RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTO, respondent. D E C ! " ! O N ROMERO, J.# The complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, odolfo !" Navarro" #e has su$mitted evidence in relation to t%o specific acts committed $y respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court &udge #ernando Domagtoy, %hich, he contends, e'hi$its gross misconduct as %ell as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the la%" (irst, on Septem$er )*, +,,-, respondent .udge solemni/ed the %edding $et%een !aspar 0" Tagadan and 0rlyn (" 1orga, despite the 2no%ledge that the groom is merely separated from his first %ife" Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony $et%een (loriano Dador Sumaylo and !emma !" del osario outside his court3s .urisdiction on Octo$er )*, +,,-" espondent .udge holds office and has .urisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta" Monica41urgos, Surigao del Norte" The %edding %as solemni/ed at the respondent .udge3s residence in the municipality of Dapa, %hich does not fall %ithin his .urisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta" Monica and 1urgos, located some -5 to -6 2ilometers a%ay from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte" In his letter4comment to the Office of the Court 0dministrator, respondent .udge avers that the office and name of the Municipal Mayor of Dapa have $een used $y someone else, %ho, as the mayor3s 7lac2ey,7 is overly concerned %ith his actuations $oth as .udge and as a private person" The same person had earlier filed 0dministrative Matter No" ,-4,854MTC, %hich %as dismissed for lac2 of merit on Septem$er +6, +,,-, and 0dministrative Matter No" OC04I9I4,64+:, 70ntonio 0dapon v" &udge #ernando C" Domagtoy,7 %hich is still pending" In relation to the charges against him, respondent .udge see2s e'culpation from his act of having solemni/ed the marriage $et%een !aspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his %ife, and 0rlyn (" 1orga $y stating that he merely relied on the 0ffidavit issued $y the Municipal Trial &udge of 1asey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr" Tagadan and his first %ife have not seen each other for almost seven years" ;+< =ith respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemni/ing the marriage $et%een Sumaylo and del osario, he did not violate 0rticle *, paragraph + of the (amily Code %hich states that> 7Marriage may $e solemni/ed $y> ?+@ 0ny incum$ent mem$er of the .udiciary %ithin the court3s .urisdictionAB and that 0rticle 8 thereof applies to the case in Cuestion" The complaint %as not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the pleadings su$mitted %ere considered sufficient for a resolution of the case" ;)< Since the countercharges of sinister motives and fraud on the part of complainant have not $een sufficiently proven, they %ill not $e d%elt upon" The acts complained of and respondent .udge3s ans%er thereto %ill suffice and can $e o$.ectively assessed $y themselves to prove the latter3s malfeasance" The certified true copy of the marriage contract $et%een !aspar Tagadan and 0rlyn 1orga states that Tagadan3s civil status is 7separated"7 Despite this declaration, the %edding ceremony %as solemni/ed $y respondent .udge" #e presented in evidence a .oint affidavit $y Maurecio 0" Da$ado, Sr" and Eugenio 1ullecer, su$scri$ed and s%orn to $efore &udge Demosthenes C" DuCuilla, Municipal Trial &udge of 1asey, Samar" ;E< The affidavit %as not issued $y the latter .udge, as claimed $y respondent .udge, $ut merely ac2no%ledged $efore him" In their affidavit, the affiants stated that they 2ne% !aspar Tagadan to have $een civilly married to Ida D" 9eFaranda in Septem$er +,8EB that after thirteen years of coha$itation and having $orne five children, Ida 9eFaranda left the con.ugal d%elling in Valencia, 1u2idnon and that she has not returned nor $een heard of for almost seven years, there$y giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead" In effect, &udge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned .oint affidavit is sufficient proof of Ida 9eFaranda3s presumptive death, and ample reason for him to proceed %ith the marriage ceremony" =e do not agree" 0rticle -+ of the (amily Code e'pressly 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 39 of the !ivil !ode, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. "or 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 pre#udice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse." $%mphasis added.& There is nothing am$iguous or difficult to comprehend in this provision" In fact, the la% is clear and simple" Even if the spouse present has a %ell4founded $elief that the a$sent spouse %as already dead, a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a su$seCuent marriage, a mandatory reCuirement %hich has $een precisely incorporated into the (amily Code to discourage su$seCuent marriages %here it is not proven that the previous marriage has $een dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance %ith pertinent provisions of la%" In the case at $ar, !aspar Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first %ife3s presumptive death" 0$sent this .udicial declaration, he remains married to Ida 9eFaranda" =hether %ittingly, or un%ittingly, it %as manifest error on the part of respondent .udge to have accepted the .oint affidavit su$mitted $y the groom" Such neglect or ignorance of the la% has resulted in a $igamous, and therefore void, marriage" Gnder 0rticle E6 of the (amily Code, 7The follo%ing marriage shall $e void from the $eginning> ?