Marilou Nama Moreno, complainant versus Judge Jose C.

Bernabe, Metropolitan Trial

Court, Branch 72, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-94-963 July 14, 1995
Facts:
Marilou Nama Moreno filed this complaint against Judge Jose C. Bernabe of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 72, Pasig, Metro Manila for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of law.
Complainant alleges that on October 4, 1993, she and Marcelo Moreno were married before
respondent Judge Bernabe. She avers that respondent Judge assured her that the marriage
contract will be released ten days after October 4, 1993. When she visited the office of the
Judge, she found out that she could not get the marriage contract because the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar failed to issue a marriage license. She claims that respondent Judge
connived with the relatives of Marcelo Moreno to deceive her.
Respondent denies that he conspired with the relatives of Marcelo Moreno to solemnize the
marriage for the purpose of deceiving the complainant. Respondent contends that: 1) the
Local Civil Registrar of Pasig actually prepared the marriage license but it was not released
due to the subsequent objection of the father of Marcelo Moreno; 2) he, in good faith,
solemnized the marriage as he was moved only by a desire to help a begging and pleading
complainant who wanted some kind of assurance or security due to her pregnant condition; 3)
in order to pacify complainant, Marcelo Moreno requested him to perform the marriage
ceremony with the express assurance that the marriage license was definitely forthcoming; 4)
that the contracting parties were not known to him; and 5) that both parties, were fully
appraised of the effects of a marriage performed without the required marriage license.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent be held liable for misconduct for solemnizing a marriage without
a marriage license.
Held:
Respondent, by his own admission that he solemnized the marriage between complainant
and Marcelo Moreno without the required marriage license, has dismally failed to live up to his
commitment to be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence and to his
promise to be faithful to the law.
Respondent cannot hide behind his claim of good faith and Christian motives which, at
most, would serve only to mitigate his liability but not exonerate him completely. Good
intentions could never justify violation of the law.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent is hereby ordered to pay a fine of
P10,000.00 and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more severely.
Ninal vs. Bayadog
328 SCRA 122

FACTS:

Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children
namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa,
the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal.
1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any marriage
license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5 years
exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February 19,
1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of
Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?

2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of
Pepitos marriage after his death?

HELD:

The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. They cannot
be exempted even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least
5 years because from the time of Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the time of his
marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had
separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other
that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation
was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void.

Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of rights. It can
be questioned even after the death of one of the parties and any proper interested party may
attack a void marriage.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court,
Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissing Civil Case No. T-639, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The said case is ordered REINSTATED.

BESO VS. DAGUMAN

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000

Facts:
Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by Beso. In the
Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12, 1997, the complainant charged judge with
solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and
not registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local Civil Registrar with the
following facts:
On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainants fiance, Bernardito A. Yman,
got married under the solemnization of the respondent in the respondents residence in
Calbayog City, Samar. That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant. That when
Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City Civil Registrar to inquire regarding her
Marriage Contract. The complainant found out that her marriage was not registered. The
complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the former found out that all the copies
were taken by Yman and no copy was retained by the respondent.
The respondent averred with the following rationale:
Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgent request of the
complainant and Yman. He also believed that being a Filipino overseas worker, the
complainant deserved more than ordinary official attention under present Government policy.
Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may be not too
expensive and complicated for citizens to get married. Respondents failure to file the
marriage contract was beyond his control because Yman absconded with the missing copies
of the marriage certificate. Respondent, however, tried to recover custody of the missing
documents.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated, August 11,
1998 found the respondent Judge committed non-feasance in office and recommended
that he be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000).

Issues:

The issues raised in this complaint are:

(1) Whether or not the respondent solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction; and
(2) Whether or not the respondent committed negligence by not retaining a copy and not
registering the complainants marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registrar.
Held:

(1) Yes. The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Family
Code provides that marriage may be solemnized by, Any incumbent member of the judiciary
with the courts jurisdiction. In relation thereto, according to Article 8 of the Family Code,
there are only three instances with which a judge may solemnize a marriage outside of his
jurisdiction:
(1.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;
(1.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;
(1.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the
marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to
that effect.
In this case, non of the three instances is present.

