Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

\Aranes v Occiano (Territorial is irregularity, ML is not)

Admin ax versus Judge Occiano

P: Merceita Mata Aranes

R: judge Salvador Occiano

S: Judge Occiano was charged with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction (Judge of MTC
BALATAN but solemnized in NABUA) and without a marriage license. Held: Judge liable for solemnizing outside his jurisdiction, and acted in
gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized the marriage without the license. Under BP 129 – authority of RTC judges and judges of inferior
courts to solemnize marriages is confined TO THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION as defined by the SC. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage
outside the court jurisdiction there is a resultant IRREGULARITY in the formal requisite laid down in ART 3 FC which though may not affect the
validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to ADMIN LIABILITY.

Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize the marriage. JUDGE

Petioner alleges that respondent solemnized her marriage to Orobia without the requisite marriage license at Nabua Camsur which is outside
his territorial jurisdiction

When Orobia died petitioner right to inherit was not recognized/ She was thus deprived of pensions.

Judge – Orobia suffered from stroke and hence cannot stand rigors of travel; when he discovered that the coupe did not possess the ML, he
initially refused, but due to pleas of the couple, and influx of visitors, proceeded to solemnize it. License was never delivered to his sala

Petitioner then exec affidacit of desistance that her fault for that

OCA – Judge guilty of solemnizing marriage with ML and outside juris – 5k

I – Liable? YES

Under BP 129 – authority of RTC judges confined to their territorial juris. Any resultant irregularity in FR – may subject to liab.

Judge should also be faulted for solemnizing without requisite ML – a marriage without ML is void and subsequent issuance cannot render it

Except on cases provided by law a ML Is quired to give authority to solemnize marriage.

Pets affid of desistance cannot exculpate judge occiano.

A. Void Marriages
a. General Rule
FC 4 – Absence of any essential of formal render marriage VAB except 35(2)
Defect of any of essential not affect validity
b. Absence of requisites
FC 45 – ff void
(1) Contracted by any party below 18 YO even with consent
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless contracted either or both
in GF that solemn has auth
(3) Those solem without license except
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under article 41
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to identity of other
(6) Those subsequent marriages void under 53
Cf FC 234(repealed by RA 6809) – Emancipation takes place by attainment of age of majority, unless otherwise
provided – it is 21 years
Also takes place:
(1) By marriage of the minor
(2) By recording in civ reg of an agreement in a PI executed by the parent execising parental authority and the
minor at least 18 years of age
Such is irrevocable
c. Bigamous and Polygamous marriages
FC 35 – the ff marriages void from the beginning
-Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Art 41
FC 39 – Action or defense of dec of absolute nullity not prescribe
FC 40 – The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoke ofr purposes of remarriage on the basis SOLELY
OF A FINAL JUDGEMENT declaring marriage void.
FC 41 – Marriage contracted during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be N and V, UNLESS before celeb of
subsequent marriage:
Prior spouse absent for 4 consec years and has well founded belief that sps dead
In case of disappearance under Art 391 – absence of only TWO YEARS
For purposes of contracting marriage under the preceding – spouse must institute a summary proceeding for
FC 44 – If both sps of subs marriage acted in BF, said marriage shall be VAI and all donations by reason of marriage
and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law

RPC 349 – Bigamy, the penalty of PM shall be imposed on any who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage
before the former has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by


ACTION: Prosec for Bigamy
Mendoza husband; first Jovita; Second Olga Lema. First wife died. Mendoza married third (Carmencita) giving
rise to bigamy.
F – Second wife charged the accused with bigamy for CONTRACTING A THIRD MARRIAGE. Turns out the 2nd
marriage was void as he had a first wife.
Because the second marriage was void, there as no valid marriage to speak of and hence the third marriage was not
According to law at the time – there was no need for court order to establish invalidity of marriage
I1 – Not guilty of bigamy; no need for previous court order (but dissent says yes)
R – Admitted that second marriage was contracted during existence of the first marriage. Marriage law then in force
(Act 3613) made it illegal unless first marriage annulled or dissolved or absent for 7 years without the spouse present
having news of the absentee being aliv, valid until declared N and V by court
The provision plainly makes subsequent marriage illegal and void from its performanceand no judicial decree is
necessary to establish its validity.
As vs annullable marriage –i no pretence here that second marriage was contracted in the belief that first has been
absent for seven consec years or dead.


