family code art1-25

8/12/2019 Family Code Art1-25

1/30

G.R. No. L-57062 January 24, 1992MARIA DEL ROSARIO MARIATEGI, ET AL., !"#$#$on"r%,&%.'ON. (ORT O) A**EALS, JA(INTO MARIATEGI, JLIAN MARIATEGI an+ *ALINA MARIATEGI, r"%!on+"n#%.Montesa, Albon & Associates for petitioners.Parmenio B. Patacsil, Patacsil Twins Law Office for the heirs of the late Maria del Rosario Mariategui.Tinga, uentes & Tagle irm for pri!ate respondents.

IDIN, ".#

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 24, 1980 in CA!"#"$o" %1841, entitled &'acinto (ariate)ui, et al" v" (aria del #osario (ariate)ui, et al",& reversin) the *ud)ment of the thenCourt of +irst nstance of #i-al, .ranch / at asi), (etro (anila"

The undisputed facts are as follows

upo (ariate)ui died without a will on 'une 2%, 193 5.rief for respondents, Rollo, pp" 11%6 87" Durin) his lifetime, upo(ariate)ui contracted three 57 marria)es" ith his first wife, usebia (ontellano, who died on $ovember 8, 1904, hebe)ot four 547 children, namel: .aldomera, (aria del #osario, ;rbana and reneo" .aldomera died and was survived b:her children named Antero, #ufina, Catalino, (aria, !erardo, /ir)inia and +ederico, all surnamed spina" reneo also diedand left a son named #uperto" ith his second wife, +laviana (ontellano, he be)ot a dau)hter named Cresenciana whowas born on (a: 8, 1910 5Rollo, Anne< &A&, p" %7"

upo (ariate)ui and +elipa /elasco 5upo=s third wife7 )ot married sometime in 190" The: had three children, namel:'acinto, born on 'ul: , 1929, 'ulian, born on +ebruar: 1%, 191 and aulina, born on April 19, 198" +elipa /elasco(ariate)ui died in 1941 5Rollo, Ibid7"

At the time of his death, upo (ariate)ui left certain properties which he ac>uired when he was still unmarried 5.rief forrespondents, Rollo, pp" 11%6 47" These properties are described in the complaint as ots $os" 1%, %%, 14% and 13% ofthe (untin)lupa state 5Rollo, Anne< &A&, p" 97"

?n December 2, 19%@, upo=s descendants b: his first and second marria)es, namel:, (aria del #osario, ;rbana,#uperto, Cresencia, all surnamed (ariate)ui and Antero, #ufina, Catalino, (aria, !erardo, /ir)inia and +ederico, all

surnamed spina, e


2/30

? ?#D#D" 5Ibid, p" @7"

Bowever, on +ebruar: 1%, 19@@, the complaint as well as petitioners= counterclaim were dismissed b: the trial court, in itsdecision statin) thus

The plaintiffs= ri)ht to inherit depends upon the acnowled)ment or reco)nition of their continuousen*o:ment and possession of status of children of their supposed father" The evidence fails to sustaineither premise, and it is clear that this action cannot be sustained" 5Ibid, Rollo, pp" %@%87

The plaintiffs elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on the )round that the trial court committed an error &" " " in notfindin) that the parents of the appellants, upo (ariate)ui and +elipa /elasco 5were7 lawfull: married, and in holdin) 5that7the: 5appellants7 are not le)itimate children of their said parents, thereb: divestin) them of their inheritance " " " & 5Rollo,pp" 14137"

?n December 24, 1980, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision declarin) all the children and descendants of upo(ariate)ui, includin) appellants 'acinto, 'ulian and aulina 5children of the third marria)e7 as entitled to e>ual shares inthe estate of upo (ariate)ui6 directin) the ad*udicatees in the euired transfer certificates of title thereto, to e


3/30

fact that no record of the marria)e euisites for its validit: arepresent 5eople vs" .orromeo, 1 C#A 10% E1984F7"

;nder these circumstances, a marria)e ma: be presumed to have taen place between upo and +elipa" The lawspresume that a man and a woman, deportin) themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a lawful contract ofmarria)e6 that a child born in lawful wedloc, there bein) no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is le)itimate6 andthat thin)s have happened accordin) to the ordinar: course of nature and the ordinar: habits of life 5ection 3 5-7, 5bb7,5cc7, #ule 11, #ules of Court6 Corpus v" Corpus, 83 C#A 3%@ E19@8F6 aurnaba v" ormen=s Compensation, 83 C#A302 E19@8F6 Alavado v" Cit: !ov=t" of Tacloban, 19 C#A 20 E1983F6 #e:es v" Court of Appeals, 13 C#A 49 E1983F7"

Courts loo upon the presumption of marria)e with )reat favor as it is founded on the followin) rationale

