Keuppers v Murcia Article 8 of the Family Code contains the limiting phrase and

Facts: not elsewhere, which emphasizes that the place of the

1. On May 19, 2008 , Respondent Judge Murcia solemnization of the marriage by a judge like him should only
solemnized the marriage of Petitioner Rosalinda be in his office or courtroom
Keuppers and her husband Peter Keuppers in the
premises of the DLS Travel and Tours in Davao City. Taking pity is not enough reason for respondent to risk
possible sanctions and highlights his dismissive and cavalier
2. Later, Rosalinda filed an admin case against Jude attitude towards express statutory requirements instituted to
Murcia for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to secure the solemnization of marriages from abuse.
the best interest of the service on grounds of
erroneous entries in the marriage certificate including
that the marriage was solemnized in office of the
MTCC Judge at Island Garden City of Samal.

3. Judge Murcia argued that he had no part in how the

document was processed and served and that he agree
to solemnized their marriage because he took pity on
Rosalinda as such decided to travel to DLS Travel and
Tours in Davao City to solemnize the marriage.

Issue: WON Judge Murcia is guilty for solemnizing the

marriage outside his jurisdiction

Rulling: YES
Judge Murcia admitted that he solemnized the marriage
outside his jurisdiction notwithstanding Article 8 of the family
code that:
“a marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or
courtroom if: 1.] at the point of death; 2.] in remote places in
accordance with Article 29; or 3.] upon the request of both parties
in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. “