ACTION: Prosec for bigamy
Almost same ng previous
F – Accused married Gorrea on Sept 28, 1925, contracted subsequent marriage on August 27, 1934 with Faicol.
Gorrea died on October 3, 1953, accused contracted third marriage with Maglasang. Case for Bigamy filed by Faicol
(2). Court ruled that 1953 marriage with Maglasang not bigamous since the first marriage with Gorrea was already
extinguished because of her death.
I: Guilty of Bigamy? NO
Court reversed CFI – action was instituted upon complaint of second wife whose marriage with appellang not renewed
upon death of first hence the last marriage was a valid one and appellant’s prosec cannot prosper.
DISSENT – J Reyes – there should be a judicial declaration of nullity before one can marrya again – it is not for sps to
judge whether the marriage was void or not. Judgment reserved to courts.


ACTION – Specpro case for correction of entry to correct name of surviving spouse in death cert fom “Maria
Clemente” to Serafia Tolentino
F – Husband was charged with a bigamy case by his wife. He admitted to the offense, and served his prison sentence,
but once out of jail still continued to live with 2nd wife. Upon his death, the name of his second wife indicated in his
death certificate. First wife filed sfor rectification of entry.
SC held since Amado himself admitted to the act, there is no better proof that he had an existing marriage when he
married his second wife, as such the second marriage is NULL AND VOID and without force and effect.
be made in records of LCR.
I – Who should be named as wife (second – serafia)
R – Considerting Amado upon own plea was convicted for bigamy furnishes proof of the marital status of petitioner
and deceased. Second marriage contracted with respondent during lifetime of spouse is NULL AND VOID from
– rectification thus can be validly made


Needs JDN, may asawa ang husband sa first
ACTION: Declaration of nullity of marriage
F – Lilia contracted first marriage with Eduardo. She then contracted second marriage with Karl Karl asked for
declaration of nullity of their marriage on ground of prior existing marriage. Lilia wanted to present evidence first that
her first marriage was vitiated by force and that at the time, her first husband already married to someone else
There is no need to present evidence because assuming marriage 1 was vitiated by force – it would merely be
voidable (valid) thus when she contracted marriage 2 she was still married hence marriage 2 void.
Assuming husband 1 already had a wife at time of celeb of their marriage, THERE WAS NO JDN and thus Marriage 2
was still void.

I – w/n Lilia could present evidence on those facts – NO – real issue is status of first marriage to second (voidable and
R – No need to prove because assuming that there is force- first is not void but merely voidable hence second is void.
Assuming there is marriage, then there is no JDN thus second marriage still void.


ACTION – Civil case for annulment vased on ground that consent obtained through deceit
F – An info for bigamy was filed against donato based on complaint filed by wife in the alleged bigamous marriage.
Afterwards, wife filed CC for annulment based on ground that her consent obtained through deceit.
Court ruled that issue raised in CC did not constitute prejudicial question sufficient to forestall crim proceedings.

I – W/N Pending civil case for annulment raises prejudicial question to merit suspension for crim case? NO

Requisites of Prejud question do not obtain here – the issue is on nullity of second marriage is not determinative of
guilt or innocence of crim case for bigamy. It was Donato’s second wife who filed complaint for annulment on ground
that her consent obtained through deceit.
Landico v Relova applies not De La Cruz v Ejercito – Landico ruled that mere fact that there are action to annul
marriages entered into by accused in bigamy not mean prejudicial questions arises – in order for it to arise it must
act in second marriage was involuntary.


F – Respondent Jordan Terre Married complainant Dorothy after he convinced her that her first marriage was VAI and
had no need for JDN. Thereafter he abandoned her and married another woman.
SC declares him guilty of grossly immoral conduct

I – guilty? YES hence disbarred

Respondent pretended defense is the same argument by which he had inveigled complainant into believing that her
prior marriage to Merlito being incestuous was VAI hence free to contract second with respondent.
Resp being a lawyer should know that there is a need for JDN
Even assuming that mistaken belief in GF, still same follows because his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre
must be deemed valid as a result that his second marriage to Helina Malicdem is bigamous and criminal.
Conduct as such to contract second marriage and abandoning the complainant even if she had supported him through
law school, constitutes GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT under Section 27 Rule 138