-@ Those $igamous ' ' ' marriages not falling under 0rticle -+"7 The second issue involves the solemni/ation of a marriage ceremony outside the court3s .urisdiction, covered $y 0rticles * and 8 of the (amily Code, thus> "Art. '. (arriage may be solemni)ed by* $& Any incumbent member of the #udiciary within the court's jurisdiction; ' ' ' ' ' ' ''' ?Emphasis supplied"@ Art. +. ,he marriage shall be solemni)ed publicly in the chambers of the #udge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both parties reuest the solemni!ing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemni!ed at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect"" espondent .udge points to 0rticle 8 and its e'ceptions as the .ustifications for his having solemni/ed the marriage $et%een (loriano Sumaylo and !emma del osario outside of his court3s .urisdiction" 0s the aforeCuoted provision states, a marriage can $e held outside of the .udge3s cham$ers or courtroom only in the follo%ing instances> ?+@ at the point of death, ?)@ in remote places in accordance %ith 0rticle ), or ?E@ upon reCuest of $oth parties in %riting in a s%orn statement to this effect" There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del osario %as at the point of death or in a remote place" Moreover, the %ritten reCuest presented addressed to the respondent .udge %as made $y only one party, !emma del osario" ;-< More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the authority of the solemni/ing .udge" Gnder 0rticle E, one of the formal reCuisites of marriage is the 7authority of the solemni/ing officer"7 Gnder 0rticle *, marriage may $e solemni/ed $y, among others, 7any incum$ent mem$er of the .udiciary %ithin the court3s .urisdiction"7 0rticle 8, %hich is a directory provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or Cualify the authority of the solemni/ing officer as provided in the preceding provision" Non4compliance here%ith %ill not invalidate the marriage" 0 priest %ho is commissioned and allo%ed $y his local ordinary to marry the faithful, is authori/ed to do so only %ithin the area of the diocese or place allo%ed $y his 1ishop" 0n appellate court &ustice or a &ustice of this Court has .urisdiction over the entire 9hilippines to solemni/e marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the reCuisites of the la% are complied %ith" #o%ever, .udges %ho are appointed to specific .urisdictions, may officiate in %eddings only %ithin said areas and not $eyond" =here a .udge solemni/es a marriage outside his court3s .urisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal reCuisite laid do%n in 0rticle E, %hich %hile it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may su$.ect the officiating official to administrative lia$ility" ;6< Inasmuch as respondent .udge3s .urisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta" Monica and 1urgos, he %as not clothed %ith authority to solemni/e a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte" 1y citing 0rticle 8 and the e'ceptions therein as grounds for the e'ercise of his misplaced authority, respondent .udge again demonstrated a lac2 of understanding of the $asic principles of civil la%" 0ccordingly, the Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the la%" The legal principles applica$le in the cases $rought to our attention are elementary and uncomplicated, prompting us to conclude that respondent3s failure to apply them is due to a lac2 of comprehension of the la%" The .udiciary should $e composed of persons %ho, if not e'perts, are at least, proficient in the la% they are s%orn to apply, more than the ordinary laymen" They should $e s2illed and competent in understanding and applying the la%" It is imperative that they $e conversant %ith $asic legal principles li2e the ones involved in instant case" ;:< It is not too much to e'pect them to 2no% and apply the la% intelligently" ;*< Other%ise, the system of .ustice rests on a sha2y foundation indeed, compounded $y the errors committed $y those not learned in the la%" =hile magistrates may at times ma2e mista2es in .udgment, for %hich they are not penali/ed, the respondent .udge e'hi$ited ignorance of elementary provisions of la%, in an area %hich has greatly pre.udiced the status of married persons" The marriage $et%een !aspar Tagadan and 0rlyn 1orga is considered $igamous and void, there $eing a su$sisting marriage $et%een !aspar Tagadan and Ida 9eFaranda" The Office of the Court 0dministrator recommends, in its Memorandum to the Court, a si'4month suspension and a stern %arning that a repetition of the same or similar acts %ill $e dealt %ith more severely" Considering that one of the marriages in Cuestion resulted in a $igamous union and therefore void, and the other lac2ed the necessary authority of respondent .udge, the Court adopts said recommendation" espondent is advised to $e more circumspect in applying the la% and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the la%" !N V!E$ OF THE FOREGO!NG, respondent &udge #ernando C" Domagtoy is here$y SGS9ENDED for a period of si' ?:@ months and given a STEN =0NIN! that a repetition of the same or similar acts %ill $e dealt %ith more severely" "O ORDERED.