Subject Matter:

Requisites for a valid marriage

Relevant Codal Provisions/Doctrine (if given):
Family Code
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing
officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than
two witnesses of legal age.
Priscilla Castillo De Mijares v. Justice Onofre Villaluz
Adm. Case No. 4431 / 19 June 1997
Ponente: Regalado J.
Facts:

JudgePriscillaMijares
o presidingJudgeofBranch108ofRTCPasay.
o widowed by first husband, Primitivo Mijares, obtained a decree declaring Primitivo Mijares
presumptivelydead,afteranabsenceof16years(SpecialProceedingNo.9054650).
JusticeOnofreVillaluz
o consultantatthePresidentialAntiCrimeCommissionoftheVPEstrada.
June6,1995,complainantJudgePriscillaMijareschargedrespondentOnofreVillaluz,aretiredJusticeofthe
Courtofappeals,withgrossimmoralityandgravemisconduct.

January7,1994,MijaresandVillaluzgotmarried(civilwedding)beforeJudgeMyrnaVerano,Presiding
JudgeofMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtofCarmona,Cavite.Afterthewedding,bothwenthometoVillaluzs
condominiumunit.Uponreachinghome,Mijaresansweredaphonecall(inVillaluzsphone)fromawoman
whichcausedaheatedargumentbetweenthenewlywed.

Sincethen,MijaresandVillauzlivedseparatelywithoutgettingintouch.Villaluzdidnotreachout
toMijaresnorapologize.
Severalmonthsafter,MijareslearnedthatVillaluzmarriedacertainLydiaGeraldezinMay10,
1994,whichledMijarestofileaninstantcomplaintfordisbarmentagainstVillaluz.
August7,1995,MijaresexecutedherSupplementalComplaintAffidavitforfalsification
o ExhibitC,marriagecontractofVillaluzandGeraldez,whereVillaluzindicatedSINGLEas
hiscivilstatuswhenheremarried.
o ExhibitB,marriagecontractofVillaluzandMijares.
o ExhibitE,orderdecalringMijaresfirsthusbandpresumptivelydead.
o ExhibitF,AffidavitofJudgeVeranowhosolemnizedMijaresandVillaluzsmarriage.
AccordingtoVillaluz,hismarriagewithMijareswasashammarriage.
o HeonlyvoluntarilysignedtheMarriageContracttohelpMijaresintheadministrativecase
forimmoralityfiledagainsthersometimein1993.
o HismarriagewithLibradaPena,his firstwife,was subsistingas annulmenthadnotyet
becomefinalandexecutor.

Issue/s:
WON marriage of Mijares and Villaluz is valid.
WON Justice Onofre Villaluz be suspended from his practice of law.
Held/Ruling:
1. YES As all the essential and formal requisites of valid marriage under Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code
were satisfied and complied with.
a. Legal capacity of the contracting parties, who must be a male and a female
b. Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing authority,
c. Authority of the solemnizing officer,
d. Valid marriage license
2. YES - Respondent made a mockery of marriage, which is sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. He
himself asserts that at the time of marriage with Mijares, the annulment with first wife had not yet attained finality.
Worse, he remarried for the third time 4 months after marriage with Mijares after making a false statement in his
application for marriage license that his previous marriage had been annulled.
Villaluzs subterfuge that his marriage to Mijares was just a sham will not justify his actuations. T does not speak
well of Villaluzs social propriety and moral values which was aggravated by the fact that he is a former Justice of the
Court of Appeals.
Thus, the commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or
deceitful conduct. However, disbarment would be too harsh as he had been a commendable lawyer.
Dispositive: Justice Onofre Villluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from practice of law for 2 years. WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be
imposed if he commits a similar offense hhereafter.