Aranes v Occiano REVISED

Mercedita Mata Arañes v. Judge Salvador Occiano A.M. No. MTJ-021390 (Formerly IPI No. 01-1049) April 11, 2002

Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. Gross Ignorance of the Law

FACTS Mercedita Arañes charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law. Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur who performed Marcedita Arañes’ marriage to the late Dominador R. Orobia even without a marriage license. Since the marriage was a nullity, petitioner could not inherit her late husband’s property and receive pensions. In his comment dated February 15, 2000, respondent judge averred that a certain Juan Arroyo requested him to solemnize a marriage of the parties on February 17, 2000 in his sala at the MTC Balatan. However, on Feb 17, 2000, Arroyo informed him that Orobia had difficulty walking and could not stand the rigors of traveling to Balatan and requested him to solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded. Respondent judge further averred that while carefully examining the documents, respondent judge discovered that the parties did not posses the marriage license. He refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested its resetting to another date. But the parties pleaded and so he proceeded to solemnize the marriage due to human compassion and fear that it might aggravate the condition of Orobia who just suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity of the marriage license and admonished the parties that failure to give it would render the marriage void. On September 12, 2001, petitioner filed her Affidavit of Desistance attesting that respondent judge initially refused to solemnize their marriage. She confessed that she filed this Administrative case out of rage. ISSUE Whether or not the respondent judge should be held liable for solemnizing a marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction and without marriage license despite the petitioner’s Affidavit of Desistance. HELD The territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Under Article 3 of The Family Code of the Philippines, one of the requisites of marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3. The judge’s act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license. In People v Lara, it was held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void and that the subsequent issuance of license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not posses such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.

Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of Desistance filed by petitioner. The court has consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of complaint does not necessarily have a legal effect of exonerating respondent from disciplinary action. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano, presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur, is fined with P5,000.00 pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.