Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
JANSSEN
Marriages exempt from license requirementa.
1. In articulo mortis (Art. 27, 29, 30, 31, 32)
2. Remote locations (Art.28, 29, 30)
3. Among ethnic groups (Art.33)
4. Cohabitation for 5 years (Art.34)
FACTS:
On December 26, 1928, Pedro N. Cerdea and Juana S. del Rosario
appeared before Reverend Father H. Janssen, a Catholic parish priest of the
municipality of San Jose, Antique, to have their names inscribed in the
marriage registry, which was done. On
December 30, 1928, the banns were published in his parish in San Jose,
Antique.
As the classes opened on January 7, 1929, the contracting parties asked
the defendant-appellant to marry them before that date. Upon petition of
the defendant-appellant, the Bishop of Jaro issued the following
dispensation on December 29, 1928 authorizing the solemnization of the
marriage as long as there are no legal impediments to the marriage. On
January 4, 1929, the municipal secretary of San Jose, Antique, gave the
authority to solemnize marriage. By virtue of the above-quoted
dispensation, and in view of said authority of the municipal secretary of
San Jose, Antique, the defendant-appellant on January 6, 1929, solemnized
the marriage of Pedro N. Cerdea to Juana S. del Rosario
ISSUE
Whether or not appellant violated violated section 2 of Act No. 3412,
HELD
The law does not impose upon priests or ministers of religion the duty In
holding that it is the duty of the accused to inquiring into and determining
the residence of the contracting parties before solemnizing marriage. It is
sufficient to know that the license has been issued by a competent official,
and it may be presumed from the issuance of said license that said official
has complied with his duty of ascertaining whether the woman who desires
to get married resides habitually in his municipality.
Wherefore, we are of opinion and so hold, that when a marriage is
solemnized by a church, sect, or religion whose rules and practices require
proclamation or publicity, it is not necessary that said proclamation be
made during ten days, unless said rules or practices so require.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 166859, G.R. No. 169203, G.R. No. 180702, April 12, 2011
FACTS:
ISSUE:
DISPOSITION:
The Court DISMISSES the petitions for certiorari and, AFFIRMS
the decision promulgated by the Sandiganbayan on November 28, 2007 in
Civil Case No. 0033-F.
The Court declares that the block of shares in San Miguel
Corporation in the names of respondents Cojuangco, et al. subject of Civil
Case No. 0033-F is the exclusive property of Cojuangco, et al. as registered
owners.
Presumption of marriage
HELD: Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of
Appeals in rendering Gavino and Catalinas marriage as valid and thus
entitle Ramonito and Generoso one third of their grandparents estate.
The court further states that Arts. 42 to 107 of the Civil Code of 889 of
Spain did not take effect, having been suspended by the Governor General
of the Philippines shortly after the extension of that code of this country.
Therefore, Arts. 53 and 54 never came into force. Since this case was
brought in the lower court in 1968, the existence of the marriage must be
determined in accordance with the present Civil Code, which repealed the
provisions of the former Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights,
and the rules of evidence. Under the Rules of Court, the presumption is
that a man and a woman conducting themselves as husband and wife are
legally married.
Albeit, a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage,
failure to present it would not mean that marriage did not take place.
Other evidence may be presented where in this case evidence consisting
of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the marriage
of Gavino and Catalina in 1929, that they have three children, one of
whom, Petronilo, died at the age of six and that they are recognized by
Gavinos family and by the public as the legitimate children of Gavino.
(b) The affiants stated in their affidavit that they knew Tagadan who was
left by his wife, Ida Penaranda and she has not returned nor been heard for
almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is
already dead.
Issues:
The issues are:
(1) Whether or not the aforementioned joint affidavit is sufficient proof of
Ida Penarandas presumptive death and ample reason for the respondent
to proceed with the marriage ceremony of Tagadan and Borga;
(2) Whether or not the solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del
Rosario was within the respondents courts jurisdiction.
Held:
(1) No. The joint affidavit is not a sufficient proof of Penarandas
presumptive death. Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides as
quoted, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as
provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death or the
absentee Even if the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the
absent spouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a
subsequent marriage.
(2) No. The solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario was
not within the respondents courts jurisdiction. He was not clothed to
solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. As
such, there are only three instances, which the law provides, wherein a
judge may solemnize a marriage as stated in Article 8 of the Family Code:
(2.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;
(2.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;
(2.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in
which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place
designated by them in a sworn statement to that 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.
The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered
bigamous and void, there being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar
Tagadan and Ida Pearanda.
(Re: Sumaylo and Del Rosario - Under the Family Code, even if the
solemnizing officer is not authorized, the marriage would be valid if either
or both parties believe in good faith in his authority to solemnize the
marriage.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro filed a
complaint on two specific acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit
Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of gross misconduct,
ineffiency in offce and ignorance of the law.
It was alleged that Domagtoy solemnized marriage of Gaspar Tagadan and
Arlyn Borja on September 27, 1994 despite the knowledge that the groom
has a 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriages solemnized were void.
HELD:
The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and
bigamous there being a subsisting marriage between Tagadan and
Penaranda. Albeit, the latter was gone for seven years and the spouse had
a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was dead, Tagadan did not
institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Civil Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
With regard to the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario, the latter only
made the written request where it should have been both parties as stated
in Article 8 of the Family Code. Their non-compliance did not invalidate
their marriage however, Domagtoy may be held administratively liable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Facts: Respondent Judge was alleged to have committed two specific acts
exhibiting gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance
of the law:
a) Respondent Judge solemnized the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan
and Arlyn Borja on September 27, 1994 despite the lack of a summary
proceeding for the declaration of Mr. Tagadans first wifes (Ida Pearanda)
presumptive death. Respondent states that the joint affidavit presented by
the groom confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not
seen each other for almost seven years is sufficient proof of Ida
Pearandas presumptive death, and therefore, an ample reason for him
to proceed with themarriage ceremony.
following marriage shall be void from the beginning; (4) Those bigamous x
x x marriages not falling under Article 41.
Second marriage is valid. Under Article 3 of the Family Code, one of the
formal requisites of marriage is the authority of the solemnizingofficer.
Under Article 7(1), marriage may be solemnized by, among others, any
incumbent member of the Judiciary within the Courts jurisdiction.
Respondent Judge holds jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Sta. Maria-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The wedding between Floriano Dador
Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario was solemnized at the respondent
Judges residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within his
jurisdictional area. 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.
Article 8 requires both parties to present a written request. The written
request presented addressed to respondent judge was made by only one
party, Gemma del Rosario. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside
his courts jurisdiction, while there is a resultant irregularity in the formal
requisite laid down in Article 3, the validity of the marriage is not affected.
It is the officiating official, respondent Judge, who shall be subject to
administrative liability.