Navarro vs Domagtoy

Navarro vs. Domagtoy

AM No. MTJ 96-1088, July 19, 1996
FACTS:
Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro filed a complaint on two specific acts
committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of gross
misconduct, ineffiency in offce and ignorance of the law.
It was alleged that Domagtoy solemnized marriage of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borja on September 27, 1994
despite the knowledge that the groom has a subsisting marriage with Ida Penaranda and that they are merely
separated. It was told that Ida left their conjugal home in Bukidnon and has not returned and been heard for
almost seven years. The said judge likewise solemnize marriage of Floriano Dadoy Sumaylo and Gemma G.
del Rosario outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. The judge holds his office and has jurisdiction
in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte but he solemnized the said
wedding at his residence in the municipality of Dapa located 40 to 50 km away.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriages solemnized were void.
HELD:
The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and bigamous there being a subsisting
marriage between Tagadan and Penaranda. Albeit, the latter was gone for seven years and the spouse 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.
With regard to the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario, the latter only made the written request where it
should have been both parties as stated in Article 8 of the Family Code. Their non-compliance did not
invalidate their marriage however, Domagtoy may be held administratively liable.

Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M.No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996

FACTS: Navarro is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. He submitted evidence in relation to two
specific acts committed by Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which exhibit his gross
misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law. First was on September 27, 1994 when
respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga, despite the knowledge
that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Domagtoy claimed that he merely relied on an affidavit
sworn before another judge, attesting that Tagadans wife has been absent for seven years. Second, it is
alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario
outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Domagtoy asserted that he solemnized the marriage
outside of his jurisdiction upon the request of the parties.
ISSUE: Whether or not Domagtoy acted without jurisdiction.
HELD: Domagtoys defense is untenable and he did display gross ignorance of the law. Tagadan did not
institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wifes presumptive death rendering his marriage
to his first wife subsisting. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of Domagtoy to
have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom. Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a
bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. On the second issue, the request to hold the wedding outside
Domagtoys jurisdiction was only done by one party, the bride NOT by both parties. More importantly, under Art
7 of FC, marriage may be solemnized by, any incumbent member of the judiciary within the courts
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. Noncompliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage.
NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTOY
A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
Complainant: Rodolfo G. Navarro
Respondent: Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy, MCTC
Ponente: J. Romero
Facts:

The complainant submitted evidence in relation to two specific acts committed by the respondent with the
following facts:
(a) On September 27, 1994, respondent solemnized wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F.
Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife;
(b) On October 27, 1994, the respondent allegedly performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador
Sumaylo and Gemma G. Del Rosario outside of the respondents courts jurisdiction. Such wedding was
solemnized at the respondents residence in municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within the respondents
jurisdictional area of Sta. Monica Burgos.
Respondent, in his letter-comment to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):
(a) Seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the marriage between Tagadan and Borga by stating
that he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the MTC Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming that Tagadan and
his first wife have not seen each other for almost seven (7) years.
(b) Maintains that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and Del Rosario, he did not violate Article 7,
paragraph one (1) of the Family Code, which states that Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent
member of the judiciary within the courts jurisdiction.; and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in
question.
The complaint was not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the pleadings submitted were considered
sufficient for a resolution of the case. In the foregoing the other facts are present in relation to the first
marriage solemnized by the respondent as stated herein:
(a) The affidavit was not issued by the judge of Basey, Samar. It was, however, merely acknowledged before
him;
(b) The affiants stated in their affidavit that they knew Tagadan who was left by his wife, Ida Penaranda and
she has not returned nor been heard for almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is
already dead.
Issues:
The issues are:
(1) Whether or not the aforementioned joint affidavit is sufficient proof of Ida Penarandas presumptive
death and ample reason for the respondent to proceed with the marriage ceremony of Tagadan and Borga;
(2) Whether or not the solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario was within the
respondents courts jurisdiction.
Held:
(1) No. The joint affidavit is not a sufficient proof of Penarandas presumptive death. Article 41 of the
Family Code expressly provides as quoted, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as
provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death or the absentee Even if the spouse present
has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the declaration
of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a subsequent marriage.
(2) No. The solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario was not within the respondents
courts jurisdiction. He was not clothed to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del
Norte. As such, there are only three instances, which the law provides, wherein a judge may solemnize a
marriage as stated in Article 8 of the Family Code:
(2.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;
(2.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;
(2.3) 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.
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.
The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered bigamous and void, there being a
subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Pearanda.
(Re: Sumaylo and Del Rosario - Under the Family Code, even if the solemnizing officer is not authorized, the
marriage would be valid if either or both parties believe in good faith in his authority to solemnize the marriage.)
Respondent was ordered a suspension for a period of six (6) months.