[A.M. No. MTJ-92-721. September 30, 1994.
]
JUVY N. COSCA VS . HON. LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON and NELIA B.
ESMERALDA BAROY, Clerk of Court II
Zapanta, Arvin
EN BANC
FACTS:
Background:
In an administrative complaint led with the Office of the Court Administrator on
October 5, 1992, herein respondents were charged with the following offenses, to
wit: (1) illegal solemnization of marriage; (2) falsification of the monthly reports of
cases; (3) bribery in consideration of an appointment in the court; (4) non-issuance
of receipt for cash bond received; (5) infidelity in the custody of detained prisoners;
and (6) requiring payment of ling fees from exempted entities.
Petitioner’s:
1. Illegal solemnization of marriage
Complainants allege that respondent judge solemnized marriages even without
the requisite marriage license. Thus, the following couples were able to get
married by the simple expedient of paying the marriage fees. In addition,
respondent judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not
indicate the date of solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had
to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the parties which was
usually several days after the ceremony.
Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not led with the local civil registrar.
Complainant Ramon Sambo, who prepares the marriage contracts, called the
attention of respondents to the lack of marriage licenses and its effect on the
marriages involved, but the latter opted to proceed with the celebration of said
marriages.
Respondent’s:
1. Illegal solemnization of marriage
Baroy avers that it was only lately when she discovered that the court had a
Marriage Register which is in the custody of Sambo; that it was Sambo who failed
to furnish the parties copies of the marriage contract and to register these with the
local civil registrar; and that apparently Sambo kept these marriage contracts in
preparation for this administrative case. She insists that she had instructed Sambo
to follow up the submission by the contracting parties of their marriage licenses as
part of his duties but he failed to do so.
Judge Palaypayon, Jr. contends that the marriage between Alano P. Abellano and
Nelly Edralin falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code, hence it is exempt from the
marriage license requirement; that he gave strict instructions to complainant
Sambo to furnish the couple a copy of the marriage contract and to le the same
with the civil registrar, but the latter failed to do so; that in order to solve the
problem, the spouses subsequently formalized their marriage by securing a
marriage license and executing their marriage contract, a copy of which was led
with the civil registrar; that the other five marriages alluded to in the administrative
complaint were not illegally solemnized because the marriage contracts were not
signed by him and they did not contain the date and place of marriage.
ISSUE (s):
a. Whether or not the marriages celebrated by the respondent were valid
HELD:
a. NO, Art. 4(1) – The absence of any of the essential or formal requisite for
marriage renders the same void ab initio.
Bocaya & Besmonte’s marriage was solemnized without a marriage
license along with the other couples. The testimonies of Bocay and
Pompeo Ariola including the photographs taken showed that it was really Judge
Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage.
Bocaya declared that they were advised by judge to return after 10 days
after the solemnization and bring with them their marriage license. They
already started living together as husband and wife even without the formal
requisite. With respect to the photographs, judge explained that it was a
simulated solemnization of marriage and not a real one. However,
considering that there were pictures from the start of the wedding
ceremony up to the signing of the marriage certificates in front of him.
The court held that it is hard to believe that it was simulated.
On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he solemnized marriage
between Abellano & Edralin and claimed it was under Article 34 of the Civil
Code so the marriage license was dispensed with considering that the
contracting parties executed a joint affidavit that they have been living together
as husband and wife for almost 6 years already. However, it was shown in
the marriage contract that Abellano was only 18 yrs 2months and 7 days
old. If he and Edralin had been living together for 6 years already before they
got married as what is stated in the joint affidavit, Abellano must have been
less than 13 years old when they started living together which is hard to
believe. Palaypayon should have been aware, as it is his duty to ascertain
the qualification of the contracting parties who might have executed a
false joint affidavit in order to avoid the marriage license requirement.