The basis of human societ: throu)hout the civili-ed world is that of marria)e" (arria)e in this *urisdictionis not onl: a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public isdeepl: interested" Conse>uentl:, ever: intendment of the law leans toward le)ali-in) matrimon:" ersonsdwellin) to)ether in apparent matrimon: are presumed, in the absence of an: counterpresumption orevidence special to that case, to be in fact married" The reason is that such is the common order ofsociet: and if the parties were not what the: thus hold themselves out as bein), the: would be livin) inthe constant violation of decenc: and oflaw " " " 5Adon) vs" Cheon) en) !ee, 4 hil" 4, 3% E1922F >uoted in Alavado vs" Cit: !overnment ofTacloban, 19 C#A 20 E1983F7"

o much so that once a man and a woman have lived as husband and wife and such relationship is not denied norcontradicted, the presumption of their bein) married must be admitted as a fact 5Alavado v" Cit: !ov=t" of Tacloban,supra7

The Civil Code provides for the manner under which le)itimate filiation ma: be proven" Bowever, considerin) theeffectivit: of the +amil: Code of the hilippines, the case at bar must be decided under a new if not entirel: dissimilar setof rules because the parties have been overtaen b: events, to use the popular phrase 5;:)uan)co vs" Court of Appeals,!"#" $o" @%8@, ?ctober 2%, 19897" Thus, under Title / of the +amil: Code, there are onl: two classes of children Gle)itimate and ille)itimate" The fine distinctions amon) various t:pes of ille)itimate children have been eliminated 5Castrovs" Court of Appeals, 1@ C#A %3% E1989F7"

Article 1@2 of the said Code provides that the filiation of le)itimate children ma: be established b: the record of birthappearin) in the civil re)ister or a final *ud)ment or b: the open and continuous possession of the status of a le)itimatechild"

vidence on record proves the le)itimate filiation of the private respondents" 'acinto=s birth certificate is a record of birthreferred to in the said article" A)ain, no evidence which tends to disprove facts contained therein was adduced before thelower court" n the case of the two other private respondents, 'ulian and aulina, the: ma: not have presented inevidence an: of the documents re>uired b: Article 1@2 but the: continuousl: en*o:ed the status of children of upo(ariate)ui in the same manner as their brother 'acinto"

hile the trial court found 'acinto=s testimonies to be inconse>uential and lacin) in substance as to certain dates andnames of relatives with whom their famil: resided, these are but minor details" The na))in) fact is that for a considerablelen)th of time and despite the death of +elipa in 1941, the private respondents and upo lived to)ether until upo=s deathin 193" t should be noted that even the trial court mentioned in its decision the admission made in the affidavit ofCresenciana (ariate)ui Abas, one of the petitioners herein, that & " " " 'acinto, 'ulian and aulina (ariate)ui a: pawan)m)a apatid o sa

ama " " "& 5


4/30

an action to demand partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred b: laches 5Del .anco vs" AC, 13% C#A 33 E198@F7?n the other hand, an action for partition ma: be seen to be at once an action for declaration of coownership and forse)re)ation and conve:ance of a determinate portion of the propert: involved 5#o>ue vs" AC, 1%3 C#A 118 E1988F7"

etitioners contend that the: have repudiated the coownership when the: e


5/30

&%.ELIAS ORROMEO, r"%!on+"n#.T" R"%!on+"n# $n $% on /"a.O$3" o #" So$3$#or-G"n"ra '$a+o or #" Go&"rn"n#.MAL(OLM, J.8

These proceedin)s looin) to the disbarment of the respondent attorne: are before us on the representations of theolicitor!eneral that the respondent appear and show cause, if an: he has, wh: he should not be proceeded a)ainst forprofessional malpractice" The respondent admits that, in his capacit: as notar: public he le)ali-ed the document which isthe basis of the complaint a)ainst him, and that the document contains provisions contrar: to law, morals and )ood

customs, but b: wa: of defense disclaims an: previous nowled)e of the ille)al character of the document"

?n $ovember 23, 191, Ale*andro abro and 'uana (appala husband and wife, subscribed a contract before the notar:public lias .orromeo, who was at that time a re)ularl: admitted member of the hilippine .ar" The contract in >uestionhad been prepared b: the municipal secretar: of $a)uilian, sabela" Attorne: .orromeo cooperated in the euestions are su))ested b: the record" The first concerns the points of whether or not the contract sanctioned anillicit and immoral purpose" The second concerns the point, on the supposition that the contract did sanction an illicit andimmoral purpose, of whether a law:er ma: be disciplined for misconduct as a notar: public"

The contract of the spouses, it will be recalled, was euestion, we thin there can be no >uestion as to the ri)ht of the court to discipline an attorne:who, in his capacit: as notar: public, has been )uilt: of misconduct" To the office of notar: public there is not attachedsuch importance under present conditions as under the panish administration" ven so, the notar: public e


6/30

&%.ALEJANDRO E. MENDO;A, ($#y Ju+" o Man+au" ($#y, r"%!on+"n#.R E S O L T I O N

AK;$?, '"JLM"NOwphP1

aturnino elanova char)ed 'ud)e Ale*andro " (endo-a of (andaue Cit: with )ross i)norance of the law for havin)prepared and ratified a document dated $ovember 21, 19@2, euidatin) the con*u)al partnership of thecomplainant and his wife, Avelina Ceni-a" ?ne condition of the li>uidation was that either spouse 5as the case ma: be7would withdraw the complaint for adulter: or concubina)e which each had filed a)ainst the other and that the: waivedtheir &ri)ht to prosecute each other for whatever acts of infidelit:& either one would commit a)ainst the other"

