Beso v Daguman, 323 SCRA 566 (2000) A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211.

Facts:
 Respondent Judge Daguman, whose jurisdiction covers the municipality of Sta. Margarita-
Tarangan- Pagsanjan, Samar was charged by complainant with solemnizing marriage outside his
jurisdiction.
 Complainant alleged that her marriage with Bernardito A. Yman was celebrated at respondent's
residence at Calbayog City and that respondent failed to register their marriage contract with the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar.
 Respondent claimed good faith that he did so upon the request of complainant and Yman
because complainant, an overseas worker, must fly out of the country the following day and that
the loss of the copies of the marriage certificate was the cause for his failure to register the
marriage.
 The Office of the Court Administrator, to which the case was referred to for investigation, found
respondent guilty of nonfeasance in office and recommended a fine of P5,000.00.

Issue: Whether the respondent Judge had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

Ruling: No. The Court ruled that respondent judge does not have authority to solemnize the marriage
since the venue of the marriage ceremony (Calbayog City) is outside of his court jurisdiction (Sta.
Margarita-Tarangan- Pagsanjan). Under Article 8 of the FC, marriage can only be held outside the judge's
jurisdiction where any of the contracting parties is at the point of death, where the place of marriage is
located in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of the FC or upon the written sworn request of
both parties. None of the exceptions applies in this case. Further, a judge should exercise extra care in
the celebration of marriage and must ensure that the event is properly documented. His failure to register
the marriage on the ground that the documents were lost is not a valid justification. It manifested that
respondent was less than conscientious in handling official documents. Thus, respondent's failure to
register the marriage and the solemnization of the marriage outside his jurisdiction constitutes non-
feasance in office. Respondent was fined P5,000.00 and sternly warned against the repetition of the
same or similar infractions.

Laws:

Art. 4. x x x An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage
but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and
administratively liable.

Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the
court’s jurisdiction; x x x

Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge 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 at the point of death or in remote places in
accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or 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.

Art. 23. It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting
parties the original of the marriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar
of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar
to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall
retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license
and, in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in
a place other than those mentioned in Article 8.

Application

The authority of judges to solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction. Thus, where a
judge solemnizes a marriage outside of his court's jurisdiction, there is an irregularity in a formal requisite
of marriage, i.e. authority of the solemnizing officer. While it may not affect the validity of the marriage,
the judge may subject to administrative liability.

Republic v Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008

Facts:
 On 24 November 1986, Jose Dayot and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall solemnized by
Rev. Tomas V. Atienza.
 In lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit, attesting that both of
them had attained the age of maturity, and that being unmarried, they had lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years.
 Jose and Felisa met sometime in February or March 198 and started living together only in June
1986, barely five months before the celebration of their marriage.
 On 7 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
with the RTC, contending that his marriage with Felisa was a sham, as that he did not execute
the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife for at least five years;
and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud.
 RTC dismissed the complaint. Dayot filed an appeal to the CA which affirmed the RTC's decision.
Dayot filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CA which was granted. CA reversed its earlier
ruling and pronounce the marriage between Dayot and Felisa void ab initio. Republic and Felisa
filed separate Petitions for Review with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the marriage between Felisa and Jose Dayot is valid.

Ruling: No. The Court declared that the marriage is void ab initio. The marriage of Jose and Felisa was
celebrated on 24 November 1986, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Accordingly, the Civil Code
governs their union. Article 53 of the Civil Code provides that a marriage license is an essential
requirement, except in a marriage of exceptional character. Under Articles 72-79 of the Civil Code,
marriages of exceptional character are those in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or
war, (2) marriages in remote places, (2) consular marriages, (3) ratification of marital cohabitation, (4)
religious ratification of a civil marriage, (5) Mohammedan or pagan marriages, and (6) mixed marriages.

The instant case pertains to a ratification of marital cohabitation under Article 76 of the Civil Code, which
provides: ART. 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained
the age of majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five
years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit
before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The official, priest or minister who solemnized
the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other
qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.

Jurisprudence has laid down the rule that the five-year common-law cohabitation period under Article 76
means a five-year period computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period
of legal union had it not been for the absence of a marriage. It covers the years immediately preceding
the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party was involved at any time
within the five years — and continuity that is unbroken.

The falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisa's cohabitation,
cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be
deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie,
then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at
all.

Application:

The five-year period of cohabitation contemplated by law should be in the nature of perfect union, that is,
valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of a marriage. It covers the years
immediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party
was involved at any time within the five years — and continuity that is unbroken.

A false affidavit of five-year cohabitation results in the absence of a valid marriage license. The falsity of
the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisa's cohabitation, cannot be a
mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and
attested to by the parties under oath. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a
mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all.