Scribd
Upload
344 views1 page

People v. Janssen, G. R. No. L-31763, December 27, 1929

H. Janssen, a reverend father, was accused of violating Section 2 of Act no. 3412 by solemnizing the marriage of Pedro Cerdena and Juan del Rosario without the required 10 day publication of their marriage license. However, the court ruled that H. Janssen did not violate the law as he received a valid marriage license issued by the municipal secretary and priests are not required to investigate the license, only confirm it was issued properly. The court reversed H. Janssen's conviction, absolving him of the charges.

Uploaded by

Wren
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
344 views1 page

People v. Janssen, G. R. No. L-31763, December 27, 1929

H. Janssen, a reverend father, was accused of violating Section 2 of Act no. 3412 by solemnizing the marriage of Pedro Cerdena and Juan del Rosario without the required 10 day publication of their marriage license. However, the court ruled that H. Janssen did not violate the law as he received a valid marriage license issued by the municipal secretary and priests are not required to investigate the license, only confirm it was issued properly. The court reversed H. Janssen's conviction, absolving him of the charges.

Uploaded by

Wren
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
You are on page 1/ 1

5. People v. Janssen, G. R. No.

L-31763, December 27, 1929

FACTS: On December 26, 1928, Pedro Cerdena and Juan del Rosario appeared before Reverend Father
H. Janssen to have their names inscribed in the marriage registry. On December 30, 1928, the banns
were published in his parish in San Jose Antique.

The contracting parties asked H. Janssen to marry them before the classes opened in January 7, 1929.

By virtue of the issued dispensation by the Bishop of Jaro last December 29, 1928 and in view of the
authority issued by the municipal secretary of San Jose, Antique to solemnize the marriage last January
4, 1929, H. Janssen solemnized the marriage in January 6, 1929.

H. Janssen appeals from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Antique convicting him of
violation of Section 2 of Act no. 3412 which requires the municipal secretary or clerk of the municipal
court of Manila, as the case may be, shall post during ten days in a conspicuous place in the building
where he has his office, a notice setting forth the full names and domiciles of the applicants for marriage
licenses, their respective ages, and the names of their parents if living or of their guardians if otherwise.

ISSUE: Whether or not H. Janssen violated Section 2 of Act no. 3412

RULING: No. Whenever a marriage is solemnized by a church, sect or religion whose rules and practices
require proclamation or publicity, it is not necessary that said proclamation be made during ten days,
unless said rules or practices so require.

The law does not impose upon priests or ministers of religion the duty to investigate whether the license
has been issued by the official duly authorized by said law, that is, by the municipal secretary of the
municipality where the woman resides. It is sufficient to know is that the license has been issued by a
competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled
his duty to ascertain whether the woman desiring to contract marriage.

The appealed judgment is reversed, and the defendant is absolved from the information, with costs de
oficio.

You might also like