Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

At the preliminary conference conducted in connection therewith, private respondent volunteered the information, and this was incorporated in the stipulation of facts between the parties, that she had failed to remit the amount of P2,380.75 of her collections. She then executed a promissory note for that amount in favor of petitioner 7. All of these took place in a formal proceeding and with the agreement of the parties and/or their counsel. On November 23, 1993, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando handed down a decision declaring that private respondent, who had already gained the status of a regular employee, was illegally dismissed by petitioner. Her reinstatement, plus payment of the corresponding back wages and COLA, was correspondingly ordered, the labor arbiter being of the firmly expressed view that the ground relied upon by petitioner in dismissing private respondent was clearly insufficient, and that it was apparent that she had been discriminated against on account of her having contracted marriage in violation of company rules. On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), said public respondent upheld the labor arbiter and, in its decision dated April 29, 1994, it ruled that private respondent had indeed been the subject of an unjust and unlawful discrimination by her employer, PT & T. However, the decision of the labor arbiter was modified with the qualification that Grace de Guzman deserved to be suspended for three months in view of the dishonest nature of her acts which should not be condoned. In all other respects, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter, including the order for the reinstatement of private respondent in her employment with PT & T. The subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was rebuffed by respondent NLRC in its resolution of November 9, 1994, hence this special civil action assailing the aforestated decisions of the labor arbiter and respondent NLRC, as well as the denial resolution of the latter. 1. Decreed in the Bible itself is the universal norm that women should be regarded with love and respect but, through the ages, men have responded to that injunction with indifference, on the hubristic conceit that women constitute the inferior sex. Nowhere has that prejudice against womankind been so pervasive as in the field of labor, especially on the matter of equal employment opportunities and standards. In the Philippine setting, women have traditionally been considered as falling within the vulnerable groups or types of workers who must be safeguarded with preventive and remedial social legislation against discriminatory and exploitative practices in hiring, training, benefits, promotion and retention. The Constitution, cognizant of the disparity in rights between men and women in almost all phases of social and political life, provides a gamut of protective provisions. To cite a few of the primordial ones, Section 14, Article II 8 on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, expressly recognizes the role of women in nation-building and commands the State to ensure, at all times, the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Corollary thereto, Section 3 of Article XIII 9 (the progenitor whereof dates back to both the 1935 and 1973 Constitution) pointedly requires the State to afford full protection to labor and to promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all, including an assurance of entitlement to tenurial security of all workers. Similarly, Section 14 of Article XIII 10 mandates that the State shall protect working women through provisions for opportunities that would enable them to reach their full potential. 2. Corrective labor and social laws on gender inequality have emerged with more frequency in the years since the Labor Code was enacted on May 1, 1974 as Presidential Decree No. 442, largely due to our country's commitment as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). 11

G.R. No. 118978 May 23, 1997 PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY, * petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GRACE DE GUZMAN, respondents.

REGALADO, J.: Seeking relief through the extraordinary writ of certiorari, petitioner Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (hereafter, PT & T) invokes the alleged concealment of civil status and defalcation of company funds as grounds to terminate the services of an employee. That employee, herein private respondent Grace de Guzman, contrarily argues that what really motivated PT & T to terminate her services was her having contracted marriage during her employment, which is prohibited by petitioner in its company policies. She thus claims that she was discriminated against in gross violation of law, such a proscription by an employer being outlawed by Article 136 of the Labor Code. Grace de Guzman was initially hired by petitioner as a reliever, specifically as a "Supernumerary Project Worker," for a fixed period from November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991 vice one C.F. Tenorio who went on maternity leave. 1 Under the Reliever Agreement which she signed with petitioner company, her employment was to be immediately terminated upon expiration of the agreed period. Thereafter, from June 10, 1991 to July 1, 1991, and from July 19, 1991 to August 8, 1991, private respondent's services as reliever were again engaged by petitioner, this time in replacement of one Erlinda F. Dizon who went on leave during both periods. 2 After August 8, 1991, and pursuant to their Reliever Agreement, her services were terminated. On September 2, 1991, private respondent was once more asked to join petitioner company as a probationary employee, the probationary period to cover 150 days. In the job application form that was furnished her to be filled up for the purpose, she indicated in the portion for civil status therein that she was single although she had contracted marriage a few months earlier, that is, on May 26, 1991. 3 It now appears that private respondent had made the same representation in the two successive reliever agreements which she signed on June 10, 1991 and July 8, 1991. When petitioner supposedly learned about the same later, its branch supervisor in Baguio City, Delia M. Oficial, sent to private respondent a memorandum dated January 15, 1992 requiring her to explain the discrepancy. In that memorandum, she was reminded about the company's policy of not accepting married women for employment. 4 In her reply letter dated January 17, 1992, private respondent stated that she was not aware of PT&T's policy regarding married women at the time, and that all along she had not deliberately hidden her true civil status. 5 Petitioner nonetheless remained unconvinced by her explanations. Private respondent was dismissed from the company effective January 29, 1992, 6 which she readily contested by initiating a complaint for illegal dismissal, coupled with a claim for non-payment of cost of living allowances (COLA), before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission in Baguio City.

