MERCEDITA MATA ARANES, petitioner, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390. April 11, 2002.
Facts:
On Feb 17, 2000, Judge Salvador Occiano, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur, solemnized the marriage of Mercedita Mata Arañes and Dominador B. Orobia without the requisite marriage license at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction.
When Orobia died, the petitioner’s right to inherit the “vast properties” of Orobia was not recognized, because the marriage was a null. She also cannot claim the pension of her husband who is a retired Commodore of the Philippine Navy.
Petitioner prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge for his illegal acts and unethical misrepresentations which allegedly caused her so much hardships, embarrassment and sufferings.
In his Comment, respondent judge averred that he was requested by a certain Juan Arroyo on 15 February 2000 to solemnize the marriage of the parties on 17 February 2000. He was assured that all the documents were complete, thus he agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala. However, on 17 February 2000, he acceded to the request of Arroyo that he solemnize the marriage in Nabua because Orobia had a difficulty walking and could not stand the rigors of travelling to Balatan. Before starting the ceremony he discovered that the parties did not possess the requisite marriage license, thus he refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested its resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void. Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent judge that they would give the license to him in the afternoon of that same day. When they failed to comply, respondent judge followed it up with Arroyo but the latter only gave him the same reassurance that the marriage license would be delivered to his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Respondent judge vigorously denies that he told the contracting parties that their marriage is valid despite the absence of a marriage license. He attributes the hardships and embarrassment suffered by the petitioner as due to her own fault and negligence.
On 12 September 2001, petitioner filed her Affidavit of Desistance dated 28 August 2001 confessing that she filed the complaint out of rage, and she realizes her own shortcomings. She attested that respondent judge initially refused to solemnize her marriage and that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he eventually solemnized the same.
From the records, petitioner and Orobia filed their Application for Marriage License on 5 January
2000 to be issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither petitioner nor Orobia claimed it. Also, the Civil
Registrar General and the Local Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur has no records of the marriage. On 8 May 2001, petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge so the latter could communicate with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur for the issuance of her marriage license. The LCR informed the judge that they cannot issue the same due to the failure of Orobia to submit the Death Certificate of his previous spouse.
Issue:
Whether or not the Judge erred in solemnizing the marriage outside his jurisdiction and without the requisite marriage license.
Ruling:
Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P.129, the authority of the regional trial court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, 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 administrative liability.
In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage. Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license. Marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.
Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of Desistance filed by petitioner. This Court has consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from disciplinary action
WHEREFORE,Judge Salvador M. Occiano, is fined P5,000.00 pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
