Pugeda v Trias (may be proved by other evidence if question arises in litigation)

P – Fabian Pugeda

D – Rafael, Miguel, Soledad, Clara, Gabriel (all Trias); Romulo, Gloria, Fernando (all Viniegra), Teofilo and Virginia Pugeda

S: Pugeda seeks partition of several lands, which he alleges to be part of his conjugal partnership with Maria (mother of defendants).
Defendants on the other hand allege that the properties were inherited by them from their father (first husband of Maria) and deny the
marriage between Pugeda and Maria because there was no record of marriage in the mun record. It cited the rule that for marriages, no proof
other than a certificate of the record in the civil register shall be admitted unless the question arises in litigation, in which cases the marriage
may be proved by evidence of any kind and that the forwarding of a copy of the marriage cert is not of the requisites of a valid marriage.

F:

Plaintiff alleges that during the lifetime of his marriage with deceased Maria Ferrer, they acquired with CPF certain lands acquired from the Friar
Lands and that upon the death of Maria, he became co-owners of the properties with defendants and defendants managed the properties in
trust as co-owners. He prays that the properties be partitioned and ½ thereof be given as his share.

Trias and Viniegras OTOTH denies the claims and alleges that the properties had been inherited by them from their deceased father Mariano
(first husband of Maria) and had been in possession and full enjoyment for 10 years.

Defendants also denied that plaintiff was married to Maria and introduced a photostatic copy of the record of marriages which showed no
record of alleged marriage existing therein.

Defendants Pugea joined plaintiff in his claim that the properties were joint prop of plaintiff and defendants.

I:

W/N a valid marriage exists between Fabian Pugeda and Maria Ferrer – YES

Plaintiff and his witness Ricardo Ricafrente testified that In the afternoon of Jan 5, 1916 in the epiphany of the three kings, plaintiff and Maria
went to the office of the Justice of Peace (Ricafrente) to ask the latter to marry them. It was celevrated in the presence of two witnesses. After
usual ceremony, Ricafrente asjed parties to sign two copies of the MC and after the witnesses signed the same, he delivered one copy to the
contracting parties and another to president of sanitary division (officer then was the keeper of the civ reg). No celeb of marriage was held
despite of the prominence of the parties because plaintiff was busy campaigning for provincial board.

Other witnesses were introduced to the effect that after the marriage, plaintiff lived in the house of Maria. A baptismal certificate submitted
shows that the baptized child was the issue of Fabian and Maria.

It is also not denied that after the marriage, plaintiff cohabited with Maria until death (18 years). Lastly, in a document entitled “Project of
Partition”, was signed by the defendants themselves which states “Teofilo and Virginia, both surnamed Pugeda y Ferrer are children of her
second marriage with Fabian:

Art. 53 CC provides as to marriages, no proof other than certificate of the records in the civ reg unless such books have never been kept or have
disappeared or the question arises in litigation in which cases, the marriage may be proved by evidence of any kind.
 Sison v Te Lay Ti (CA) – Not ratified by cohabitation – dapat voluntary cohabitation

P – Juanita Sison

R – Te Lay Ti

S: A marriage was arranged by Juanita’s father as was customary among Chinese, between her and Te. Juanita refused and ran away from home,
however her father succeeded In bringing her back. She was locked in their house until the day of her wedding where she was handed a knife
and told to choose between losing her life or his father if she did not marry Te. Thus she was married to Te twice, before a Judge and the
Chinese Consul. The Court declared marriage N and V on the ground that the consent was obtained by force and intimidation, although such
vice in consent may be ratified by cohabitation, such must be voluntary. In this case, she was kept a virtual prisoner thereat and never
acquiesced.

Juanita wants her wo marriages celebrated on after another with Te to be N and V for having her consent obtained through Force and
Intinidation.

Juanitia testified that her father first brought up the topic two weeks before. Te never wooed her, she refused but her father whipped her as
often as she opposed the marriage.

Two days before, she ran away but her father came to get her with the promise that she would not be forced to marry.

However upon her return she was locked in the house. And on the morning of the wedding, her father handed her a knife telling her to choose
between losing her life or his if she did not marry Te. Because of her fear, she consented.

Juanito related that although she married Te, she considered him a stranger. He kept her prisoned in their house even if they sleep in same
room, she never occupy the same bed but sleep in the chair.

They never had sexual intercourse except for on instance, one month after their wedding in early morning when Te forced her with a knife to
submit to his wishes for which she mustered enough courage to escape from home

Te OTOH claims that the marriage was regular and lega and that she was not kept as prisoner but used to go ou often. Her scathing remarks
made him slap her and she left after when a police arrived due to the alleged maltreatment.
I:

W/N Juanita’s consent was procured through force and intimidation? YES

W/N such is ratified by cohabitation? NO

Juanitas testimony was corrob by her mother and even supported by Te’s witness. Judge Hofilena who officiated admitted on cross that Juanita
came to him shortly before marriage and confided to him that shwas being compelled by her father.