ACTION Petition of declaration of presumptive death
S – Even if the RTC erred in ruling that respondent was able to prove her well founded belief that her absent sps was
already dead, such order already fubal cannot be modified nor reversed.
The husband here went to Taiwan to seek employment. 9 years of waiting. She filed petition to declare him
presumptive dead.
RTC rendererd decision declaring such
RP through OSG MR on march 10 2005 (Feb 7 2005),. Motion denied
CA – Yolanda MTD because no juris over appeal – that the dec of presumptive death was a SUMMARY
PROCEEDING thus F and E upon notice.
SC – the declaration of PD is FINAL AND IMMEDIATE EXEC – even if RTC erred, such can no longer be assailed.
On standards to establish well founded belief
- Spouse present must institute summary proceeding hence has burden to prove
- Law did not define what is meant by well grounded belief as a state of mind or condition prompting over act
- Ant fact or circumstance relating to character, habits, conditions, attachments, prosperity and objects of life
- Belief of the present sps must be the result of proper and honest goodness
- HERE – SC denies Rep petition because on question of whether there is WFB is already final


ACTION PETITION for declaration of presumptive death

F – Jerry Cantor left wife Maria Fe Espinosa Cantor after a violent quarrel. After more than 4 years of not seeing or
hearing from Jerry, Maria Fe filed a petition for declaration of presumptive death. She alleged that she conducted
diligent search of husband and exerted eearnest efforts. RTC GRANTED. OSG filed present petition

I – Did Maria Fe have Well Founded Belief? NO

H – W/N one has WFB depends on unique set of circumstance and that there is no set standard or procedure in
determining the same. Maria Fe’s alleged WFB arose when

(1) Jerry’s relatives and friends could not give her info on whereabouts
(2) She did not find Jerrys name in patients directory whenever she went to a hospital
Here it appears she did not actively look for him Her search far from diligent. Where it not for the FINALITY OF
RTC RULING – declaration should have been recalled.

d. Subsequent marriage upon reappearance of absent spouse

FC Art 41 – Marriage contracted by anu on subsistence of previous N and V unless prior spouse absent for four
consec and sps has WFB that the absent is dead.
In case of disappearance where danger of death – 2 years
For purposes of contracting subsequent marriage – institute a summary proceeding for DPD without prej to effect of

FC 42 – subsequent marriage referred in preceding automatically terminated upon affidavit of reappearance of absent
sps unless there is a judgment annulling prebious VAI
Sworn statement of fact and circ of reap recorded in Civ reg with due notice to sps of subsequent marriage and
without prejudice to fact of reappearance

FC 43 – termination of subsequent marriage produce the ff effects:

(1) Children of subs born before termination considered legitimate
(2) CO or CPG terminated but if either sps BF share be forefeited in common children non, children of guilty
spouse or in default – innocent sps
(3) Donation vaid except BF revoked by op
(4) Innocent sps may revoke designation of other as beneficiary of insurance policy
(5) Sps contracted susb marriage in BF disqualified to inherit from innocent sps by testate and intestate

FC 44 0 If both sps of subsequent marriage acted in BF marriage VAI and all donations revoked by op of law

CC 390 – Seven years absence presumed dead for all except succession
Absentee not dead for succession until 10 years except if 75 years old absence of 5 years sufficient on succession

CC 391 – ff dead for all purposes

(1) Person on board vessel loss during a sea voyage 4 years missing since loss
(2) Person in AF taken in war missing for four years
(3) Person in danger of death, circ not known four years

FC 55 – a petition for legal separation may be filed on ff grounds

Attempt by respondent against life of petitioner

FC 101 – if spouse without JC abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obli – aggrieved spouse may apply
for receivership, Jud Sep of prop or auth to be sole admin
Obli to family refer to
Spouse deemed abandoned when left without intention of returning
3 months presumption PF

e. Bad faith of both spouses

FC 44 – If both BF – marriage VAI, donations and testamentary prov revoked by OP of Law

f. Psychological Incapacity
FC 36 marriage contracted at time was psych incap to comply with essential marital obli is VOID even if MANIFEST
FC 68 – Husband and wife obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidenlity and render mutual help
and support
FC 69 – husband and wife fix family domicile in disagreement – court shall decide
Court may exempt one sps from living with other if latter should live abroad or compeeling reasons
Not apply if incompatible with solidarity of family
FC 70 – sps jointly resp for support – expenses paid from community, and in absence from income and fruits of
separate, in case of insuff, separate prop
FC 71 – management of houself duty of both sps, expenses in acc with 70
FC 72 – when one sps neglects his or her duties to conjugal union or commit acts bring dishonor or injury, aggrieved
may apply to court
FC 73 – either sps may exercises any legit profession occ, business, activity without consent of other
Latter may object on valid serious and moral grounds
In case of disagree – court decide if
-objection proper
-benefit occurred to family prior to object. If benefit accrued pruor to obli – resulting obli enforced against separate rop
of sps
Prior not affect rights of creditors in GF

g. a