Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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.
A. Void Marriages
a. General Rule
FC 4 – Absence of any essential of formal render marriage VAB except 35(2)
Defect of any of essential not affect validity
b. Absence of requisites
FC 45 – ff void
(1) Contracted by any party below 18 YO even with consent
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless contracted either or both
in GF that solemn has auth
(3) Those solem without license except
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under article 41
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to identity of other
(6) Those subsequent marriages void under 53
Cf FC 234(repealed by RA 6809) – Emancipation takes place by attainment of age of majority, unless otherwise
provided – it is 21 years
Also takes place:
(1) By marriage of the minor
(2) By recording in civ reg of an agreement in a PI executed by the parent execising parental authority and the
minor at least 18 years of age
Such is irrevocable
c. Bigamous and Polygamous marriages
FC 35 – the ff marriages void from the beginning
-Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Art 41
FC 39 – Action or defense of dec of absolute nullity not prescribe
FC 40 – The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoke ofr purposes of remarriage on the basis SOLELY
OF A FINAL JUDGEMENT declaring marriage void.
FC 41 – Marriage contracted during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be N and V, UNLESS before celeb of
subsequent marriage:
Prior spouse absent for 4 consec years and has well founded belief that sps dead
In case of disappearance under Art 391 – absence of only TWO YEARS
For purposes of contracting marriage under the preceding – spouse must institute a summary proceeding for
DEC of PRESUMPTIVE DEATH of absent
FC 44 – If both sps of subs marriage acted in BF, said marriage shall be VAI and all donations by reason of marriage
and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law
RPC 349 – Bigamy, the penalty of PM shall be imposed on any who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage
before the former has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
judgment
I – w/n Lilia could present evidence on those facts – NO – real issue is status of first marriage to second (voidable and
void)
R – No need to prove because assuming that there is force- first is not void but merely voidable hence second is void.
Assuming there is marriage, then there is no JDN thus second marriage still void.
I – W/N Pending civil case for annulment raises prejudicial question to merit suspension for crim case? NO
R
Requisites of Prejud question do not obtain here – the issue is on nullity of second marriage is not determinative of
guilt or innocence of crim case for bigamy. It was Donato’s second wife who filed complaint for annulment on ground
that her consent obtained through deceit.
Landico v Relova applies not De La Cruz v Ejercito – Landico ruled that mere fact that there are action to annul
marriages entered into by accused in bigamy not mean prejudicial questions arises – in order for it to arise it must
show that PETITIONERS CONSENT WAS OBTAINED THROUGH DURESS FORCE AND INTIMIDATION that his
act in second marriage was involuntary.
F – Jerry Cantor left wife Maria Fe Espinosa Cantor after a violent quarrel. After more than 4 years of not seeing or
hearing from Jerry, Maria Fe filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death. She alleged that she conducted
diligent search of husband and exerted eearnest efforts. RTC GRANTED. OSG filed present petition
H – W/N one has WFB depends on unique set of circumstance and that there is no set standard or procedure in
determining the same. Maria Fe’s alleged WFB arose when
(1) Jerry’s relatives and friends could not give her info on whereabouts
(2) She did not find Jerrys name in patients directory whenever she went to a hospital
Here it appears she did not actively look for him Her search far from diligent. Where it not for the FINALITY OF
RTC RULING – declaration should have been recalled.
CASES ENDS HERE
FC 42 – subsequent marriage referred in preceding automatically terminated upon affidavit of reappearance of absent
sps unless there is a judgment annulling prebious VAI
Sworn statement of fact and circ of reap recorded in Civ reg with due notice to sps of subsequent marriage and
without prejudice to fact of reappearance
FC 44 0 If both sps of subsequent marriage acted in BF marriage VAI and all donations revoked by op of law
CC 390 – Seven years absence presumed dead for all except succession
Absentee not dead for succession until 10 years except if 75 years old absence of 5 years sufficient on succession
FC 101 – if spouse without JC abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obli – aggrieved spouse may apply
for receivership, Jud Sep of prop or auth to be sole admin
Obli to family refer to
Spouse deemed abandoned when left without intention of returning
3 months presumption PF
f. Psychological Incapacity
FC 36 marriage contracted at time was psych incap to comply with essential marital obli is VOID even if MANIFEST
ONLY AFTER SOLEMN
CF
FC 68 – Husband and wife obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidenlity and render mutual help
and support
FC 69 – husband and wife fix family domicile in disagreement – court shall decide
Court may exempt one sps from living with other if latter should live abroad or compeeling reasons
Not apply if incompatible with solidarity of family
FC 70 – sps jointly resp for support – expenses paid from community, and in absence from income and fruits of
separate, in case of insuff, separate prop
FC 71 – management of houself duty of both sps, expenses in acc with 70
FC 72 – when one sps neglects his or her duties to conjugal union or commit acts bring dishonor or injury, aggrieved
may apply to court
FC 73 – either sps may exercises any legit profession occ, business, activity without consent of other
Latter may object on valid serious and moral grounds
In case of disagree – court decide if
-objection proper
-benefit occurred to family prior to object. If benefit accrued pruor to obli – resulting obli enforced against separate rop
of sps
Prior not affect rights of creditors in GF
g. a