Principal among these laws are Republic Act No. 6727 12 which explicitly prohibits discrimination against women with respect to terms and conditions of employment, promotion, and training opportunities; Republic Act No. 6955 13 which bans the "mail-orderbride" practice for a fee and the export of female labor to countries that cannot guarantee protection to the rights of women workers; Republic Act No. 7192 14 also known as the "Women in Development and Nation Building Act," which affords women equal opportunities with men to act and to enter into contracts, and for appointment, admission, training, graduation, and commissioning in all military or similar schools of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police; Republic Act No. 7322 15 increasing the maternity benefits granted to women in the private sector; Republic Act No. 7877 16 which outlaws and punishes sexual harassment in the workplace and in the education and training environment; and Republic Act No. 8042, 17 or the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," which prescribes as a matter of policy, inter alia, the deployment of migrant workers, with emphasis on women, only in countries where their rights are secure. Likewise, it would not be amiss to point out that in the Family Code, 18 women's rights in the field of civil law have been greatly enhanced and expanded. In the Labor Code, provisions governing the rights of women workers are found in Articles 130 to 138 thereof. Article 130 involves the right against particular kinds of night work while Article 132 ensures the right of women to be provided with facilities and standards which the Secretary of Labor may establish to ensure their health and safety. For purposes of labor and social legislation, a woman working in a nightclub, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar or other similar establishments shall be considered as an employee under Article 138. Article 135, on the other hand, recognizes a woman's right against discrimination with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account simply of sex. Finally, and this brings us to the issue at hand, Article 136 explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of the marriage of a female employee. 3. Acknowledged as paramount in the due process scheme is the constitutional guarantee of protection to labor and security of tenure. Thus, an employer is required, as a condition sine qua non prior to severance of the employment ties of an individual under his employ, to convincingly establish, through substantial evidence, the existence of a valid and just cause in dispensing with the services of such employee, one's labor being regarded as constitutionally protected property. On the other hand, it is recognized that regulation of manpower by the company falls within the so-called management prerogatives, which prescriptions encompass the matter of hiring, supervision of workers, work assignments, working methods and assignments, as well as regulations on the transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. 19 As put in a case, an employer is free to regulate, according to his discretion and best business judgment, all aspects of employment, "from hiring to firing," except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided by law. 20 In the case at bar, petitioner's policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution. Contrary to petitioner's assertion that it dismissed private respondent from employment on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses clearly that her ties with the company were dissolved principally because of the company's policy that married women are not qualified for employment in PT & T, and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty. That it was so can easily be seen from the memorandum sent to private respondent by Delia M. Oficial, the branch supervisor of the company, with the reminder, in the words of the latter, that "you're fully aware that the company is not accepting married women employee (sic), as it was verbally instructed to you." 21 Again, in the termination notice sent

to her by the same branch supervisor, private respondent was made to understand that her severance from the service was not only by reason of her concealment of her married status but, over and on top of that, was her violation of the company's policy against marriage ("and even told you that married women employees are not applicable [ sic] or accepted in our company.") 22 Parenthetically, this seems to be the curious reason why it was made to appear in the initiatory pleadings that petitioner was represented in this case only by its said supervisor and not by its highest ranking officers who would otherwise be solidarily liable with the corporation. 23 Verily, private respondent's act of concealing the true nature of her status from PT & T could not be properly characterized as willful or in bad faith as she was moved to act the way she did mainly because she wanted to retain a permanent job in a stable company. In other words, she was practically forced by that very same illegal company policy into misrepresenting her civil status for fear of being disqualified from work. While loss of confidence is a just cause for termination of employment, it should not be simulated. 24 It must rest on an actual breach of duty committed by the employee and not on the employer's caprices. 25 Furthermore, it should never be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified. 26 In the present controversy, petitioner's expostulations that it dismissed private respondent, not because the latter got married but because she concealed that fact, does have a hollow ring. Her concealment, so it is claimed, bespeaks dishonesty hence the consequent loss of confidence in her which justified her dismissal. Petitioner would asseverate, therefore, that while it has nothing against marriage, it nonetheless takes umbrage over the concealment of that fact. This improbable reasoning, with interstitial distinctions, perturbs the Court since private respondent may well be minded to claim that the imputation of dishonesty should be the other way around. Petitioner would have the Court believe that although private respondent defied its policy against its female employees contracting marriage, what could be an act of insubordination was inconsequential. What it submits as unforgivable is her concealment of that marriage yet, at the same time, declaring that marriage as a trivial matter to which it supposedly has no objection. In other words, PT & T says it gives its blessings to its female employees contracting marriage, despite the maternity leaves and other benefits it would consequently respond for and which obviously it would have wanted to avoid. If that employee confesses such fact of marriage, there will be no sanction; but if such employee conceals the same instead of proceeding to the confessional, she will be dismissed. This line of reasoning does not impress us as reflecting its true management policy or that we are being regaled with responsible advocacy. This Court should be spared the ennui of strained reasoning and the tedium of propositions which confuse through less than candid arguments. Indeed, petitioner glosses over the fact that it was its unlawful policy against married women, both on the aspects of qualification and retention, which compelled private respondent to conceal her supervenient marriage. It was, however, that very policy alone which was the cause of private respondent's secretive conduct now complained of. It is then apropos to recall the familiar saying that he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. Finally, petitioner's collateral insistence on the admission of private respondent that she supposedly misappropriated company funds, as an additional ground to dismiss her from employment, is somewhat insincere and self-serving. Concededly, private respondent admitted in the course of the proceedings that she failed to remit some of her collections, but that is an altogether different story. The fact is that she was dismissed solely because of her concealment of her marital status, and not on the basis of that supposed defalcation of company funds. That the labor arbiter would thus consider petitioner's submissions on

this supposed dishonesty as a mere afterthought, just to bolster its case for dismissal, is a perceptive conclusion born of experience in labor cases. For, there was no showing that private respondent deliberately misappropriated the amount or whether her failure to remit the same was through negligence and, if so, whether the negligence was in nature simple or grave. In fact, it was merely agreed that private respondent execute a promissory note to refund the same, which she did, and the matter was deemed settled as a peripheral issue in the labor case. Private respondent, it must be observed, had gained regular status at the time of her dismissal. When she was served her walking papers on January 29, 1992, she was about to complete the probationary period of 150 days as she was contracted as a probationary employee on September 2, 1991. That her dismissal would be effected just when her probationary period was winding down clearly raises the plausible conclusion that it was done in order to prevent her from earning security of tenure. 27 On the other hand, her earlier stints with the company as reliever were undoubtedly those of a regular employee, even if the same were for fixed periods, as she performed activities which were essential or necessary in the usual trade and business of PT & T. 28 The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer. 29 As an employee who had therefore gained regular status, and as she had been dismissed without just cause, she is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. 30 However, as she had undeniably committed an act of dishonesty in concealing her status, albeit under the compulsion of an unlawful imposition of petitioner, the three-month suspension imposed by respondent NLRC must be upheld to obviate the impression or inference that such act should be condoned. It would be unfair to the employer if she were to return to its fold without any sanction whatsoever for her act which was not totally justified. Thus, her entitlement to back wages, which shall be computed from the time her compensation was withheld up to the time of her actual reinstatement, shall be reduced by deducting therefrom the amount corresponding to her three months suspension. 4. The government, to repeat, abhors any stipulation or policy in the nature of that adopted by petitioner PT & T. The Labor Code state, in no uncertain terms, as follows: Art. 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of marriage. This provision had a studied history for its origin can be traced to Section 8 of Presidential 31 Decree No. 148, better known as the "Women and Child Labor Law," which amended paragraph (c), Section 12 of Republic Act No. 679, 32 entitled "An Act to Regulate the Employment of Women and Children, to Provide Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes." The forerunner to Republic Act No. 679, on the other hand, was Act No. 3071 which became law on March 16, 1923 and which regulated the employment of women and children in shops, factories, industrial, agricultural, and mercantile establishments and other places of labor in the then Philippine Islands. It would be worthwhile to reflect upon and adopt here the rationalization in Zialcita, et al. vs. Philippine Air Lines, 33 a decision that emanated from the Office of the President. There, a policy of Philippine Air Lines requiring that prospective flight attendants must be

single and that they will be automatically separated from the service once they marry was declared void, it being violative of the clear mandate in Article 136 of the Labor Code with regard to discrimination against married women. Thus: Of first impression is the incompatibility of the respondent's policy or regulation with the codal provision of law. Respondent is resolute in its contention that Article 136 of the Labor Code applies only to women employed in ordinary occupations and that the prohibition against marriage of women engaged in extraordinary occupations, like flight attendants, is fair and reasonable, considering the pecularities of their chosen profession. We cannot subscribe to the line of reasoning pursued by respondent. All along, it knew that the controverted policy has already met its doom as early as March 13, 1973 when Presidential Decree No. 148, otherwise known as the Women and Child Labor Law, was promulgated. But for the timidity of those affected or their labor unions in challenging the validity of the policy, the same was able to obtain a momentary reprieve. A close look at Section 8 of said decree, which amended paragraph (c) of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 679, reveals that it is exactly the same provision reproduced verbatim in Article 136 of the Labor Code, which was promulgated on May 1, 1974 to take effect six (6) months later, or on November 1, 1974. It cannot be gainsaid that, with the reiteration of the same provision in the new Labor Code, all policies and acts against it are deemed illegal and therefore abrogated. True, Article 132 enjoins the Secretary of Labor to establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees and in appropriate cases shall by regulation require employers to determine appropriate minimum standards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants, but that is precisely the factor that militates against the policy of respondent. The standards have not yet been established as set forth in the first paragraph, nor has the Secretary of Labor issued any regulation affecting flight attendants. It is logical to presume that, in the absence of said standards or regulations which are as yet to be established, the policy of respondent against marriage is patently illegal. This finds support in Section 9 of the New Constitution, which provides: Sec. 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employees. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work . . . . Moreover, we cannot agree to the respondent's proposition that termination from employment of flight attendants on account of marriage is a fair and reasonable standard designed for their own health, safety, protection and welfare, as no basis has been laid therefor. Actually, respondent claims that its concern is not so much against the continued employment of the flight attendant merely by reason of marriage as observed by the Secretary of Labor, but rather on the consequence of marriage-pregnancy. Respondent discussed at length in the instant appeal the supposed ill effects of pregnancy on