'ud)e (endo-a in his comment on the char)e purposed to conve: the impression that he was aware of the invalidit: ofthe a)reement but he nevertheless ratified it and )ave it his nihil obstat on the assurance of the spouses that the: wouldas the Court of +irst nstance of $e)ros ?riental 5where the: were residin)7 to approve the a)reement" That pretension isdisbelieved b: the 'udicial Consultant"

#espondent 'ud)e alle)ed that he relied on the provision that &the husband and the wife ma: a)ree upon the dissolutionof the con*u)al partnership durin) the marria)e, sub*ect to *udicial approval& 5ar" 4, Art" 191, Civil Code7"

Be ar)ues that to )ive the prohibition a)ainst an euidation of the con*u)al partnership durin) the marria)e

&an un>ualified and literal le)al construction& would lender nu)ator: the afore>uoted provisions of article 191" Be citesacson vs" an 'oseacson, 2482, 2@%@ and 24239, Au)ust 0, 19%8, 24 C#A 8@ as authorit: for thepropriet: of an euentl: approved b: the court"

Bowever, the respondent overloos the unmistaable rulin) of this Court in the acson case that *udicial sanction for thedissolution of the con*u)al partnership durin) the marria)e should be &secured beforehand"&

#espondent 'ud)e surmised that elanova=s complaint was insti)ated b: a law:er whose case was adversel: decided b:the 'ud)e" That speculation was denied b: elanova who also belied 'ud)e (endo-a=s version that the complainant andhis wife, Avelina Ceni-a, &to)ether with their parents&, came to the office of 'ud)e (endo-a and solicited his help in theamicable settlement of their marital imbro)lio"

Accordin) to elanova, in 19@2 his father was alread: dead and his mother was ninet:one :ears old" The: could notpossibl: have come to 'ud)e (endo-a=s office" elanova said that onl: he and his brotherinlaw, Arcadio Ceni-a, analle)ed classmate of 'ud)e (endo-a, were the persons who went to the 'ud)e=s office" .ut that version ma: beinaccurate and oversimplified, considerin) that the a)reement was si)ned before 'ud)e (endo-a not onl: b: elanovabut also b: his wife and two witnesses, amberts (" Ceni-a and +lorencio C" ono"

'ud)e (endo-a retired on +ebruar: 2@, 19@3 when he reached the a)e of sevent:" n his letter of April 8, 19@3 he asedfor a compassionate view of his case considerin) his fort:three :ears= service in the )overnment 5he started his publiccareer in 192 as a policeman and became a *ustice of the peace in 19347" Be also cited the financial predicament of hisbi) famil: occasioned b: the dela: in the pa:ment of his retirement and terminal leave pa:"

The case was not referred to a 'ud)e of the Court of +irst nstance for investi)ation because actuall: no factual issuesnecessitate a hearin) and presentation of evidence" #espondent 'ud)e admitted that he was responsible for theeuestioned document, an euidation of Con*u)al roperties&, which he caused complainantaturnino elanova and his wife, Avelina Ceni-a, to si)n"

n that instrument 'ud)e (endo-a divided the two pieces of con*u)al assets of the spouses b: allocatin) to the husband athirteenhectare riceland and to the wife the residential house and lot" The last para)raph of the instrument, whichlicensed either spouse to commit an: act of infidelit:, was in effect a ratification of their personal separation" Thea)reement in >uestion is void because it contravenes the followin) provisions of the Civil CodetQJ"NRh>wSN

A#T" 221" The followin) shall be void and of no effect

517 An: contract for personal separation between husband and wife6


7/30

527 ver: euired if there would be notrouble, respondent law:er pointed to his diploma which was han)in) on the wall and said & would tear that off if thisdocument turns out not to be valid"& The husband remarried" The respondent was suspended from the practice of law forone :ear for havin) been i)norant of the law or bein) careless in )ivin) le)al advice 5n re antia)o, @0 hil" %%7"

n .alinon vs" De eon, 94 hil" 2@@, Attorne: Celestino (" de eon prepared an affidavit wherein he declared that he was

married to /ertudes (ar>ue-, from whom he had been separated, their con*u)al partnership havin) been dissolved, andthat he was consortin) with #e)ina " .alinon his &new found lifepartner,& to whom he would &remain lo:al and faithful&&as a lawful and devoted lovin) husband for the rest of& his life &at all costs&" Attorne: 'usto T" /ela:o notari-ed thataffidavit" This Court reprimanded /ela:o and suspended De eon from the practice of law for three :ears"

n the instant case, respondent 'ud)e, due to his unawareness of the le)al prohibition a)ainst contracts for the personalseparation of husband and wife and for the e


8/30

&%.T'E 'ON. (ORT O) A**EALS, MA(ARIA DE LEON AND JOSE :I(ENTE DE LEON, r"%!on+"n#%.Anara, A/"o, (on3"!3$on, R"aa = (ru> or !"#$#$on"r.D" J"%u% = A%%o3$a#"% or Ma3ar$a +" L"on.?u$%u/$n, Torr"% = E&an"$%#a or Jo%" :$3"n#" +" L"on.

(DADA, '"

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA!"#" C/ $o" 0%%49 dated 'une 0, 198@ thedecision of the #e)ional Trial Court of asi) in roc" $o" 8492 dated December 29, 1986 and its resolution dated $ovember 24,198@ den:in) the motion for reconsideration"

The antecedent facts are as follows

?n ?ctober 18, 19%9, private respondent 'ose /icente De eon and petitioner :lvia ichauco De eon were united in wedloc beforethe (unicipal (a:or of .inan)onan, #i-al" ?n Au)ust 28, 19@1, a child named usana " De eon was born from this union"

ometime in ?ctober, 19@2, a de facto separation between the spouses occured due to irreconcilable marital differences, with :lvialeavin) the con*u)al home" ometime in (arch, 19@, :lvia went to the ;nited tates where she obtained American citi-enship"

?n $ovember 2, 19@, :lvia filed with the uperior Court of California, Count: of an +rancisco, a petition for dissolution of marria)ea)ainst 'ose /icente" n the said divorce proceedin)s, :lvia also filed claims for support and distribution of properties" t appears,however, that since 'ose /icente was then a hilippine resident and did not have an: assets in the ;nited tates, :lvia chose to holdin abe:ance the divorce proceedin)s, and in the meantime, concentrated her efforts to obtain some sort of propert: settlements with'ose /icente in the hilippines"

Thus, on (arch 1%, 19@@, :lvia succeeded in enterin) into a etterA)reement with her motherinlaw, private respondent (acaria Deeon, which e >uote in full, as follows 5pp" 4042, #ollo7

(arch 1%, 19@@

(rs" (acaria (adri)al de eon12 'acaranda, $orth +orbes ar(aati, (etro (anila

Dear Dora (acaria

This letter represents a contractual undertain) amon) 5A7 the undersi)ned 5.7 :our son, (r" 'ose /icente de eon, represented b::ou, and 5C7 :ourself in :our personal capacit:"

Hou hereb: bind :ourself *ointl: and severall: to answer for the undertain)s of 'oe /incent under this contract"

n consideration for a peaceful and amicable termination of relations between the undersi)ned and her lawfull: wedded husband, 'ose/icente de eon, :our son, the followin) are a)reed upon

?bli)ations of 'ose /icente de eon andW or :ourself in a *oint and several capacit:

1" To deliver with clear title free from all liens and encumbrances and sub*ect to no claims in an: form whatsoever the followin)properties to :lvia ichaucode eon hereinafter referred to as the wife

A" uite 11C, Avalon Condominium, ?rti)as Ave", corner Xavier t", (andalu:on), #i-al, hilippines"

." Apartment @02, ac ac Condominium, (andalu:on), #i-al, hilippines"

C" The ri)hts to assi)nment of 2 A:ala lots in Alaban), #i-al 5Corner lots, 801 s >" meters each7" 5+ull: paid7"

D" 24@0 e


9/30


10/30

?n (arch 1@, 1980, :lvia moved for the euentl: filed a *oint petition for *udicial approval of the dissolution of their con*u)alpartnership, sanctioned b: Article 191 of the Civil Code" ?n the other hand, (acaria and 'ose /icente assert that the consideration wasthe termination of marital relationship"

e sustain the observations and conclusion made b: the trial court, to wit 5pp" 44 4%, #ollo7

?n pa)e two of the letter a)reement 5


11/30

termination of propert: relationship between petitioners is concerned, unless the underl:in) consideration for intervenor is thetermination of marital relationship b: divorce proceedin)s between her son 'ose /icente and his wife petitioner :lvia" The lastsentence of para)raph 2 under &?bli)ations of the ife& une>uivocall: states &t is the stated ob*ective of this a)reement that saiddivorce proceedin)s 5in the ;nited tates7 will continue" &There is merit in concludin) that the consideration b: which ntervenore


12/30

527 ver: e


13/30

The $ew Civil Code provides

Art" 10" A contract where consent is )iven throu)h mistae, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud is voidable"

Art" 11" n order that mistae ma: invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance of the thin) which is the ob*ect of the contract,or to those conditions which have principall: moved one or both parties to enter into a contract" """

The preponderance of evidence leans in favor of intervenor who even utili-ed the statement of the divorce law:er of petitioner :lvia5(r" enrod7 in support of the fact that intervenor was mistaen in havin) si)ned uisites must concur 517 that theintimidation must be the determinin) cause of the contract, or must have caused the consent to be )iven6 527 that the threatened act beun*ust or unlawful6 57 that the threat be real and serious, there bein) an evident disproportion between the evil and the resistancewhich all men can offer, leadin) to the choice of the contract as the lesser evil6 and 547 that it produces a reasonable and well)roundedfear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessar: means or abilit: to inflict the threatened in*ur:" Appl:in) thefore)oin) to the present case, the claim of (acaria that :lvia threatened her to brin) 'ose /icente to court for support, to scandali-etheir famil: b: baseless suits and that :lvia would pardon 'ose /icente for possible crimes of adulter: andWor concubina)e sub*ect tothe transfer of certain properties to her, is obviousl: not the intimidation referred to b: law" ith respect to mistae as a vice of consent,neither is (acaria=s alle)ed mistae in havin) si)ned the etterA)reement because of her belief that :lvia will thereb: eliminateinheritance ri)hts from her and 'ose /icente, the mistae referred to in Article 11 of the Civil Code, supra" t does not appear that thecondition that :lvia &will eliminate her inheritance ri)hts& principall: moved (acaria to enter into the contract" #ather, such condition

was but an incident of the consideration thereof which, as discussed earlier, is the termination of marital relations"

n the ultimate anal:sis, therefore, both parties acted in violation of the laws" Bowever, the pari delicto rule, e


14/30

G.R. No. 4904, Mar#$n"> &. Tan, 12 *$. 71R"!u/$3 o #" *$$!!$n"%S*REME (ORTMan$aEN AN()"/ruary 5, 1909G.R. No. 4904ROSALIA MARTINE;, !a$n#$-a!!"an#,&%.ANGEL TAN, +""n+an#-a!!""".Do$no )ran3o, or a!!"an#.Doro#"o @ara+a, or a!!""".

A#D, '"

The onl: >uestion in this case is whether or not the plaintiff and the defendant were married on the 23th da: ofeptember, 190@, before the *ustice of the peace, 'ose .allori, in the town of alompon in the rovince of e:te"

There was received in evidence at the trial what is called an euired to produce witnesses of the marria)e, the presented[acarias smero as a witness for the husband and acita .allori as a witness for the wife" +ollowin) this is a certificate ofmarria)e si)ned b: the *ustice of the peace and the witnesses [acarias smero and acita .allori, dated the 23th da: ofeptember, 190@, in which it is stated that the plaintiff and the defendant were le)all: married b: the *ustice of the peacein the presence of the witnesses on that da:"

The court below decided the case in favor of the defendant, holdin) that the parties were le)all: married on the da:named" The evidence in support of that decision is +irst" The document itself, which the plaintiff admits that she si)ned"econd" The evidence of the defendant, who testifies that he and said plaintiff appeared before the *ustice of the peace atthe time named, to)ether with the witness [acarias smero and acita .allori, and that the: all si)ned the documentabove mentioned" Third" The evidence of [acarias smero, one of the abovenamed witnesses, who testifies that theplaintiff, the defendant, and acita .allori appeared before the *ustice at the time named and did si)n the document

referred to" +ourth" The evidence of acita .allori, who testified to the same effect" +ifth" The evidence of 'ose antia)o,the bailiff of the court of the *ustice of the peace, who testified that the plaintiff, the defendant, the two witnesses abovenamed, and the *ustice of the peace were all present in the office of the *ustice of the peace at the time mentioned"

The onl: direct evidence in favor of the plaintiff is her own testimon: that she never appeared before the *ustice of thepeace and never was married to the defendant" he admits that she si)ned the document in >uestion, but sa:s that shesi)ned it in her own home, without readin) it, and at the re>uest of the defendant, who told her that it was a paperauthori-in) him to as the consent of her parents to the marria)e"

There is some indirect evidence which the plaintiff claims supports her case, but which we thin, when properl:considered, is not entitled to much wei)ht" The plaintiff at the time was visitin), in the town of alompon, her marriedbrother and was there for about two wees" The wife of her brother, #osario .a:ot, testified that the plaintiff never left thehouse e


15/30

The other testimon: of acita .allori is severel: critici-ed b: counsel for the appellant in his brief" t appears that durin)her first e


16/30

A$! believe it is better for :ou to )o to ?rmoc on unda: of the steamer #osa, for the purpose of asin) m: father=spermission for our marria)e, and in case he fails to )ive it, then we shall do what we deem proper, and, if he does notwish us to marr: without his permission, :ou must re>uest his consent"

Tell me who said that m: sister in law nows that we are civill: married6 m: brother ill treatment is a matter of noimportance, as ever: thin) ma: be carried out, with patience"

t was proven at the trial that the defendant did )o to ?rmoc on the steamer #osa as indicated in this letter, and that theplaintiff was on the same boat" The plaintiff testified, however, that she had no communication with the defendant durin)the vo:a)e" The plaintiff and the defendant never lived to)ether as husband and wife, and upon her arrival in ?rmoc, afterconsultin) with her famil:, she went to Cebu and commenced this action, which was brou)ht for the purpose of procurin)the cancellation of the certificate of marria)e and for dama)es" The evidence stron)l: preponderates in favor of thedecision of the court below to the effect that the plaintiff appeared before the *ustice of the peace at the time named"

t is claimed b: the plaintiff that what too place before the *ustice of the peace, even admittin) all that the witnesses forthe defendant testified to, did not constitute a le)al marria)e" !eneral orders, $o" %8, section %, is as follows

$o particular form from the ceremon: of marria)e is re>uired, but the parties must declare in the presence of the personsolemni-in) the marria)e, that the: tae each other as husband and wife"