Mr Teng testified that during ceremony, he noticed that the judge was irked by the hesitant attitude displayed by bride. He also testied that
Juanita’s father solicited his help in going to fiscal to take his daughter hom during which the former confessed his daughter did no want to
marry accrdoing to his wishes.

Nowhere in record was it denied by Te that Juanita was induced to marry him only through fear and compulsion. Her father which would be the
most logical witness to refute was never presented.

As GR the law will not look behind the appearance of consent, however mere words without corresponding intention cannot create the marriage
relation. Notwithstanding formalitites there is no valid marriage where the parties do not intend to enter into the marriage.

On second point, while marriage effected by force or intimidation may be ratified, such is clear that there was no voluntary cohabitation on her
part and never acquiesced to her status.
 Vilar v Paraiso (Mayor Minister Solemnizing officer – not resigned. If resigned – authority of solemnizing affected)

P: Pedro Villar

R: Gaudencio Paraiso

S: Paraiso’s election as Mayor was challenged on the ground that he is minister of UCCP. It is important to determine whether he has really
resigned because the authority of solemnizing officer is a formal requisite for validity of marriages.

Villar and Paraiso were among the candidates for Mayor of Rizal, Nueva Ecija. He has obtained 1,509 votes (41 votes higher than Villar). Vilar
instituted a QW case contending that Paraiso was ineligible to hold office because he was a minister of United Church of Christ in the PH and as
such disqualified under RAC.

Paraiso claimed that her resigned as minister and that this resignation was accepted by the cabinet of his church in a special meeting

TC – Paraiso ineligible. VIlar cannot be declared mayor for lack of sufficient legal basis

W/N Paraiso really resigned as minister – NO

Since 1944 to 1950, Paraiso acted as minister of Rizal NE, continuously without interruption and has been renewing his license to solemnize
marriages as prescribed by the Bureau of Public Libraries; that on April 19, 1950, respondent transferred to the UCCP having been assigned to
that for years. That said license has never been cancelled, neither the head of the church no respondent requested for cancellation and that he
has been publicly known as such.

Importance of resignation cannot be underestimated, the purpose is twofold – to inform the public not only of the authority of the minister to
discharge religious functions, but equally to keep it informed of any change in his religious status for the protection of the public especially with
regard to the authority to solemnize marriages, the registration of which is made mandatory by the law.
Although Paraiso submitted certain docs purporting to show alleged resignation and its acceptance by the cabinet, the Court branded it as SELF
SERVING to serve the POLITICAL DESIGNS OF RESPONDENT to obviate disqualification. Upon examination of it it was HAPHAZARDLY PREPARED
and net with such seriousness and solemnity that should characterize the religious activities of a well-established religious order.

Declaring Vilar as mayor, having obtained second place in the election cannot be done in the absence of express provision authorizing such
declaration.
 Aranes v Occiano (Territorial is irregularity, ML is not)

P: Merceita Mata Aranes

R: judge Salvador Occiano

S: Judge Occiano was charged with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction (Judge of MTC
BALATAN but solemnized in NABUA) and without a marriage license. Held: Judge liable for solemnizing outside his jurisdiction, and acted in
gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized the marriage without the license. Under BP 129 – authority of RTC judges and judges of inferior
courts to solemnize marriages is confined TO THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION as defined by the SC. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage
outside the court jurisdiction there is a resultant IRREGULARITY in the formal requisite laid down in ART 3 FC which though may not affect the
validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to ADMIN LIABILITY.

Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize the marriage. JUDGE
OCCIANO DID NOT POSSESS SUCH AUTHORITY WHEN HE SOLEMNIZED THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER.

Petioner alleges that respondent solemnized her marriage to Orobia without the requisite marriage license at Nabua Camsur which is outside his
territorial jurisdiction

When Orobia died petitioner right to inherit was not recognized/ She was thus deprived of pensions.

Judge – Orobia suffered from stroke and hence cannot stand rigors of travel; when he discovered that the coupe did not possess the ML, he
initially refused, but due to pleas of the couple, and influx of visitors, proceeded to solemnize it. License was never delivered to his sala

Petitioner then exec affidacit of desistance that her fault for that

OCA – Judge guilty of solemnizing marriage with ML and outside juris – 5k

I – Liable? YES

R
Under BP 129 – authority of RTC judges confined to their territorial juris. Any resultant irregularity in FR – may subject to liab.

Judge should also be faulted for solemnizing without requisite ML – a marriage without ML is void and subsequent issuance cannot render it
valid.

Except on cases provided by law a ML Is quired to give authority to solemnize marriage.

Pets affid of desistance cannot exculpate judge occiano.