flight attendants in the course of their employment. We feel that this needs no further discussion as it had been adequately explained by the Secretary of Labor in his decision of May 2, 1976. In a vain attempt to give meaning to its position, respondent went as far as invoking the provisions of Articles 52 and 216 of the New Civil Code on the preservation of marriage as an inviolable social institution and the family as a basic social institution, respectively, as bases for its policy of non-marriage. In both instances, respondent predicates absence of a flight attendant from her home for long periods of time as contributory to an unhappy married life. This is pure conjecture not based on actual conditions, considering that, in this modern world, sophisticated technology has narrowed the distance from one place to another. Moreover, respondent overlooked the fact that married flight attendants can program their lives to adapt to prevailing circumstances and events. Article 136 is not intended to apply only to women employed in ordinary occupations, or it should have categorically expressed so. The sweeping intendment of the law, be it on special or ordinary occupations, is reflected in the whole text and supported by Article 135 that speaks of non-discrimination on the employment of women. The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Gualberto, et al. vs. Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation 34 considered as void a policy of the same nature. In said case, respondent, in dismissing from the service the complainant, invoked a policy of the firm to consider female employees in the project it was undertaking as separated the moment they get married due to lack of facilities for married women. Respondent further claimed that complainant was employed in the project with an oral understanding that her services would be terminated when she gets married. Branding the policy of the employer as an example of "discriminatory chauvinism" tantamount to denying equal employment opportunities to women simply on account of their sex, the appellate court struck down said employer policy as unlawful in view of its repugnance to the Civil Code, Presidential Decree No. 148 and the Constitution. Under American jurisprudence, job requirements which establish employer preference or conditions relating to the marital status of an employee are categorized as a "sex-plus" discrimination where it is imposed on one sex and not on the other. Further, the same should be evenly applied and must not inflict adverse effects on a racial or sexual group which is protected by federal job discrimination laws. Employment rules that forbid or restrict the employment of married women, but do not apply to married men, have been held to violate Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal statute prohibiting job discrimination against employees and applicants on the basis of, among other things, sex. 35 Further, it is not relevant that the rule is not directed against all women but just against married women. And, where the employer discriminates against married women, but not against married men, the variable is sex and the discrimination is unlawful. 36 Upon the other hand, a requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried could be justified as a "bona fide occupational qualification," or BFOQ, where the particular requirements of the job would justify the same, but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the desirability of spreading work in the workplace. A requirement of that nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance. Thus, in one case, a no-marriage rule applicable to both male and female flight attendants, was regarded as unlawful since the restriction was not related to the job performance of the flight attendants. 37

