Navarro vs Domagtoy
AM No. MTJ 96-1088, July 19, 1996
Doctrine
Civil Law; Family Code; Marriages; 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. Navarro vs. Domagtoy, 259 SCRA 129, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996
Same; Same; Same; Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3 which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to administrative liability. Navarro vs. Domagtoy, 259 SCRA 129, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996
FACTS
Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarrofiled a complaint on two specific acts committed by Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of gross misconduct, inefficiency in office 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 only separated.
Ida was told that left their conjugal home in Bukidnon and had not returned for almost SEVEN YEARS.
Domagtoy likewise solemnize marriage of Floriano Dadoy Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court’s jurisdiction.
The judge holds that he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. Also, his office 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.
He did not apply the Article 7 of the family code There are exemption on the article 8. If the parties request in writing.
Thus he defended he is not guilty of ignorance of the law. In fact there is written request presented addressed to the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario.4 Navarro vs. Domagtoy, 259 SCRA 129, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996
ISSUE
Whether or not the marriages solemnized were valid.
HELD
No. The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and bigamous there being a subsisting marriage between Tagadan and Penaranda.
Although the latter was gone for seven years and the spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was dead, 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.
The rule invoked by the Supreme Court was Article 41 of the Family Code expressly 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 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
To contract 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 prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
The court held that there is nothing ambiguous or difficult to comprehend in this provision. The law is clear and simple. 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 to contract a subsequent marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been precisely incorporated into the Family Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not proven that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent provisions of law.
Judge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned joint affidavit is sufficient proof of Ida Peñaranda’s presumptive death, and ample reason for him to proceed with the marriage ceremony. The court did not agree.
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.
Read Full text
A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 (lawphil.net)
Navarro vs Domagtoy : AM MTJ-96-1088 : J Romero : Second Division (chanrobles.com)