[acarias smero, one of the witnesses, testified that upon the occasion in >uestion the *ustice of the peace said nothin)until after the document was si)ned and then addressin) himself to the plaintiff and the defendant said, &Hou are married"&The petition si)ned the plaintiff and defendant contained a positive statement that the: had mutuall: a)reed to be married

and the: ased the *ustice of the peace to solemni-e the marria)e" The document si)ned b: the plaintiff, the defendant,and the *ustice of the peace, stated that the: ratified under oath, before the *ustice, the contents of the petition and thatwitnesses of the marria)e were produced" A mort)a)e too place as shown b: the certificate of the *ustice of the peace,si)ned b: both contractin) parties, which certificates )ives rise to the presumption that the officer authori-ed the marria)ein due form, the parties before the *ustice of the peace declarin) that the: too each other as husband and wife, unlessthe contrar: is proved, such presumption bein) corroborated in this case b: the admission of the woman to the effect thatshe had contracted the marria)e certified to in the document si)ned b: her, which admission can onl: mean the partiesmutuall: a)reed to unite in marria)e when the: appeared and si)ned the said document which so states before the *usticeof the peace who authori-ed the same" t was proven that both the plaintiff and the defendant were able to read and writethe panish lan)ua)e, and that the: new the contents of the document which the: si)ned6 and under the circumstancesin this particular case were satisfied, and so hold, that what too place before the *ustice of the peace on this occasionamounted to a le)al marria)e"

The defendant=s ori)inal answer was a )eneral denial of the alle)ations contained in the complaint" Amon) thesealle)ations was a statement that the parties had obtain previousl: the consent of the plaintiff=s parents" The defendant wasafterwards allowed to amend his answer so that it was a denial of the alle)ations of the complaint e


17/30

# C;#A(, '"

Complainants 'uv: $" Cosca, dmundo ." eralta, #amon C" ambo, and Apollo /illamora, are teno)rapher ,nterpreter , Cler , and rocess erver, respectivel:, of the (unicipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines ur"#espondents 'ud)e ucio " ala:pa:on, 'r" and $elia ." smeralda.aro: are respectivel: the residin) 'ud)e andCler of Court of the same court"

n an administrative complaint filed with the ?ffice of the Court Administrator on ?ctober 3, 1992, herein respondents werechar)ed with the followin) offenses, to wit 517 ille)al solemni-ation of marria)e6 527 falsification of the monthl: reports ofcases6 57 briber: in consideration of an appointment in the court6 547 nonissuance of receipt for cash bond received6 537infidelit: in the custod: of detained prisoners6 and 5%7 re>uirin) pa:ment of filin) fees from euentl: formali-ed their marria)e b:securin) a marria)e license and e


18/30

2" +alsification of monthl: report for 'ul:, 1991 re)ardin) the number of marria)es solemni-ed and the number ofdocuments notari-ed"

t is alle)ed that respondent *ud)e made it appear that he solemni-ed seven 5@7 marria)es in the month of 'ul:, 1992,when in truth he did not do so or at most those marria)es were null and void6 that respondents liewise made it appearthat the: have notari-ed onl: si< 5%7 documents for 'ul:, 1992, but the $otarial #e)ister will show that there were onehundred thirteen 5117 documents which were notari-ed durin) that month6 and that respondents reported a notarial fee ofonl: 18"30 for each document, althou)h in fact the: collected 20"00 therefor and failed to account for the difference"

#espondent .aro: contends, however, that the marria)e re)istr: where all marria)es celebrated b: respondent *ud)e areentered is under the e


19/30

#espondent *ud)e contends that Criminal Case $o" 348 was archieved for failure of the bondsman to deliver the bod: ofthe accused in court despite notice6 and that he has nothin) to do with the pa:ment of the cash bond as this is the dut: ofthe cler of court"

3" nfidelit: in the custod: of prisoners

Complainants contend that respondent *ud)e usuall: )ot detention prisoners to wor in his house, one of whom was Aleuate household help6 and that he had to order the case archived because it had been pendin) for more than si< 5%7months and the accused therein remained at lar)e"

%" ;nlawful collection of docet fees

+inall:, respondents are char)ed with collectin) docet fees from the #ural .an of Tinambac, Camarines ur, nc"althou)h such entit: is e


20/30

ith respect to the photo)raphs which show that he solemni-ed the marria)e of .oca:a and .esmonte, 'ud)eala:pa:on eualification of the contractin) parties who mi)ht ha5ve7 euirement"

?n (a: 2, 1992, however, after this case was alread: filed, 'ud)e ala:pa:on married a)ain Abellano and dralin, thistime with a marria)e license 5


21/30

their marria)e 5


22/30

The monthl: report of cases of the (TC of Tinambac, Camarines ur for 'ul:, 1992 both si)ned b: the respondents, showthat for said month there were si< 5%7 documents notari-ed b: 'ud)e ala:pa:on in his capacit: as


23/30

(TC of Tinambac dated 'anuar: 20, 1992 shows that on that date .aro: informed the personnel of the court that she wastain) over the functions she assi)ned to ambo, particularl: the collection of le)al fees 5


24/30

did not )ive her a receipt for the 1,000"00 cash bond she deposited 5uired to e


25/30

to the number of documents notari-ed, it is respectfull: recommended that he be imposed a fine of T$ TB?;A$D510,000"007 ? with a warnin) that the same or similar offenses will be more severel: dealt with"