5. Petitioner's policy is not only in derogation of the provisions of Article 136 of the Labor Code on the right of a woman to be free from any kind of stipulation against marriage in connection with her employment, but it likewise assaults good morals and public policy, tending as it does to deprive a woman of the freedom to choose her status, a privilege that by all accounts inheres in the individual as an intangible and inalienable right. 38 Hence, while it is true that the parties to a contract may establish any agreements, terms, and conditions that they may deem convenient, the same should not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. 39 Carried to its logical consequences, it may even be said that petitioner's policy against legitimate marital bonds would encourage illicit or common-law relations and subvert the sacrament of marriage. Parenthetically, the Civil Code provisions on the contract of labor state that the relations between the parties, that is, of capital and labor, are not merely contractual, impressed as they are with so much public interest that the same should yield to the common good. 40 It goes on to intone that neither capital nor labor should visit acts of oppression against the other, nor impair the interest or convenience of the public. 41 In the final reckoning, the danger of just such a policy against marriage followed by petitioner PT & T is that it strikes at the very essence, ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social institution and, ultimately, of the family as the foundation of the nation. 42 That it must be effectively interdicted here in all its indirect, disguised or dissembled forms as discriminatory conduct derogatory of the laws of the land is not only in order but imperatively required. ON THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the petition of Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit, with double costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA v. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR A.M. No. P-02-1651, O4 August 2003, En Banc (Puno, J.) FACTS: The public morality expressed in the law is necessarily secular for in our constitutional order, the religion clauses prohibit the state from establishing a religion, including the morality it sanctions. When the law speaks of immorality in the Civil Service Law or immoral in the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, or public morals in the Revised Penal Code, or morals in the New Civil Code, or moral character in the Constitution, the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand and religious morality, on the other should be kept in mind- the morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular not religious. Alejandro Estrada filed a complaint against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter of the Regional Trial Court Branch 253 in Las Pinas, for living with a man not her husband and allegedly having a child from such relationship. Estrada believes that Escritor is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs through the execution of Pledge of Faithfulness. The scriptural basis is in Matthew 5:32 that when the spouse commits adultery, the offended spouse can remarry. Once all legal impediments for both are lifted, the couple can already register their marriage with the civil authorities and the validity of the declarations ceases. In sum, therefore, insofar as the congregation is concerned, there is nothing immoral about the conjugal arrangement between Escritor and Quilapio and they remain members in good standing in the congregation. ISSUE: Whether or not Escritor is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and must be administratively liable. HELD: No. Escritor is not guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and must not be held administratively liable. It may be true that in a catena of cases, the Court has ruled that government employees engaged in illicit relations are guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for which he/she may be held administratively liable. Respondent Escritor does not claim that there is an error with such settled jurisprudence. Nor is there an allegation that the norms of morality with respect to illicit relations have shifted towards leniency from the time the precedent cases were decided. The Court finds that there is no such error or shift, thus there is no reason to deviate from these rulings that such illicit relationship constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct punishable under the Civil Service Law. In the normal circumstances, Escritor having admitted the alleged immoral conduct, she could be held administratively liable. However, there is a distinguishing factor that sets the case at bar apart from the precedents. As a defense, respondent invokes religious freedom since her religion,

the Jehovahs Witnesses, has, after thorough investigation, allowed her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio based on the churchs religious beliefs and practices. This distinguishing factor compels the Court to apply the religious clauses to the case at bar .The public morality expressed in the law is necessarily secular for in our constitutional order, the religion clauses prohibit the state from establishing a religion, including the morality it sanctions. Religious morality proceeds from a persons views of his relations to His Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence to His being and character and obedience to His Will, in accordance with this Courts definition of religion in American Bible Society citing Davis. The Establishment Clause puts a negative bar against establishment of this morality arising from one religion or the other, and implies the affirmative establishment of a civil order for the resolution of public moral disputes. This agreement on a secular mechanism is the price of ending the war of all sects against all; the establishment of a secular public moral order is the social contract produced by religious truce. Thus, when the law speaks of immorality in the Civil Service Law or immoral in the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers or public morals in the Revised Penal Code before morals in the New Civil Code or moral character in the Constitution the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, should be kept in mind The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not religious. Expansive religious freedom therefore requires that government be neutral in matters of religion; governmental reliance upon religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality. Recognizing the religious nature of the Filipinos and the elevating influence of religion in society, however, the Philippine constitutions religion clauses prescribe not strict but benevolent neutrality. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. The distinction between public and secular morality as expressed - albeit not exclusively - in the law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. Whatever pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bar should be understood only in this realm where it has authority. More concretely, should the Court declare respondents conduct as immoral and hold her administratively liable, the Court will be holding that in the realm of public morality, her conduct is reprehensible or there are state interests overriding her religious freedom. For as long as her conduct is being judged within this realm, she will be accountable to the state. However, in so ruling, the Court does not and cannot say that her conduct should be made reprehensible in the realm of her church where it is presently sanctioned and that she is answerable for her immorality to her Jehovah God nor that other religions prohibiting her conduct are correct. On the other hand, should the Court declare her conduct permissible, the Court will be holding that under her unique circumstances, public morality is not offended or that upholding her religious freedom is an interest higher than upholding public morality thus her conduct should not be penalized. But the Court is not ruling that the tenets and practice of her religion are correct nor that other churches which do not allow respondents conjugal arrangement should likewise allow such conjugal arrangement or should not find anything immoral about it and therefore members of these churches are not answerable for immorality to her Supreme Being. The Court cannot speak more than what it has authority to say. But while the state, including the Court,

accords such deference to religious belief and exercise which enjoy protection under the religious clauses, the social contract and the constitutional order are designed in such a way that when religious belief flows into speech and conduct that step out of the religious sphere and overlap with the secular and public realm, the state has the power to regulate, prohibit and penalize these expressions and embodiments of belief insofar as they affect the interests of the state. Having distinguished between public and secular morality and religious morality, the more difficult task is determining which immoral acts under this public and secular morality fall under the phrase disgraceful and immoral conduct for which a government employee may be held administratively liable. The line is not easy to draw for it is like a line that divides land and sea, a coastline of irregularities and indentations. Only one conduct is in question before this Court, i.e., the conjugal arrangement of a government employee whose partner is legally married to another which Philippine law and jurisprudence consider both immoral and illegal. The case at bar being one of first impression, now subject the respondents claim of religious freedom to the compelling state interest test from a benevolent neutrality stance i.e. entertaining the possibility that respondents claim to religious freedom would warrant carving out an exception from the Civil Service Law; necessarily, her defense of religious freedom will be unavailing should the government succeed in demonstrating a more compelling state interest. In applying the test, the first inquiry is whether respondents right to religious freedom has been burdened. There is no doubt that choosing between keeping her employment and abandoning her religious belief and practice and family on the one hand, and giving up her employment and keeping her religious practice and family on the other hand, puts a burden on her free exercise of religion. The second step is to ascertain respondents sincerity in her religious belief. Respondent appears to be sincere in her religious belief and practice and is not merely using the Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness to avoid punishment for immorality. She did not secure the Declaration only after entering the judiciary where the moral standards are strict and defined, much less only after an administrative case for immorality was filed against her. The Declaration was issued to her by her congregation after ten years of living together with her partner, Quilapio, and ten years before she entered the judiciary. Ministers from her congregation testified on the authenticity of the Jehovahs Witnesses practice of securing a Declaration and their doctrinal or scriptural basis for such a practice. As the ministers testified, the Declaration is not whimsically issued to avoid legal punishment for illicit conduct but to make the union of their members under respondents circumstances honorable before God and men. It is also worthy of notice that the Report and Recommendation of the investigating judge annexed letters of the OCA to the respondent regarding her request to be exempt from attending the flag ceremony after Circular No. 62-2001 was issued requiring attendance in the flag ceremony. Respondents request for exemption from the flag ceremony shows her sincerity in practicing the Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs and not using them merely to escape punishment. She is a practicing member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Jehovah ministers testified that she is a member in good standing. Nevertheless, should the government, thru the Solicitor General, want to further question the respondents sincerity and the centrality of her practice in her faith, it should be given the opportunity to do so. The government has not been represented in the case at bar from its incipience until this point. In any event, even if the Court deems sufficient respondents evidence on the sincerity of her religious belief and its centrality in her faith, the case at bar cannot still be decided using the compelling state interest test. The case at bar is one of first impression, thus the parties were not aware of the

burdens of proof they should discharge in the Courts use of the compelling state interest test. Indeed, it is inappropriate for the complainant, a private person, to present evidence on the compelling interest of the state. The burden of evidence should be discharged by the proper agency of the government which is the Office of the Solicitor General. To properly settle the issue in the case at bar, the government should be given the opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the respondents stance that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the Courts action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondents claim of religious freedom, but must instead apply the compelling state interest test. The government must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of demonstrating the states compelling interest which can override respondents religious belief and practice. To repeat, this is a case of first impression where we are applying the compelling state interest test in a case involving purely religious conduct. The careful application of the test is indispensable as how we will decide the case will make a decisive difference in the life of the respondent who stands not only before the Court but before her Jehovah God.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 11263 November 2, 1916

ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appellee. Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Socias for appellant. Sanz, Opisso and Luzuriaga for appellee.

the parties but upon the general law which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations .Marriage is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested. It is a relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make .The reciprocal rights arising from this relation, so long as it continues, are such as the law determines from time to time, and none other. When the legal existence of the parties is merged into one by marriage, the new relation is regulated and controlled by the state or government upon principles of public policy for the benefit of society as well as the parties. And when the object of a marriage is defeated by rendering its continuance intolerable to one of the parties and productive of no possible good to the community, relief in some way should be obtainable. With these principles to guide us, we will inquire into the status of the law touching and governing the question under consideration. Articles 42 to 107 of the Civil Code are not in force in the Philippine Islands (Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil .Rep., 34). Articles 44 to 78 of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870, in force in the Peninsula, were extended to the Philippine Islands by royal decree on April 13, 1883 (Ebreo vs. Sichon, 4 Phil. Rep., 705). Articles 44, 45, and 48 of this law read: ART. 44. The spouses are obliged to be faithful to each other and to mutually assist each other. ART. 45. The husband must live with and protect his wife. (The second paragraph deals with the management of the wife's property.) ART. 48. The wife must obey her husband, live with him, and follow him when he charges his domicile or residence. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, the court may for just cause relieve her from this duty when the husband removes his residence to a foreign country. And articles 143 and 149 of the Civil Code are as follows: ART. 143. The following are obliged to support each other reciprocally to the whole extent specified in the preceding article. 1. The consorts. xxx xxx xxx

TRENT, J.: This is an action by the wife against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile. From a judgment sustaining the defendant's demurrer upon the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of action, followed by an order dismissing the case after the plaintiff declined to amend, the latter appealed. It was urged in the first instance, and the court so held, that the defendant cannot be compelled to support the plaintiff, except in his own house, unless it be by virtue of a judicial decree granting her a divorce or separation from the defendant. The parties were legally married in the city of Manila on January 7, 1915, and immediately thereafter established their residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino, where they lived together for about a month, when the plaintiff returned to the home of her parents. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are as follows: That the defendant, one month after he had contracted marriage with the plaintiff, demanded of her that she perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs; that the plaintiff spurned the obscene demands of the defendant and refused to perform any act other than legal and valid cohabitation; that the defendant, since that date had continually on other successive dates, made similar lewd and indecorous demands on his wife, the plaintiff, who always spurned them, which just refusals of the plaintiff exasperated the defendant and induce him to maltreat her by word and deed and inflict injuries upon her lips, her face and different parts of her body; and that, as the plaintiff was unable by any means to induce the defendant to desist from his repugnant desires and cease from maltreating her, she was obliged to leave the conjugal abode and take refuge in the home of her parents. Marriage in this jurisdiction is a contract entered into in the manner and with the solemnities established by General Orders No. 68, in so far as its civil effects are concerned requiring the consent of the parties. (Garcia vs. Montague, 12 Phil. Rep., 480, citing article 1261 of Civil Code.) Upon the termination of the marriage ceremony, a conjugal partnership is formed between the parties. (Sy Joc Lieng vs. Encarnacion, 16 Phil. Rep., 137.) To this extent a marriage partakes of the nature of an ordinary contract. But it is something more than a mere contract. It is a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon the agreement of

ART. (149) 49. The person obliged to give support may, at his option, satisfy it, either by paying the pension that may be fixed or by receiving and maintaining in his own home the person having the right to the same. Article 152 of the Civil Code gives the instances when the obligation to give support shall cease. The failure of the wife to live with her husband is not one of them. The above quoted provisions of the Law of Civil Marriage and the Civil Code fix the duties and obligations of the spouses. The spouses must be faithful to, assist, and support each other. The husband must live with and protect his wife. The wife must obey and live with her husband and follow him when he changes his domicile or residence, except when he removes to a foreign country. But the husband who is obliged to support his wife may, at his option, do so by paying her a fixed pension or by receiving and maintaining her in his own home. May the husband, on account of

his conduct toward his wife, lose this option and be compelled to pay the pension? Is the rule established by article 149 of the Civil Code absolute? The supreme court of Spain in its decision of December 5, 1903, held:. That in accordance with the ruling of the supreme court of Spain in its decisions dated May 11, 1897, November 25, 1899, and July 5, 1901, the option which article 149 grants the person, obliged to furnish subsistence, between paying the pension fixed or receiving and keeping in his own house the party who is entitled to the same, is not so absolute as to prevent cases being considered wherein, either because this right would be opposed to the exercise of a preferential right or because of the existence of some justifiable cause morally opposed to the removal of the party enjoying the maintenance, the right of selection must be understood as being thereby restricted. Whereas the only question discussed in the case which gave rise to this appeal was whether there was any reason to prevent the exercise of the option granted by article 149 of the Civil Code to the person obliged to furnish subsistence, to receive and maintain in his own house the one who is entitled to receive it; and inasmuch as nothing has been alleged or discussed with regard to the parental authority of Pedro Alcantara Calvo, which he ha not exercised, and it having been set forth that the natural father simply claims his child for the purpose of thus better attending to her maintenance, no action having been taken by him toward providing the support until, owing to such negligence, the mother was obliged to demand it; it is seen that these circumstances, together with the fact of the marriage of Pedro Alcantara, and that it would be difficult for the mother to maintain relations with her daughter, all constitute an impediment of such a nature as to prevent the exercise of the option in the present case, without prejudice to such decision as may be deemed proper with regard to the other questions previously cited in respect to which no opinion should be expressed at this time. The above was quoted with approval in United States and De Jesus vs. Alvir (9 Phil. Rep., 576), wherein the court held that the rule laid down in article 149 of the Civil Code "is not absolute." but it is insisted that there existed a preexisting or preferential right in each of these cases which was opposed to the removal of the one entitled to support. It is true that in the first the person claiming the option was the natural father of the child and had married a woman other than the child's mother, and in the second the right to support had already been established by a final judgment in a criminal case. Notwithstanding these facts the two cases clearly established the proposition that the option given by article 149 of the Civil Code may not be exercised in any and all cases. Counsel for the defendant cite, in support of their contention, the decision of the supreme court of Spain, dated November 3, 1905. In this case Don Berno Comas, as a result of certain business reverses and in order no to prejudice his wife, conferred upon her powers to administer and dispose of her property. When she left him he gave her all the muniments of title, mortgage credits, notes, P10,000 in accounts receivable, and the key to the safe in which he kept a large amount of jewels, thus depriving himself of all his possessions and being reduced in consequence to want. Subsequently he instituted this civil action against his wife, who was then living in opulence, for support and the revocation of the powers heretofore granted in

