6/29/2015 A.M.No.MTJ961088

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jul1996/gr_96_1088_1996.html 1/3

TodayisMonday,June29,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

SECONDDIVISION

A.M.No.MTJ961088July19,1996

RODOLFOG.NAVARRO,complainant,

vs.

JUDGEHERNANDOC.DOMAGTOY,respondent.

ROMERO,J.:p

The complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G.Navarro.Hehas submittedevidence in relation to two specific acts committedby respondentMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudgeHernandoDomagtoy,which,hecontends,exhibitsgrossmisconductaswellas inefficiency inofficeandignoranceofthelaw.

First,onSeptember27,1994,respondentjudgesolemnizedtheweddingbetweenGasparA.TagadanandArlynF.Borga,despitetheknowledgethatthegroomismerelyseparatedfromhisfirstwife.

Second,it isallegedthatheperformedamarriageceremonybetweenFlorianoDadorSumayloandGemmaG.del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Respondent judge holds office and hasjurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. MonicaBurgos, Surigao del Norte. The wedding wassolemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within hisjurisdictionalareaof themunicipalitiesofSta.MonicaandBurgos, locatedsome40to45kilometersawayfromthemunicipalityofDapa,SurigaodelNorte.

InhislettercommenttotheofficeoftheCourtAdministrator,respondentjudgeaversthattheofficeandnameoftheMunicipalMayorofDapahavebeenusedbysomeoneelse,who,asthemayor's"lackey,"isoverlyconcernedwithhisactuationsbothasjudgeandasaprivateperson.ThesamepersonhadearlierfiledAdministrativeMatterNo94980MTC,whichwasdismissed for lackofmeritonSeptember15,1994,andAdministrativeMatterNo.OCAIPI9516,"AntonioAdaponv.JudgeHernandoC.Domagtoy,"whichisstillpending.

Inrelationtothechargesagainsthim,respondentjudgeseeksexculpationfromhisactofhavingsolemnizedthemarriagebetweenGasparTagadan,amarriedmanseparatedfromhiswife,andArlynF.Borgabystatingthathemerely reliedon theAffidavit issuedby theMunicipalTrialJudgeofBasey,Samar,confirming the fact thatMr.Tagadanandhisfirstwifehavenotseeneachotherforalmostsevenyears.1Withrespecttothesecondcharge,hemaintainsthatinsolemnizingthemarriagebetweenSumayloanddelRosario,hedidnotviolateArticle7,paragraph1oftheFamily Code which states that: "Marriagemay be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbentmember of the judiciary within thecourt'sjurisdiction"andthatarticle8thereofappliestothecaseinquestion.

The complaint was not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the pleadings submitted were consideredsufficientforaresolutionofthecase.2

Since the countercharges of sinister motives and fraud on the part of complainant have not been sufficientlyproven, theywillnotbedweltupon.Theactscomplainedofand respondent judge'sanswer theretowillsufficeandcanbeobjectivelyassessedbythemselvestoprovethelatter'smalfeasance.

ThecertifiedtruecopyofthemarriagecontractbetweenGasparTagadanandArlynBorgastatesthatTagadan'scivilstatusis"separated."Despitethisdeclaration,theweddingceremonywassolemnizedbyrespondentjudge.HepresentedinevidenceajointaffidavitbyMaurecioA.Labado,Sr.andEugenioBullecer,subscribedandsworn

6/29/2015 A.M.No.MTJ961088

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jul1996/gr_96_1088_1996.html 2/3

tobeforeJudgeDemosthenesC.Duquilla,MunicipalTrialJudgeofBasey,Samar.3Theaffidavitwasnotissuedbythelatterjudge,asclaimedbyrespondentjudge,butmerelyacknowledgedbeforehim.Intheiraffidavit,theaffiantsstatedthat they knewGaspar Tagadan to have been civillymarried to IdaD. Pearanda in September 1983 that after thirteenyearsofcohabitationandhavingbornefivechildren,IdaPearandalefttheconjugaldwellinginValencia,Bukidnonandthatshehasnot returnednorbeenheardof foralmostsevenyears, therebygiving rise to thepresumption thatshe isalreadydead.

Ineffect,JudgeDomagtoymaintainsthattheaforementionedjointaffidavitissufficientproofofIdaPearanda'spresumptivedeath,andamplereasonforhimtoproceedwiththemarriageceremony.Wedonotagree.

Article41oftheFamilyCodeexpresslyprovides:

Amarriagecontractedbyanypersonduringthesubsistenceofapreviousmarriageshallbenullandvoid,unlessbeforethecelebrationofthesubsequentmarriage,thepriorspousehadbeenabsentforfourconsecutiveyearsandthespousepresenthadawellfoundedbeliefthattheabsentspousewasalreadydead.Incaseofdisappearancewherethereisdangerofdeathunderthecircumstancessetforth in the provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall besufficient.

Forthepurposeofcontractingthesubsequentmarriageundertheprecedingparagraph,thespousepresent must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration ofpresumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absentspouse.(Emphasisadded.)

Thereisnothingambiguousordifficulttocomprehendinthisprovision.Infact,thelawisclearandsimple.Evenifthespousepresenthasawellfoundedbeliefthattheabsentspousewasalreadydead,asummaryproceedingfor thedeclarationofpresumptivedeath isnecessary inorder tocontractasubsequentmarriage,amandatoryrequirementwhich has been precisely incorporated into theFamilyCode to discourage subsequentmarriageswhere it is not proven that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse is factually orpresumptivelydead,inaccordancewithpertinentprovisionsoflaw.

Inthecaseatbar,GasparTagadandidnotinstituteasummaryproceedingforthedeclarationofhisfirstwife'spresumptivedeath.Absent this judicial declaration,he remainsmarried to IdaPearanda.Whetherwittinglyorunwittingly,itwasmanifesterroronthepartofrespondentjudgetohaveacceptedthejointaffidavitsubmittedbythegroom.Suchneglectorignoranceofthelawhasresultedinabigamous,andthereforevoid,marriage.UnderArticle35oftheFamilyCode,"Thefollowingmarriageshallbevoidfromthebeginning:(4)Thosebigamous...marriagesnotfallingunderArticle41."

Thesecondissueinvolvesthesolemnizationofamarriageceremonyoutsidethecourt'sjurisdiction,coveredbyArticles7and8oftheFamilyCode,thus:

Art.7.Marriagemaybesolemnizedby:

(1)Anyincumbentmemberofthejudiciarywithinthecourt'sjurisdiction

xxxxxxxxx(Emphasissupplied.)

Art.8.Themarriageshallbesolemnizedpubliclyinthechambersthejudgeorinopencourt,inthechurch,chapelor temple,or in theofficeof theconsulgeneral,consulorviceconsul,as thecasemay be, and not elsewhere,except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or inremote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both parties request thesolemnizing officer in writing in which case themarriagemay be solemnized at a house or placedesignatedbytheminaswornstatementtothateffect.

RespondentjudgepointstoArticle8anditsexceptionsasthejustificationforhishavingsolemnizedthemarriagebetween Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside of his court's jurisdiction. As the aforequotedprovision states, a marriage can be held outside of the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the followinginstances:(1)atthepointofdeath,(2)inremoteplacesinaccordancewithArticle29or(3)uponrequestofbothpartiesinwritinginaswornstatementtothiseffect.ThereisnopretensethateitherSumayloordelRosariowasatthepointofdeathorintheremoteplace.Moreover,thewrittenrequestpresentedaddressedtotherespondentjudgewasmadebyonlyoneparty,GemmadelRosario.4

More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the authority of the solemnizing judge.UnderArticle3,oneoftheformalrequisitesofmarriageisthe"authorityofthesolemnizingofficer."UnderArticle7,marriagemay be solemnized by, among others, "any incumbentmember of the judiciary within the court'sjurisdiction."Article8,whichisadirectoryprovision,refersonlytothevenueofthemarriageceremonyanddoesnotalterorqualifytheauthorityofthesolemnizingofficerasprovidedintheprecedingprovision.Noncompliance

6/29/2015 A.M.No.MTJ961088

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jul1996/gr_96_1088_1996.html 3/3

herewithwillnotinvalidatethemarriage.

Apriestwhoiscommissionedandallowedbyhis localordinarytomarrythefaithful, isauthorizedtodosoonlywithintheareaofthedioceseorplaceallowedbyhisBishop.AnappellatecourtJusticeoraJusticeofthisCourthas jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as therequisitesofthelawarecompliedwith.However,judgeswhoareappointedtospecificjurisdictions,mayofficiateinweddings onlywithin said areas and not beyond.Where a judge solemnizes amarriage outside his court'sjurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down inArticle 3,whichwhile itmaynotaffectthevalidityofthemarriage,maysubjecttheofficiatingofficialtoadministrativeliability.5

Inasmuch as respondent judge's jurisdiction covers themunicipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was notclothedwithauthority tosolemnizeamarriage in themunicipalityofDapa,SurigaodelNorte.BycitingArticle8and the exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge againdemonstratedalackofunderstandingofthebasicprinciplesofcivillaw.

Accordingly, the Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the law. The legal principlesapplicableinthecasesbroughttoourattentionareelementaryanduncomplicated,promptingustoconcludethatrespondent'sfailuretoapplythemisduetoalackofcomprehensionofthelaw.

Thejudiciaryshouldbecomposedofpersonswho,ifnotexperts,areatleast,proficientinthelawtheyaresworntoapply,morethantheordinarylaymen.Theyshouldbeskilledandcompetentinunderstandingandapplyingthelaw.Itisimperativethattheybeconversantwithbasiclegalprinciplesliketheonesinvolvedininstantcase.6Itisnot toomuch toexpect themtoknowandapply the law intelligently.7Otherwise, thesystemof justice restsonashakyfoundation indeed,compoundedby theerrorscommittedby thosenot learned in the law.Whilemagistratesmayat timesmake mistakes in judgment, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of elementaryprovisionsoflaw,inanareawhichhasgreatlyprejudicedthestatusofmarriedpersons.

The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered bigamous and void, there being asubsistingmarriagebetweenGasparTagadanandIdaPearanda.

TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorrecommends,initsMemorandumtotheCourt,asixmonthsuspensionandasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.Consideringthatoneofthemarriagesinquestionresultedinabigamousunionandthereforevoid,andtheotherlackedthenecessaryauthority of respondent judge, the Court adopts said recommendation. Respondent is advised to be morecircumspectinapplyingthelawandtocultivateadeeperunderstandingofthelaw.

INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,respondentJudgeHernandoC.DomagtoyisherebySUSPENDEDforaperiodofsix(6)monthsandgivenaSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

Regalado,Puno,MendozaandTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.78.

2Uyv.DizonCapulong,A.M.No.RTJ91766,April7,1993Montemayorv.Collado,A.M.No.2519MTJ,September10,1981Ubongonv.Mayo,A.M.No.1255CTJ,August6,1980,99SCRA30.

3Rollo,p.12.

4Rollo,pp.1011.

5Article4,FamilyCode.

6Limv.Domogas,A.M.No.RTJ92899,October15,1993,227SCRA258,263citingUbonganv.Mayor,99SCRA30andAjenov.Inserto,71SCRA166.

7....RealtyCo.v.Arranz,A.M.No.MTJ93978October27,1994,237SCRA771.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation