Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M. No.

MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996

FACTS:

On September 27, 1994, Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy solemnized the
wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, even though it is known that the groom is
merely separated from his first wife.

Respondent Judge argues that there was an affidavit stating that Gaspar Tagadan was civilly married to
Ida D. Peñaranda in September 1983, cohabited in 13 years and had 5 children. It also states that Ida
Peñaranda has not returned for almost seven years, giving rise to a presumptive death. However, the
affidavit was not issued by the judge it was presented to. It was merely acknowledged.

On October 27, 1994, he also solemnized the wedding of Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del
Rosario outside of his court’s jurisdiction. Gemma del Rosario had requested in writing that respondent
judge have their marriage celebrated outside the court.

ISSUE:

WON respondent judge erred in solemnizing the marriages of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga, and of
Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario

RULING:

Article 41 of the Family Code provides:

“A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.”

In the case of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga, a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death was not filed by Mr. Tagadan. Thus, the subsequent marriage is null and void—
bearing the subsequent marriage bigamous.

Article 7 of the New Civil Code applies to the marriage of Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del
Rosario. A judge is only authorized to solemnize marriage within his jurisdiction. If this happens, there
will be an irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage. Although it may not affect the validity of the
marriage, the official may be administratively liable. Article 8 may not apply to this case because the
marriage was not in a circumstance of 1) articulo mortis nor 2) being in a remote place. Although one of
the contracting parties had expressly requested for the place of their marriage, the authority of the
solemnizing officer shall still be complied with as stated in Article 7.