(2) Yes. The judge committed negligence. Pursuant to Article 23 of the Family code, such
duty to register the marriage is the respondents duty. The same article provides, It
shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to send the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the certificate 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, the original of the marriage license, and
in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the
marriage in a place other than those mentioned in Article 8..The recommendation of
the OCA stands.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent Judge is hereby FINED Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
infractions will be dealt with more severely.

Aranes vs. Judge Occiano

AM No. MTJ 02-1309, April 11, 2002
FACTS:

Petitioner Mercedita Mata Aranes charged respondent Judge Occiano with gross
ignorance of the law. Occiano is the presiding judge in Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur.
However, he solemnized the marriage of Aranes and Dominador Orobia on February 17, 2000
at the couples residence in Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction
and without the requisite of marriage license.

It appeared in the records that petitioner and Orobia filed their application of marriage license
on January 5, 2000 and was stamped that it will be issued on January 17, 2000 but neither of
them claimed it. In addition, no record also appeared with the Office of the Civil Registrar
General for the alleged marriage.

Before Judge Occiano started the ceremony, he carefully examined the documents and first
refused to conduct the marriage and advised them to reset the date considering the absence
of the marriage license. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors
and fear that the postponement of the wedding might aggravate the physical condition of
Orobia who just suffered from stroke, he solemnized the marriage on the assurance of the
couple that they will provide the license that same afternoon. Occiano denies that he told the
couple that their marriage is valid.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Occiano is guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued
marriage license and conducting it outside his territorial jurisdiction.

HELD:

The court held that 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.

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.

VILAR VS. PARAISO

G.R. No. L-8014 March 14, 1955

FACTS:
Vilar and Paraiso were candidates registered and voted for the office of mayor of Rizal,
Nueva Ecija. After the canvass was made, Paraiso was declared as the mayor duly elected.
However, Vilar instituted a present quo warranto proceedings before the tial court contending
that Paraiso be declared ineligible to assume office because he was a minister of the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) and such was disqualified to be a candidate under
section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code. He also prayed that he be declared duly
elected mayor of Rizal. Paraiso denied his ineligibility and claimed that he resigned as
minister of UCCP and that even if he was not eligible to the office, petitioner could not be
declared elected to take his place. The lower court favored Vilar but stated that the latter
could not be declared as mayor. Both parties appealed before the CA. However, the court
elevated it to the Supreme Court because of the conflicting issues between Vilar and Paraiso.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent, being an ecclesiastic, is ineligible to hold office.

RULING:
Yes. The Court ruled that Paraiso never ceased as minister and that the resignation he
claimed to have filed before the date of the elections is but a mere scheme to circumvent the
prohibition of the law regarding ecclesiastics who desire to run for a municipal office. If the
respondent intended to resign as minister of the religious organization for the purpose of
launching his candidacy, he should resign in due form and have the acceptance of his
resignation registered with the Bureau of Public Libraries. The purpose of registration is
twofold: to inform the public not only the authority of the minister to discharge religious
functions, but equally to keep it informed of any change in his religious status. This
information is necessary for the protection of the public. It is no argument to say that the duty
to secure the cancellation of the requisite resignation devolves, not upon respondent, but
upon the head of his organization or upon the official charge of such registration, upon proper
showing of the reason for such cancellation, because the law likewise imposes upon the
interested party the duty of effecting such cancellation. who in the instant case is the
respondent himself. This he failed to so. And what is more, he failed to attach to his certificate
of candidacy, a copy of his alleged resignation as minister knowing full well that a minister is
disqualified by law to run for a municipal office.

The documents Paraiso presented to show his alleged resignation were held to be self-
serving and appeared to have been prepared haphazardly, leading the court to believe that
these were made only to cure his ineligibility to hold office.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.