Compassionate judge

Will a marriage solemnized before the issuance of a marriage license be rendered valid by the subsequent issuance of said license? What is the liability of the solemnizing officer? These are the questions answered in this case of Marita.

Marita was being courted by Arsenio, a retired Navy Official and pensionado who was very much older. Arsenio had vast properties in their province but he was already sickly apparently because of his age. Despite the age gap, Marita decided to accept the marriage proposal of Arsenio. And so on January 5, 2000, they filed their application for marriage license in the local Civil Registrar of their town. It was stamped in the application that the license shall be issued in two weeks time or on January 17, 2000. However neither Arsenio nor Marita came back to claim it.

They just asked their mutual friend, Jaime to arrange the wedding and look for a judge who could solemnize their marriage. So on February 15, 2000, Jaime requested Judge Matulungin, the judge of the municipal trial court in another town, to solemnize the marriage of Marita and Arsenio on February 17, 2000. Jaime assured the judge that all the marriage documents were complete. So the judge agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala.

However, on February 17, 2000, Jaime informed Judge Matulungin that Arsenio had a difficulty walking and could not stand the rigors of traveling from his residence to the municipality of the judge which was twenty five kilometers away. Jaime then requested if the judge could solemnize the marriage in Arsenio’s town, to which the judge acceded.

On the wedding day, the judge carefully examined the documents submitted to him before starting the ceremony. When he discovered that there was no marriage license yet, he refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested it’s resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of the foods and other provisions for the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Arsenio who just suffered a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity of the marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void. The parties assured him that they would give the license that same afternoon. But they failed to comply. The judge then followed it up with Jaime who promised to deliver it to his sala.

Meantime, Marita and Arsenio started living together as husband and wife.But not long after, Arsenio passed away. Marita tried to claim her right to inherit the vast properties of Arsenio as the surviving spouse. But no record of their marriage could be found in the Civil Registrar General’s Office ( National Statistics) nor in the local civil registrar of the municipality. So Marita did not inherit anything. She was even deprived of receiving the pension of Arsenio. Out of rage, Marita filed an administrative complaint against the judge, although she subsequently withdrew it after realizing that everything was due to her fault and shortcomings. But despite such desistance, the judge was still found guilty by the Court Administrator(CA) of solemnizing the marriage without a duly issued marriage license and for doing so outside his jurisdiction.

Was the CA correct?

Yes.

The territorial jurisdiction of the judge is limited to the municipality where his sala is located. His act of solemnizing the marriage in another municipality is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.

The judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license. A marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize the marriage. Judge Matulungin did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of Marita and Arsenio. In this respect, he acted in gross ignorance of the law. For his actions, he should be fined P 5,000.00 with a stern warning against a repetition of similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. (Aranes vs. Occiano 380 SCRA 402).

* * *

E- mail: [email protected]