Persons and Family Relations Cases (for prelims) Principles

MARRIAGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE SANTIAGO

case applies to art. 2 (essential requisite that is consent)

Facts:

                This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija, finding the appellant, Felipe Santiago, guilty of the offense of rape and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for fourteen years, eight months and one day, reclusion temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law, requiring him to endow the offended party, Felicita Masilang, in the amount of P500, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, requiring him also to recognize and maintain, at P15 per month, the offspring, if there should be any, as consequence of the rape, and requiring him further to pay the costs.

                Felicita is the niece of the defendant from his deceased wife. On November 23, 1926, the appellant asked Felicita, who was them about 18 years of age, to accompany him across the river on some errand on the municipality of San Leonardo. After crossing the river, the appellant conducted the girl to a place about twenty paces from the highway where tall grass and other growth hid them public view. In this spot the appellant manifested a desire to have sexual intercourse with the girl, but she refused to give her consent, and he finally notwithstanding her resistance, accomplished his purpose by force and against her will.

                After the deed had been done the appellant conducted the girl to the house of his uncle, Agaton Santiago, where he brought in a protestant minister who went through the ceremony of marrying the couple. After this was over the appellant gave the girl a few pesos and sent her home. Her father happened to be away that night, but upon his return the next day, she told him what had happened, a this prosecution for rape was started.

Issue:       WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE IS VALID? WHETHER OR NOT RAPE WAS COMMITTED?

HELD:

                The trial court found that the offense of rape had been committed, as above stated, and the marriage ceremony was a mere ruse by which the appellant hoped to escape from the criminal consequences of his act. We concur in this view of the case. The manner in which the appellant death with the girl after the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had no bona fide intention of making her his wife, and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her because of duress. The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent, and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer.

                The judgment appealed from is in accordance with law, and will be affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellant.

                NAVARRO VS JUDGE DOMAGTOY

jurisprudence to issue under art. 7 and 8

FACTS:

                The complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro. He has submitted evidence in relation to two specific acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law.

                First, on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife.

                Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Respondent judge holds office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The wedding was solemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within his jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, located some 40 to 45 kilometers away from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte.

ISSUE:

                1.             Won the marriage between Tagadan and Borga is valid?

                2.             Won the marriage between Sumaylo and Rosario is valid?

                3.             Won Judge Domagtoy exhibits gross misconduct as well as inefficiency and ignorance of the law?

HELD:

                1. No. The certified true copy of the marriage contract between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga states that Tagadan's civil status is "separated." Despite this declaration, the wedding ceremony was solemnized by respondent judge. In their affidavit, the affiants stated that they knew Gaspar Tagadan to have been civilly married to Ida D. Peñaranda in September 1983; that after thirteen years of cohabitation and having borne five children, Ida Peñaranda left the conjugal dwelling in Valencia, Bukidnon and that she has not returned nor been heard of for almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead.  Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides:

                "A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

                In the case at bar, Gaspar Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife's presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains married to Ida Peñaranda. Whether wittingly, or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom.

                2. Yes as held in this case (this is the exception to the rule and the jurisprudence to this one was later overturned by the SC). The case at bar involves the solemnization of a marriage ceremony outside the court's jurisdiction, covered by Articles 7 and 8 of the Family Code. Under art. 7 marriage may be solemnized by 1. An incumbent judiciary within the courts jurisdiction. xxxxxxx.  Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both 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."

                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. Inasmuch as respondent judge's jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic principles of civil law. (supposedly this would void the marriage since the marriage lacked a formal requisite)

                3. Yes. Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and given a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

                REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS CA

under art. 3 (marriage license)

FACTS:

                The case at bench originated from a petition filed by private respondent Angelina M. Castro in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas. 1 As ground therefor, Castro claims that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of their marriage. The husband, with due summons, took no part of the case and therefore declared in default.

                On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents. Defendant Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage, license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila. They did not immidiately live together but only after Castro got pregnant, although it lasted for only 4 months. The baby was later given up for adoption to Castro's brother. The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her daughter, Castro wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer, Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her marriage. Through her lawyer's efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage.

                The city registrar states that 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 cannot be located as said license no. 3196182 does not appear from our records. The trial court denied the petition. It held that the above certification was inadequate to establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the "inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued." However the Court of appeals, As stated earlier reversed the Decision of the trial court. It declared the marriage between the contracting parties null and void and directed the Civil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas.

HELD:

                YES. At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law 4 provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid. The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.

                It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the appellate court that the marriage between the contracting parties is null and void for lack of a marriage license does not discount the fact that indeed, a spurious marriage license, purporting to be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig, may have been presented by Cardenas to the solemnizing officer.

                ARANES VS JUDGE OCCIANO

under art 3 (marriage license) and art art. 7 (judge jurisdiction

FACTS:

                MORENO VS JUDGE BERNABE

also without the valid marriage license

                she was a pregnant want woman, judge conteds that she married them out of human compassion.

               

                ROSALIA MARTINEZ VS ANGEL TAN

               

                Rosalia's contention was she was not there when the marriage ceremony was solemnized.

                No particular form from the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties must declare in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage, that they take each other as husband and wife.

                held: the marriage took place as according to witness and evidence (letters)

                MADRILEJO VS DE LEON

with regards to marriage certificates under Art. 23 (the duty of the solemnizing officer)

                With regard to the first assignment of error, the mere fact that the parish priest of Siniloan, Laguna, who married Pedro Madridejo and Flaviana Perez, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary does not invalidate the marriage in articulo mortis, it not appearing that the essential requisites required by law for its validity were lacking in the ceremony, and the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate is not one of said essential requisites.