The fact that 'ud)e ala:pa:on did not si)n the marria)e contracts or certificates of those marria)es he solemni-edwithout a marria)e license, there were no dates placed in the marria)e contracts to show when the: were solemni-ed, thecontractin) parties were not furnished their marria)e contracts and the ocal Civil #e)istrar was not bein) sent an: cop:of the marria)e contract, will not absolve him from liabilit:" .: solemni-in) alone a marria)e without a marria)e license heas the solemni-in) officer is the one responsible for the irre)ularit: in not compl:in) 5with7 the formal re>u5i7sites ofmarria)e and under Article 457 of the +amil: Code of the hilippines, he shall be civill:, criminall: and administrativel:liable"

'ud)e ala:pa:on is liewise liable for his ne)li)ence or failure to compl: with his dut: of closel: supervisin) his cler ofcourt in the performance of the latter=s duties and functions, particularl: the preparation of the monthl: report of cases5.endesula vs" a:a, 38 C#A 1%7" Bis euirin) the #ural .an of Tinambac, Camarines ur to pa: filin) fees on+ebruar: 4, 1992 for collection cases filed a)ainst farmers in the amount of +our Bundred 5400"007 esos, but turnin)over said amount to the (unicipal Treasurer onl: on (arch 12, 1992, it is respectfull: recommended that said respondentcler of court $elia smeralda.aro: be dismissed from the service"

t is provided that &ithdrawal of court deposits shall be b: the cler of court who shall issue official receipt to the

provincial, cit: or municipal treasurer for the amount withdrawn" Court deposits cannot be withdrawn e


26/30

e here emphasi-e once a)ain our ad*uration that the conduct and behavior of ever:one connected with an officechar)ed with the dispensation of *ustice, from the presidin) *ud)e to the lowliest cler, should be circumscribed with theheav: burden of responsibilit:" Bis conduct, at all times, must not onl: be characteri-ed b: propriet: and decorum but,above all else, must be be:ond suspicion" ver: emplo:ee should be an eualification as to ran or position,from the *ud)e to the least of its personnel, the: bein) standardbearers of the euisites shall )enerall: render the marria)e void ab initio and that, while anirre)ularit: in the formal re>uisites shall not affect the validit: of the marria)e, the part: or parties responsible for theirre)ularit: shall be civill:, criminall: and administrativel: liable" 8

The civil aspect is addressed to the contractin) parties and those affected b: the ille)al marria)es, and what we areprovidin) for herein pertains to the administrative liabilit: of respondents, all without pre*udice to their criminalresponsibilit:" The #evised enal Code provides that &5p7riests or ministers of an: reli)ious denomination or sect, or civilauthorities who shall perform or authori-e an: ille)al marria)e ceremon: shall be punished in accordance with theprovisions of the (arria)e aw"& 9 This is of course, within the province of the prosecutorial a)encies of the !overnment"

The recommendation with respect to the administrative sanction to be imposed on respondent *ud)e should, therefore, bemodified" +or one, with respect to the char)e of ille)al solemni-ation of marria)es, it does appear that he had not taen toheart, but actuall: trifled with, the law=s concern for the institution of marria)e and the le)al effects flowin) from civil status

This, and his undeniable participation in the other offenses char)ed as hereinbefore narrated in detail, approuire ahi)her penalt:"

B#+?#, the Court hereb: imposes a +$ of 20,000"00 on respondent 'ud)e ucio " ala:pa:on" 'r", with astern warnin) that an: repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future will definitel: be severel: dealt with"#espondent $elia smeralda.aro: is hereb: D(D from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits andwith pre*udice to emplo:ment in an: branch, a)enc: or instrumentalit: of the !overnment, includin) )overnmentowned orcontrolled corporations"

et copies of this decision be spread on their records and furnished to the ?ffice of the ?mbudsman for appropriateaction"

? ?#D#D"

A.M. No. MTJ-96-10. Juy 19, 1996B


27/30

RODOL)O G. NA:ARRO, 3o!a$nan#, &%. JDGE 'ERNANDO (. DOMAGTOuilla, (unicipal Trial 'ud)e of .ase:, amar"EF The affidavit was not issued b: the latter

*ud)e, as claimed b: respondent *ud)e, but merel: acnowled)ed before him" n their affidavit, the affiants stated thatthe: new !aspar Ta)adan to have been civill: married to da D" eJaranda in eptember 1986 that after thirteen :earsof cohabitation and havin) borne f ive children, da eJaranda left the con*u)al dwellin) in /alencia, .uidnon and that shehas not returned nor been heard of for almost seven :ears, thereb: )ivin) rise to the presumption that she is alread:dead"

n effect, 'ud)e Doma)to: maintains that the aforementioned *oint affidavit is sufficient proof of da eJaranda=spresumptive death, and ample reason for him to proceed with the marria)e ceremon:" e do not a)ree"

Article 41 of the +amil: Code euent marria)e, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive :ears and the spousepresent had a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was alread: dead" n case of disappearance where there isdan)er of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 91 of the Civil Code, an absence of onl:two :ears shall be sufficient"


28/30

+or the purpose of contractin) the subse>uent marria)e under the precedin) para)raph, the spouse present must institutea summar: proceedin) as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, withoutpre*udice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse"& 5mphasis added"7

