foregoing, we agree with suspicion; she went copies of the certificate
the evaluation of the to Calbayog City not later than fifteen (15)
OCA that respondent and wrote the City days after the marriage,
Judge was less than Civil Registrar to to the local civil registrar
conscientious in inquire regarding of the place where the
handling official her Marriage marriage was
documents. A judge is Contract; solemnized. Proper
charged with exercising Petitioner was receipts shall be issued
extra care in ensuring informed by the by the local civil registrar
that the records of the Local Civil to the solemnizing officer
cases and official Registrar of transmitting copies of
documents in his Calbayog City that the marriage certificate.
custody are intact. There her marriage was The solemnizing officer
is no justification for not registered shall retain in his file the
missing records save Upon the quadruplicate copy of the
fortuitous advisement of the marriage certificate, the
events. However, the Local Civil original of the marriage
records show that the Registrar, license, and in proper
loss was occasioned by petitioner Judge cases, the affidavit of the
carelessness on Juan Daguman to contracting party
respondent Judges part. inquire regarding the
This Court reiterates To petitioners solemnization of the
that judges must adopt a surprise, she was marriage in a place other
system of record informed by Judge than those mentioned in
management and Daguman that all Article 8.
organize their dockets in the copies of the
order to bolster the Marriage Contract
prompt and efficient were taken by
dispatch of business. It Bernadito A.
is, in fact, incumbent Yman, and that no
upon him to devise an copy was retained
efficient recording and by Judge
filing system in his court Daguman
because he is after all the Petitioner believes
one directly responsible that respondent
for the proper discharge judge committed
of his official functions. acts prejudicial to
her interests: (1)
Solemnizing our
Doctrines to remember: marriage outside
1.) Article 7. Marriage his jurisdiction; (2)
may be solemnized by: negligence in not
(1) Any incumbent retaining a copy
member of the judiciary and not registering
within the courts our marriage
jurisdiction before the office of
the Local Civil
2.) Article 8. The Registrar
marriage shall be
solemnized publicly in Response of Judge:
the chambers of the The civil marriage
judge or in open court, in of Beso and
the church, chapel or Bernardito Yman
temple, or in the office of had to be
the consul-general, solemnized by
consul or vice-consul, as respondent in
the case may be, and not Calbayog City
elsewhere, except in through outside his
cases of marriages territory as
contracted at the point of municipal Judge
death or in remote places Sta. Margarita,
in accordance with Samar due to the
Article 29 of this Code, or following and
where both parties pressing
request the solemnizing circumstances:
officer in writing in which o August 28,
case the marriage may be 1997: respondent
solemnized at a house or was physically
place designated by them indisposed and
in a sworn statement to unable to report his
that effect. station in Sta.
Margarita; without
3.) Article 23. It shall be prior appointment,
the duty of the person complainant Beso
solemnizing the and Mr. Yman
marriage to furnish unexpectedly came
either of the contracting to the residence of
parties, the original of respondent in said
the marriage contract City, urgently
referred to in Article 6 requesting the
and to send the duplicate celebration of their
and triplicate copies of marriage right then
the certificate not later and there, because
than fifteen days after the complainants said
marriage, to the local she must leave the
civil registrar of the place same day to be able
where the marriage was to fly from Manila
solemnized. Proper for abroad as
receipts shall be issued by scheduled
the local civil registrar to o That for the
the solemnizing officer parties to go to
transmitting copies of the another town for
marriage certificate. The the marriage would
solemnizing officer shall be expensive and
retain in his file the would entail
quadruplicate copy of the serious problems of
marriage certificate, the finding a
original of the marriage solemnizing officer
license and, in proper and another pair of
cases, the affidavit of the witnesses or
contracting party sponsors, while in
regarding the fact former
solemnization of the Undersecretary
marriage in a place other Pacifico Maghacot
than those mentioned in and Ramon Dean
Article 8. were already with
them as sponsors
o If they failed
to get married on
August 28, 1997,
complainant would
be out of the
country for a long
period and their
marriage license
would lapse and
necessitate another
publication of
notice
o If the parties
go beyond their
plans for the
scheduled
marriage,
complainant feared
it would complicate
her employment
abroad
o All other
alternatives as to
date and venue of
marriage were
considered
impracticable by
the parties

Another point
brought up in the
complaint was the
failure of
registration of the
duplicate and
triplicate copies
of the marriage
certificate, which
failure was also
occasioned by the
following
circumstances
beyond the
control of the
respondent:
After handing to
the husband the
first copy of the
marriage
certificate,
respondent left the
three remaining
copies on top of the
desk in his private
office where the
marriage
ceremonies were
held, intending
later to register the
duplicate and
triplicate copies
and to keep the
forth in his office
After a few days
following the
wedding,
respondent
gathered all the
papers relating to
the said marriage
but
notwithstanding
diligent search in
the premises and
private files, all the
three last copies of
the certificate were
missing. Promptly,
respondent invited
by subpoena xxx
Mr. Yman to shed
light on the missing
documents and he
said he saw
complainant Beso
put the copies of
the marriage
certificate in her
bag during the
wedding party.
Unfortunately, it
was too late to
contact
complainant for a
confirmation of Mr.
Ymans claim
Considering the
futility of
contracting
complainant now
that she is out of
the country, a
reasonable
conclusion can be
drawn on the basis
of the established
facts so far in this
dispute. If we
believe the claim of
complainant that
after August 28,
1997 marriage her
husband, Mr. Yman,
abandoned her
without any reason
xxx but that said
husband admitted
"he had another
girl by the name of
LITA DANGUYAN"
xxx it seems
reasonably clear
who of the two
marriage
contracting parties
probably
absconded with the
missing copies of
the marriage
certificate
Under the facts
above stated,
respondent has no
other recourse but
to protect the
public interest by
trying all possible
means to recover
custody of the
missing documents
in some amicable
way during the
expected hearing of
the above
mentioned civil
case in the City of
Marikina, failing to
do which said
respondent would
confer with the
Civil Registrar
General for
possible
registration of
reconstituted
copies of said
documents

