FORMAL REQUISITES or in the office of the consul-general, consul
or vice-consul, as the case may be, and NOT
Art 28 FC.
Art 17 CC.
FORMAL REQUISITES; AUTHORITY OF
SOLEMNIZING OFFICER
Art 4 FC.
Art 7 FC.
Art 8 FC.
Art 10 FC.
Art 31 FC.
Art 32 FC.
Art 35 Par 2 FC.
Art 3 CC.
*NAVARRO V DOMAGTOY (1996)
FACTS:
1. Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte,
Rodolfo Navarro, has submitted evidence for two
specific acts committed by the Domagtoy:
a. September 27, 1994. Gaspar Tagahan and
Arlyn Borga, despite the knowledge that
the groom is merely separated from his first
wife (gone for 7 years).
b. October 27, 1994. Floriano Dador Sumaylo
and Gemma Del Rosario outside of the
respondent’s court’s jurisdiction.
Solemnized at the Domagtoy’s residence in
Dapa, which does not fall within
Domagtoy’s jurisdictional area, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica, Burgos
(40-50 km away).
2. Domagtoy, in one of his letter-comment to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), argued:
a. Solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo
and Del Rosario did NOT violate Article 7(1)
of the Family Code, which states that
“Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any
incumbent member of the judiciary within
the court’s jurisdiction.”;
b. Article 8 thereof applies to the case in
question: “The marriage shall be solemnized
publicly in the chambers of the judge or in
open court, in the church, chapel or temple,
elsewhere; EXCEPT in cases of marriages
contracted at the point of death or in
remote places in accordance with Article 29
of this Code, or 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
(57a).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the solemnization of the marriage of
Sumaylo and Del Rosario was within the respondent’s
court’s jurisdiction.
HELD:
NO.
Marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and
bigamous there being a subsisting marriage between
Tagadan and his wife
1. Though hubby had a well-founded belief that the
absent spouse was dead, Tagadan did not institute
a summary proceeding as provided in the Civil Code
for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
The solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del
Rosario was NOT within the respondent’s court’s
jurisdiction.
1. Article 7 of the Family Code, “Marriage may be
solemnized by: (1) any incumbent member of the
judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction…”
a. Not allowing respondent judge to solemnize
a marriage in the municipality of Dapa,
Surigao del Norte since his [and the Court’s]
jurisdiction only covers the municipalities
of Sta. Monica and Burgos.
2. Article 8. Only three instances provided by Art 8: (1)
In the chambers of the judge or in open court; (2) in
the church, chapel or temple; (3) or in the office of
the consul-general, consul or vice-consul as the case
EXCEPT in cases of marriages contracted at the
point of death or in remote places in accordance
with Article 29; or were 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”.
 a. No pretense that Sumaylo or del Rosario
was at the point of death or in a remote
place.
b. Written request addressed to the
respondent judge was made by only one
party, Gemma del Rosario.
3. In this case, the solemnization of the marriage of
Sumaylo and Del Rosario was outside the
respondent’s court’s jurisdiction.
*ARANES V OCCIANO (2002)
MERCEDITA MATA ARAÑES, petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390
April 11, 2002
NATURE: Administrative case filed against
respondent judge for gross ignorance of the law.
DOCTRINE: Judges, who are appointed to specific
jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within
said areas and not beyond. 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. Further, except in cases provided by law, it
is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing
officer the authority to solemnize a marriage.
FACTS:
1. Mercedita Arañes charges Judge Occiano
(Presiding MTC Balatan, Camarines Sur) with
Gross Ignorance of the Law.
2. 17 February 2000, Occiano solemnized Aranes’
marriage late groom Dominador Orobia
a. without a Marriage License
b. at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is
outside his territorial jurisdiction.
3. Marriage null  not recognized Aranes’ right
to inherit Orobia’s “vast properties”
4. Prayer: Sanctions be imposed upon respondent
judge Occiano for his illegal acts and unethical
misrepresentations that caused her so much
hardships, embarrassment and sufferings.
5. Judge Occiano: Upon examination, he
discovered that the parties have no
requisite Marriage License and refused to
solemnize the marriage. Parties pleaded. He
proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of
human compassion.
6. After the solemnization, he reiterated the
necessity for the marriage license and
admonished the parties that their failure to
give it would render the marriage void.
Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent
judge that they would give the license to him,
but they failed to comply.
7. Office of the Court Administrator - It found
respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a
marriage without a duly issued marriage license
and for doing so outside his territorial
jurisdiction. Thus, a fine was imposed on him.
ISSUE: WON Respondent Judge is guilty of
solemnizing a marriage without a marriage license
and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction.
HELD: YES
8. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P.
129: authority of the RTC judges and judges of
inferior courts to solemnize marriages is
confined to their territorial jurisdiction as
defined by the Supreme Court.
a. "A priest who is commissioned and
allowed by his local ordinance to marry
the faithful is authorized to do so only
within the area or diocese or place
allowed by his Bishop.
b. An appellate court Justice or a Justice
of this Court has jurisdiction over the
entire Philippines to solemnize
marriages, regardless of the venue, as
long as the requisites of the law are
complied with.
c. However, judges who are appointed to
specific jurisdictions, may officiate in
weddings only within said areas and
not beyond. Otherwise, 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 BORJA-MANZANO V SANCHEZ (2001)
liability." (Navarro vs. Domagtoy)
9. Should also be faulted for solemnizing a
marriage without the requisite Marriage
License.
a. People vs. Lara: marriage prior to
issuance of the Marriage License is void,
and that the subsequent issuance of
such license cannot render valid or
even add an iota of validity to the
marriage.
b. MARRIAGE LICENSE = AUTHORITY.
EXCEPT in cases provided by law, it is
the marriage license that gives the
solemnizing officer the authority to
solemnize a marriage. Respondent
judge did not possess such authority
when he solemnized the marriage of
petitioner. In this respect, respondent
judge acted in gross ignorance of the
law.

PALMA V JUDGE OMELIO, AM (2017)

KEUPPERS V JUDGE MURCIA (2018)

FORMAL REQUISITES; MARRIAGE LICENSE

Art 9 – 34 FC
PD 965 (1976)
RA 10354 (RH Law) Sec 15.
RA 10354 (RH Law) Sec 23 (d).

IMBONG V OCHOA (2014)

REPUBLIC V CA (1994)
SEVILLA V CARDENAS (2006)
ALCANTARA V ALCANTARA (2007)
SEGUISABAL V CABRERA (1981)
MORENO V BERNABE (1995)
DE CASTRO V ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO (2008)