There is nothin) ambi)uous or difficult to comprehend in this provision" n fact, the law is clear and simple" ven if thespouse present has a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was alread: dead, a summar: proceedin) for thedeclaration of presumptive death is necessar: in order to contract a subse>uent marria)e, a mandator: re>uirementwhich has been precisel: incorporated into the +amil: Code to discoura)e subse>uent marria)es where it is not proventhat the previous marria)e has been dissolved or a missin) spouse is factuall: or presumptivel: dead, in accordance withpertinent provisions of law"

n the case at bar, !aspar Ta)adan did not institute a summar: proceedin) for the declaration of his first wife=spresumptive death" Absent this *udicial declaration, he remains married to da eJaranda" hether wittin)l:, orunwittin)l:, it was manifest error on the part of respondent *ud)e to have accepted the *oint affidavit submitted b: the)room" uch ne)lect or i)norance of the law has resulted in a bi)amous, and therefore void, marria)e" ;nder Article 3of the +amil: Code, &The followin) marria)e shall be void from the be)innin) 547 Those bi)amous < < < marria)es notfallin) under Article 41"&

The second issue involves the solemni-ation of a marria)e ceremon: outside the court=s *urisdiction, covered b: Articles @and 8 of the +amil: Code, thus

&Art" @" (arria)e ma: be solemni-ed b:

517 An: incumbent member of the *udiciar: within the court=s *urisdiction6

< < < < < < uisites of the law arecomplied with" Bowever, *ud)es who are appointed to specific *urisdictions, ma: officiate in weddin)s onl: within saidareas and not be:ond" here a *ud)e solemni-es a marria)e outside his court=s *urisdiction, there is a resultantirre)ularit: in the formal re>uisite laid down in Article , which while it ma: not affect the validit: of the marria)e, ma:sub*ect the officiatin) official to administrative liabilit:"E3F

nasmuch as respondent *ud)e=s *urisdiction covers the municipalities of ta" (onica and .ur)os, he was not clothed withauthorit: to solemni-e a marria)e in the municipalit: of Dapa, uri)ao del $orte" .: citin) Article 8 and the e


29/30

Accordin)l:, the Court finds respondent to have acted in )ross i)norance of the law" The le)al principles applicable in thecases brou)ht to our attention are elementar: and uncomplicated, promptin) us to conclude that respondent=s failure toappl: them is due to a lac of comprehension of the law"

The *udiciar: should be composed of persons who, if not euestion resulted in a bi)amous union and therefore void, and the other laced the necessar: authorit: ofrespondent *ud)e, the Court adopts said recommendation" #espondent is advised to be more circumspect in appl:in) thelaw and to cultivate a deeper understandin) of the law"

$ / ?+ TB +?#!?$!, respondent 'ud)e Bernando C" Doma)to: is hereb: ;$DD for a period of si< 5%7months and )iven a T#$ A#$$! that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severel:"

? ?#D#D"

#e)alado 5Chairman7, uno, (endo-a, and Torres, 'r", ''", concur"

RE*LI( :S. (A 26 S(RA 257+ACT


30/30

#espondent An)elina (" Castro and dwin +" Cardenas were married in a civil ceremon: performed b: a Cit: Court'ud)e of asi) Cit: and was celebrated without the nowled)e of Castro=s parents"Defendant Cardenas personall:attended the procurin) of the documents re>uired for the celebration of the marria)e, includin) the procurement of themarria)e license"

The couple did not immediatel: live to)ether as husband and wife since the marria)e was unnown to Castro=s parents"The: decided to live to)ether when Castro discovered she was pre)nant" The cohabitation lasted onl: for four months"Thereafter, the couple parted wa:s" Desirin) to follow her dau)hter in the ;", Castro wanted to put in order he maritalstatus before leavin) for the ;"" he then discovered that there was no marria)e license issued to Cardenas prior to thecelebration of their marria)e as certified b: the Civil #e)istrar of asi), (etro (anila"

#espondent then filed a petition with the #TC of Kue-on Cit: seein) for the *udicial declaration of nullit: of her marria)eclaimin) that no marria)e license was ever issued to them prior to the solemni-ation of their marria)e"

The trial court denied the petition holdin) that the certification was inade>uate to establish the alle)ed nonissuance of amarria)e license prior to the celebration of the marria)e between the parties" t ruled that the &inabilit: of the certif:in)official to locate the marria)e license is not conclusive to show that there was no marria)e license issued" ?n appeal, thedecision of the trial court was reversed"

;s the marria)e validZ s there such a thin) as a &secret marria)e&Z

BDAt the time of the sub*ect marria)e was solemni-ed on 'une 24, 19@0, the law )overnin) marital relations was the $ewCivil Code" The law provides that no marria)e license shall be solemni-ed without a marria)e license first issued b: thelocal civil re)istrar" .ein) one of the essential re>uisites of a valid marria)e, absence of a license would render themarria)e void ab initio"

t will be remembered that the sub*ect marria)e was a civil ceremon: performed b: a *ud)e of a cit: court" The sub*ectmarria)e is one of those commonl: nown as a &secret marria)e& a le)all: none

family code art1-25

Documents