Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
only in the
accordance
in a sworn
the case at
Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge
should exercise extra care in the exercise of his authority and the performance of
his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observe extra
precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in accordance with
Article 23 of the Family Code that - It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing
the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the
marriage contract referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate.
ANTONIO MECANO V. COA GR No. 103982
DEC 11, 1992
FACTS:
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.
ISSUES: Whether or not Judge Domagtoy acted without jurisdiction
Whether or not the marriages he solemnized were null and void
HELD:
Yes. Domagtoys defense is not tenable 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. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains married to his former wife.
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, the elementary principle underlying this provision
is the authority of the solemnizing judge. 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 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. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate the
marriage.
ARTICLE 8
People v Licera
FACTS:
In 1961, Rafael Licera was granted an appointment as secret agent of Governor Leviste. In
1965, accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms. The SC held that where at
the time of his appointment, People v. Macarandang (1959) was applicable, which held that
the appointment of a civilian as a "secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and
order campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently put[s] him within the category of a
"peace officer" equivalent even to a member of the municipal police" whom section 879 of
the Revised Administrative Code exempts from the requirements relating to firearm
licenses. Later People v. Mapa (1967) was decided and revoked the Macarandang rule, the
earlier case should be held applicable.
ISSUE: Whether or not the judicial decision in People v. Macarandang have the force and
effect of law?
HELD:
Art. 8 of the Civil Code decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or
the Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These decisions, although in
themselves not law, constitute evidence of what the laws mean. The application or
interpretation placed by the courts upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the
enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely establishes
the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect.
The Macarandang rule the Courts interpretation of section 879 of the Revised
Administrative Code formed part of our jurisprudence and, hence, of this jurisdiction's legal
system.
A new doctrine abrogating an old rule operates prospectively and should not adversely
affect those favored by the old rule.
Pursuant to the Macarandang rule obtaining not only at the time of Licera's appointment as
secret agent, which appointment included a grant of authority to possess the Winchester
rifle, but as well at the time as of his apprehension, Licera incurred no criminal liability for
possession of the said rifle, notwithstanding his non compliance with the legal requirements
relating to firearm
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is reversed, and Rafael Licera is hereby acquitted. Costs
de oficio.
People v. Jabinal
FACTS:
The instant case was an appeal form the judgment of the Municipal Court of Batangas
finding the accused guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The
validity of the conviction was based upon a retroactive application of the Supreme Courts
ruling in People vs. Mapa.
As to the facts, a determined by the trial court, the accused admitted that on September 5,
1964, he was in possession of the revolver and the ammunition described in the complaint
was without the requisite license a permit. He however, contended that he was a SECRET
AGENT appointed by the governor, and was likewise subsequently appended as Confidential
Agent, which granted him the authority to possess fire arm in the performance of his official
duties as peace officer. Relying on the Supreme Courts decision in People vs. Macarandang
and People vs. Lucero, the accused sought for his acquittal.
Noting and agreeing to the evidence presented by the accused, the trial court nonetheless
decided otherwise, citing that People vs. Macarandang and People vs. Lucero were reversed
and subsequently abandoned in people vs. mapa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant be acquitted on the bases of Supreme Court rulings in
Macarandana and Lucero, or should his conviction stand in view of the completer reversal of
Macarandang and Lucero doctrine in Mapa?
HELD:
The judgment appealed was reversed, and the appellant was acquitted.
The doctrine laid down in lucero and Macarandang was part of the jurisprudence, hence, of
the law, at the time appellant was found in possession of fire arm in question and he was
arraigned by the trial court. It is true that the doctrine was overruled in Mapa case in 1967,
but when a doctrine of the Supreme Court is overruled and a new one is adopted, the new
doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on
the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.
ARTICLE 9
Chu Juan v. Bernas
FACTS:
Plaintiff Chu Jan brought suit against the defendant when on their cockfight match,
defendant Lucio Bernas was declared the winner. Each had put up a wager of P160 before
the cockfight. Justice of peace court decided that bout was a draw. Defendant appealed to
Court of First Instance praying judgment and ordering defendant to abide and comply with
rules and regulations governing cockfights to pay P160 and return the other amount which s
in safekeeping of Cockpit owner Tomas Almonte. Defendant denied allegations and moved
to dismiss cost against plaintiff. Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal without special
findings. On plaintiff's motion, an order ordering provincial treasurer and if possible,
Municipal Treasurer of Tabacco to release Deposit of P160 and return to plaintiff Chu Jan.
Proceedings was forwarded to Supreme Court by means of the proper bill of exceptions
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of First Instance ere in dismissing the case without findings
since grounds for dismissal pronounced by lower court appealed from ere that court has
always dismissed cases of this nature, that he is not familiar with the rules governing
cockfights and duties of referees; that he does not know where to find the law and that he
knows of no law that governs the right to plaintiff and defendants concerning cockfights.
HELD:
Ignorance of the court or lack of knowledge regarding law applicable to a case submitted to
him for decision are not reasons that can serve to excuse the court for terminating the
proceedings by dismissing them without deciding on the issue. Such excuse is less
acceptable because foreseeing that a case may arise to which no law would be applicable,
the Civil Code in 2nd paragraph of Art 6, provides that Customs of the place shal l be
observed and in absence thereof, the general principles of law. Therefore, the judgment and
order appealed from are reversed and to record of the proceedings shall remanded to court
from when they came for due trial and judgment as provided by law. No special finding is
made with regard to cost.
Instant petition is GRANTED. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for
the imposition of the penalty of death upon private respondents in consonance with
respondent judge's finding that the private respondents in the instant case had committed
the crime of Rape with Homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659.