The Office of the


Court
Administrator
(OCA) in an
evaluation report
dated August 11,
1998, found that
Judge committed
non-feasance in
office and
recommended
that he be fined
Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00)
with a warning
that the
commission or
the same or
future acts will be
dealt with more
severely

As solemnizing
officer, respondent
Judge neglected his
duty when he failed
to register the
marriage of
complainant to
Bernardito Yman

Madridejo v. De Leon Eulogio de Leon and Eulogio de Leon Whether or not the With regard to the
(Issuance of marriage Flaviana Perez were and Flaviana Perez, lower court erred in first assignment
certificate), married and had one man and wife, had holding that the articulo of error, the mere
child: Domingo de Leon. but one child, mortis marriage fact that the
55 Phil 1; October 6, After Eulogio died in Domingo de Leon between Pedro parish priest of
1930 1915, Flaviana lived with The wife and son Mdridejo and Flaviana Siniloan, Laguna,
Pedro Madridejo. In survived Eulogio Perez is valid Yes. who married
Ponente: Justice Villa- 1917, the registry of de Leon, who died Pedro Madridejo
Real births indicated that they in the year 1915 and Flaviana
begot Melecio Madridejo. During her Perez, failed to
* With regard to the first When Flaviana was widowhood, send a copy of the
assignment of error, the about to die, the parish Flaviana Perez marriage
mere fact that the parish priest solemnized her lived with Pedro certificate to the
priest of Siniloan, marriage to Pedro in Madridejo, a municipal
Laguna, who married articulo mortis. However bachelor secretary does not
Pedro Madridejo and the priest was not able to The registry of invalidate the
Flaviana Perez, failed to submit a copy of the births of the marriage in
send a copy of the marriage certificate to municipality of articulo mortis, it
marriage certificate to the municipal secretary. Siniloan, Laguna, not appearing
the municipal secretary Domingo de Leon, her shows that on June that the essential
does not invalidate the son by her first marriage 1, 1917, a child was requisites
marriage in articulo died eight years later. born to Pedro required by law
mortis, it not appearing In settling the properties Madridejo and for its validity
that the essential left by Eulogio de Leon, Flaviana Perez, the were lacking in
requisites required by CFI Laguna ruled that necessary data the ceremony, and
law for its validity were Melecio is Domingos being furnished by the forwarding of
lacking in the ceremony, next of kin; that the Pedro Madridejo a copy of the
and the forwarding of a marriage of Pedro and June 17, 1917, a 24- marriage
copy of the marriage Flaviana was valid, and day old child of certificate is not
certificate is not one of that such marriage Siniloan, Laguna, as one of said
said essential requisites legitimated Melecio a son of Flaviana essential
Madridejo as their son. Perez, no mention requisites
*The mere fact that the being made of the The mere fact that
parish priest failed to The issue is whether or father the parish priest
send a copy of the not the lower court erred July 8, 1920: failed to send a
marriage certificate to in holding that the Flaviana Perez, copy of the
the municipal secretary articulo mortis marriage being at deaths marriage
does not invalidate the between Pedro Mdridejo door, was married certificate to the
marriage in articulo and Flaviana Perez is to Pedro Madridejo, municipal
mortis because it does valid. The answer is yes. by the parish priest secretary does not
not appear that the of Siniloan invalidate the
essential requisites Ruling: She died the marriage in
required by law for its With regard to the following day, July articulo mortis
validty were lacking in first assignment 9, 1920 leaving because it does
the ceremony. of error, the mere Domingo de Leon, not appear that
Forwarding of the fact that the her son by Eulogio the essential
marriage certificate is parish priest of de Leon, and the requisites
not one of the essential Siniloan, Laguna, plaintiff-appelle required by law
requisites who married Melecio Madridejo, for its validty
Pedro Madridejo as well as her were lacking in
and Flaviana alleged second the ceremony.
Perez, failed to husband, Pedro Forwarding of the
send a copy of the Madridejo; marriage
marriage Domingo de Leon certificate is not
certificate to the died on the 2nd of one of the
municipal May, 1928 essential
secretary does not requisites
invalidate the With regard to the
marriage in first assignment of
articulo mortis, it error, the mere fact
not appearing that the parish
that the essential priest of Siniloan,
requisites Laguna, who
required by law married Pedro
for its validity Madridejo and
were lacking in Flaviana Perez,
the ceremony, and failed to send a
the forwarding of copy of the
a copy of the marriage certificate
marriage to the municipal
certificate is not secretary does not
one of said invalidate the
essential marriage in
requisites articulo mortis, it
The mere fact that not appearing that
the parish priest the essential
failed to send a requisites required
copy of the by law for its
marriage validity were
certificate to the lacking in the
municipal ceremony, and the
secretary does not forwarding of a
invalidate the copy of the
marriage in marriage certificate
articulo mortis is not one of said
because it does essential requisites
not appear that
the essential
requisites
required by law
for its validity
were lacking in
the ceremony.
Forwarding of the
marriage
certificate is not
one of the
essential
requisites

S-ar putea să vă placă și