Navarro vs. Domagtoy

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, respondent.

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

FACTS:

On October 27, 1994, the Judge Dumagtoy allegedly performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. Del Rosario outside of the respondent’s court’s jurisdiction.  Such wedding was solemnized at the respondent’s residence in municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within the respondent’s jurisdictional area of Sta. Monica Burgos.

For his defense, Dumagtoy maintained 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 court’s jurisdiction.”; and that Article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario was within the respondent’s court’s jurisdiction.

HELD:

NO. 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.” 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. 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.

Respondent judge points to Article 8 and its exceptions as the justifications for his having solemnized 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.