Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Authority of the solemnizing officer RTC: Affirmed the findings of the MTC and added that
positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses deserve more
PONENTE: Brion, J. credence than the petitioners negative statements. However, it
ruled that the basis of the fine should be in pursuant of Sec. 39
DOCTRINE: Section 39, Illegal Solemnization of and not Sec. 44 of the Marriage Law.
Marriage- any priest or minister solemnizing marriage,
without being authorized by the Director of the Philippine CA: Affirmed the RTCs ruling. There is no prescribed form
National Library or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage. The law
to the authorization in force when called upon to do so by the provides minimum standards in determining whether a
parties or by the parents, grandparents, guardians or or persons marriage ceremony has been conducted:
having charge and any bishop or officer or priest or minister of
any church or religion or sect the regulations and practices (1) The contracting parties must appear before the solemnizing
whereof requires banns or publications previous to the officer;
solemnization of a marriage in accordance with Section 10,
who authorized the immediate solemnization of a marriage that (2) They should declare each other as husband and wife in
is subsequently declared illegal; or any officer, priest, or front of two legal-aged witnesses.
minister solemnizing marriage in violation of this act, shall be
punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor
more than two years or by fine of not less than 200.00 pesos PETITION: Petitioner argued that: (1) the Art. 352 of the
nor more than 2,000.00 pesos. RPC is vague and does not defines what constitutes an illegal
marriage ceremony; (2) Principle of Separation of Church and
RULING FORMAT: State; (3) He conducted the blessing in good faith; (4) Non-
filing of the violation of Art. 350 of the RPC should be
precluding before the present case was filed at him and; (5)
MTC: Found the petitioner guilty of violation Art. 352 of the The present case is not covered with the Art. 352 of the RPC.
RPC, as amended, and imposed him a fine pursuant to Sec. 44
of Act. No. 3613 because of the petitioners act of giving a
blessing which constitutes to a marriage ceremony as he
FACTS:
1.) (2003, March 29) Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were
scheduled to marry each other. The priest that supposed to
solemnize them refused to when the priest knew that they dont
have a marriage license to begin with.
ISSUE/S:
HELD: