Scribd
Upload
78 views2 pages

Judge Daguman's Marriage Jurisdiction Case

Judge Juan Daguman is charged with neglect of duty and abuse of authority for solemnizing a marriage outside of his jurisdiction and failing to register the marriage. He married Zenaida Beso and Bernardito Yman in his residence in Calbayog City, when he was a judge in Sta. Margarita-Tarangan. After the wedding, Yman abandoned Beso. When Beso inquired about the marriage contract, she discovered it was never registered. The judge is found to have solemnized the marriage outside his jurisdiction without cause. He is also found negligent for failing to retain a copy of the marriage certificate and register it, as required by law. He is fined 5000 pesos in accordance with the recommendation of the

Uploaded by

RR F
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views2 pages

Judge Daguman's Marriage Jurisdiction Case

Judge Juan Daguman is charged with neglect of duty and abuse of authority for solemnizing a marriage outside of his jurisdiction and failing to register the marriage. He married Zenaida Beso and Bernardito Yman in his residence in Calbayog City, when he was a judge in Sta. Margarita-Tarangan. After the wedding, Yman abandoned Beso. When Beso inquired about the marriage contract, she discovered it was never registered. The judge is found to have solemnized the marriage outside his jurisdiction without cause. He is also found negligent for failing to retain a copy of the marriage certificate and register it, as required by law. He is fined 5000 pesos in accordance with the recommendation of the

Uploaded by

RR F
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

xBESO VS.

DAGUMAN
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000
Complainant: Zenaida S. Beso
Respondent: Judge
Pagsanjan, Samar

Juan

Daguman,

MCTC,

Sta.

Margarita-Tarangan,

Ponente: J. Ynares-Santiago
Facts:
Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by
Beso. In the Complaint-Affidavit dated December 12, 1997, the complainant
charged judge with solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of
negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract
with the office of the Local Civil Registrar with the following facts:
(a) On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainants fiance,
Bernardito A. Yman, got married under the solemnization of the respondent in
the respondents residence in Calbayog City, Samar;
(b) That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant;
(c) That when Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City Civil Registrar to
inquire regarding her Marriage Contract. The complainant found out that her
marriage was not registered;
(d) The complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the former found
out that all the copies were taken by Yman and no copy was retained by the
respondent.
The respondent averred with the following rationale:
(a) Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgent request of the
complainant and Yman. He also believed that being a Filipino overseas
worker, the complainant deserved more than ordinary official attention under
present Government policy;
(b) Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it
may be not too expensive and complicated for citizens to get married;
(c) Respondents failure to file the marriage contract was beyond his control
because Yman absconded with the missing copies of the marriage certificate.
(d) Respondent, however, tried to recover custody of the missing documents.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated,

August 11, 1998 found the respondent Judge committed non-feasance in


office and recommended that he be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000).
Issues:
The issues raised in this complaint are:
(1) Whether or not the respondent solemnized a marriage outside of his
jurisdiction; and
(2) Whether or not the respondent committed negligence by not retaining a
copy and not registering the complainants marriage before the office of the
Local Civil Registrar.
Held:
(1) Yes. The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Article 7
of the Family Code provides that marriage may be solemnized by, Any
incumbent member of the judiciary with the courts jurisdiction. In relation
thereto, according to Article 8 of the Family Code, there are only three
instances with which a judge may solemnize a marriage outside of his
jurisdiction:
(1.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;
(1.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;
(1.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in
which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated
by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
In this case, non of the three instances is present.
(2) Yes. The judge committed negligence. Pursuant to Article 23 of the
Family code, such duty to register the marriage is the respondents duty. The
same article provides,It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the
marriage to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate 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, the original of the marriage
license, and in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding
the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in
Article 8..
The recommendation of the OCA stands

You might also like