7/28/2019 Case Digest Batch 3.docx

1/4

AUTHORITY OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

NAVARRO v. DOMAGTOY, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 (1996)

FACTS:

-Complainant: Mayor Rodolfo Navarro, submitted evidence relating to acts committed by Judge

Domagtoy, contending that the same exhibited gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and

ignorance of the law.

First: In 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn Borga,

despite the groom is merely separated from his first wife.

Second: It was also alleged that he performs a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and

Gemma del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction since he holds jurisdiction in the MTC of Sta. Monica-

Burgos Surigao and the wedding was solemnized at the respondent judges residence in Dapa which

does not fall within the same jurisdictional area.

-Defenses:

1. Respondent judge seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the marriage betweenGaspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his wife, and Arlyn F. Borga

-by stating that he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey,

Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for

almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead.

- Judge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned joint affidavit is sufficient proof of IdaPearanda's presumptive death, and ample reason for him to proceed with the marriage

ceremony.

2. With respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemnizing the marriage betweenSumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Code which

states that: "Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciarywithin the court's jurisdiction; and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the respondent judge erred in relying on the joint affidavit submitted?2. Whether or not the respondent judge erred in solemnizing marriage outside the courts

jurisdiction.

Held:

1. The law is clear and simple. Even if the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absentspouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is

necessary in order to contract a subsequent marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been

precisely incorporated into the Family Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not

proven that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or

presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent provisions of law.

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

Pearanda. Whether wittingly, or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent

judge to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom. Such neglect or ignorance of

7/28/2019 Case Digest Batch 3.docx

2/4

the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. Under Article 35 of the Family

Code, "The following marriage shall be void from the beginning: (4) Those bigamous x x x

marriages not falling under Article 41."

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

being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Pearanda.

2. Respondent judge points to Article 8 and its exceptions as the justifications for his havingsolemnized the marriage between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside of his

court's jurisdiction. As the aforequoted provision states, a marriage can be held outside of the

judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: (1) at the point of death, (2) in

remote places in accordance with Article 29 or (3) upon request of both parties in writing in a

sworn statement to this effect. There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at

the point of death or in a remote place. Moreover, the written request presented addressed to

the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario.

More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the authority of the

solemnizing judge. Under Article 3, one of the formal requisites of marriage is the "authority of

the solemnizing officer." Under Article 7, marriage may be solemnized by, among others, "any

incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction." Article 8, which is a directory

provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the

authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance

herewith will not invalidate the marriage.

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 administrativeliability

7/28/2019 Case Digest Batch 3.docx

3/4

FOREIGN MARRIAGES AND FOREIGN DIVORCES

LLORENTE v. CA, G.R. No. 124371 (2000)

Facts:

Deceased Lorenzo Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the US Navy. On 1937, Lorenzo and Paula got

married in Camarines Sur. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed for the United

States and Paula stayed in the conjugal home in barrio Antipolo, Nabua, Camarines Sur.

On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship and Certificate of

Naturalization was issued in his favor by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

Thereafter, Lorenzo was granted an accrued leave by the U. S. Navy, to visit his wife in the

Philippines. He discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant, was living in and having an adulterous

relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente.

Lorenzo returned to the US and filed a divorce before the Superior Court of California. Then, the said

court issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce. Thereafter, the divorce decree became final.

In the meantime, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. He married Alicia who has no knowledge of thefirst marriage even if they resided in the same town as Paula, who did not oppose the marriage or

cohabitation. Lorenzo and Alicia lived together as husband and wife. Their twenty-five (25) year union

produced three children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surnamed Llorente.

Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament and bequeathed all his property to Alicia and the 3 children.

He filed a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament, wherein he moved to

appoint Alicia as the administratrix of his estate. Later on, Paula filed a petition for letter of

administration over Lorenzos estate in her favor, contending that:

(1) that she was Lorenzos surviving spouse,

(2) that the various property were acquired during their marriage,

3) that Lorenzos will disposed of all his property in favor of Alicia and her children, encroachingon her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the divorce obtained in the US was valid?2. Whether or not the will is valid?

Held:

1. Validity of the Foreign DivorceIn Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.

we held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the

Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being

considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the Court ruled

that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.

Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals, that once proven that respondent

was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van

Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from him.

7/28/2019 Case Digest Batch 3.docx

4/4

We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and

recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the

succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial court.

2. Validity of the WillThe Civil Code provides:

Art. 17. Theforms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be

governed by the laws ofthe country in which they are executed.

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the

Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws

shall be observed in their execution. (underscoring ours)

The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children by her is glaringly

shown in the will he executed. We do not wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not

covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity.

Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issues best proved by

foreign law which must be pleaded and proved.

As a guide however, the trial court should note that whatever public policy or good customs may be

involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of

foreign nationals. Congress specifically left the amount of successional rights to the decedent's national

law.