BESO vs.

DAGUMAN 323 SCRA 566 January 28, 2000

FACTS: Respondent Juan Daguman, MCTC Judge of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan_Pagsanjan, Samar, solemnized the marriage of complainant Zenaida Beso to Bernardito Yman, on August 28, 1987, at the Judges residence in Calbayog City, Samar, or outside his jurisdiction, because complainant was to leave for abroad the same day as she was an OFW, among other reasons. After the wedding, Yman abandoned Beso for no clear reason. She then went to check the marriage contract with the Local Civil Registrar of Calbayog, from which she learned that said marriage was not registered. Responding to Besos letter about the matter, Daguman told her that all copies of the marriage contract were taken by Yman, and none was retained by the judge. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not respondent Judge is liable for solemnizing the marriage outside of his courts jurisdiction; (2) Whether or not respondent Judge is liable for negligently not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registry. HELD: A marriage can be held outside the judges chambers or courtroom only (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. None of these instances was present in this case. Considering that Judge Dagumans jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Margarita, Tarangan and Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize marriages in CAlbayog City. Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should exert extra care in the exercise of his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observe extra precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in accordance with Article 23 of the Family Code which states in no uncertain terms that It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the marriage contract referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificates not later than fifteen (15) 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. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events. However, the records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on respondent Judges part.

NAVARRO vs. DOMAGTOY AM No. MTJ 96-1088, July 19, 1996

FACTS: Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro filed a complaint on two specific acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of gross misconduct, ineffiency in offce 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 merely separated. It was told that Ida left their conjugal home in Bukidnon and has not returned and been heard for almost seven years. The said judge likewise solemnize marriage of Floriano Dadoy Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. The judge holds his office and 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. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriages solemnized were void. HELD: The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and bigamous there being a subsisting marriage between Tagadan and Penaranda. Albeit, the latter was gone for seven years and the spouse had a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was dead, Tagadan 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. 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.

PEOPLE V. LICERA [65 S 270 (1975)]

PFACTS: In 1961, accused was granted an appointment as secret agent of Governor Leviste. In 1965, accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms. The SC held that where at the time of his appointment, People v. Macarandang (1959) was applicable, which held that secret agents were exempt from the license requirement, and later People v. Mapa (1967) was decided, the earlier case should be held applicable.

HELD: Art. 8 of the Civil Code decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not law, constitute evidence of what the laws mean. The application or interpretation placed by the courts upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. A new doctrine abrogating an old rule operates prospectively and should not adversely affect those favored by the old rule.