reference to the administration and disposal of her property. In her answer the wife claimed that the plaintiff (her husband) was not legally in a situation to claim support and that the powers voluntarily conferred and accepted by her were bilateral and could not be canceled by the plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant wife appealed to the Audencia Territorial wherein, after due trial, judgment was rendered in her favor dismissing the action upon the merits. The plaintiff appealed to the supreme court and that high tribunal, in affirming the judgment of the Audencia Territorial, said: Considering that article 143, No. 1, of the Civil Code, providing that the spouses are mutually obliged to provide each other with support, cannot but be subordinate to the other provisions of said Code which regulates the family organization and the duties of spouses not legally separated, among which duties are those of their living together and mutually helping each other, as provided in article 56 of the aforementioned code; and taking this for granted, the obligation of the spouse who has property to furnish support to the one who has no property and is in need of it for subsistence, is to be understood as limited to the case where, in accordance with law, their separation has been decreed, either temporarily or finally and this case, with respect to the husband, cannot occur until a judgment of divorce is rendered, since, until then, if he is culpable, he is not deprived of the management of his wife's property and of the product of the other property belonging to the conjugal partnership; and Considering that, should the doctrine maintained in the appeal prevail, it would allow married persons to disregard the marriage bond and separate from each other of their own free will, thus establishing, contrary to the legal provision contained in said article 56 of the Civil Code, a legal status entirely incompatible with the nature and effects of marriage in disregard of the duties inherent therein and disturbing the unity of the family, in opposition to what the law, in conformity with good morals, has established; and. Considering that, as the spouses D. Ramon Benso and Doa Adela Galindo are not legally separated, it is their duty to live together and afford each other help and support; and for this reason, it cannot be held that the former has need of support from his wife so that he may live apart from her without the conjugal abode where it is his place to be, nor of her conferring power upon him to dispose even of the fruits of her property in order therewith to pay the matrimonial expenses and, consequently, those of his own support without need of going to his wife; wherefore the judgment appealed from, denying the petition of D. Ramon Benso for support, has not violated the articles of the Civil Code and the doctrine invoked in the assignments of error 1 and 5 of the appeal. From a careful reading of the case just cited and quoted from it appears quite clearly that the spouses separated voluntarily in accordance with an agreement previously made. At least there are strong indications to this effect, for the court says, "should the doctrine maintained in the appeal prevail, it would allow married persons to disregard the marriage bond and separate from each other of their own free will." If this be the true basis upon which the supreme court of Spain rested its decision, then the doctrine therein enunciated would not be controlling in cases where one of the spouses was compelled to leave the conjugal abode by the other or where the husband voluntarily abandons such abode and the wife seeks to force him to furnish

support. That this is true appears from the decision of the same high tribunal, dated October 16, 1903. In this case the wife brought an action for support against her husband who had willfully and voluntarily abandoned the conjugal abode without any cause whatever. The supreme court, reversing the judgment absolving the defendant upon the ground that no action for divorce, etc., had been instituted, said: In the case at bar, it has been proven that it was Don Teodoro Exposito who left the conjugal abode, although he claims, without however proving his contention, that the person responsible for this situation was his wife, as she turned him out of the house. From this state of affairs it results that it is the wife who is party abandoned, the husband not having prosecuted any action to keep her in his company and he therefore finds himself, as long as he consents to the situation, under the ineluctable obligation to support his wife in fulfillment of the natural duty sanctioned in article 56 of the Code in relation with paragraph 1 of article 143. In not so holding, the trial court, on the mistaken ground that for the fulfillment of this duty the situation or relation of the spouses should be regulated in the manner it indicates, has made the errors of law assigned in the first three grounds alleged, because the nature of the duty of affording mutual support is compatible and enforcible in all situations, so long as the needy spouse does not create any illicit situation of the court above described. lawphil.net If we are in error as to the doctrine enunciated by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of November 3, 1905, and if the court did hold, as contended by counsel for the defendant in the case under consideration, that neither spouse can be compelled to support the other outside of the conjugal abode, unless it be by virtue of a final judgment granting the injured one a divorce or separation from the other, still such doctrine or holding would not necessarily control in this jurisdiction for the reason that the substantive law is not in every particular the same here as it is in Spain. As we have already stated, articles 42 to 107 of the Civil Code in force in the Peninsula are not in force in the Philippine Islands. The law governing the duties and obligations of husband and wife in this country are articles 44 to 78 of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870 .In Spain the complaining spouse has, under article 105 of the Civil Code, various causes for divorce, such as adultery on the part of the wife in every case and on the part of the husband when public scandal or disgrace of the wife results therefrom; personal violence actually inflicted or grave insults: violence exercised by the husband toward the wife in order to force her to change her religion; the proposal of the husband to prostitute his wife; the attempts of the husband or wife to corrupt their sons or to prostitute their daughters; the connivance in their corruption or prostitution; and the condemnation of a spouse to perpetual chains or hard labor, while in this jurisdiction the only ground for a divorce is adultery. (Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil .Rep., 34, 45.) This positive and absolute doctrine was announced by this court in the case just cited after an exhaustive examination of the entire subject. Although the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and the judgment rendered by this court was there reversed, the reversal did not affect in any way or weaken the doctrine in reference to adultery being the only ground for a divorce. And since the decision was promulgated by this court in that case in December, 1903, no change or modification of the rule has been announced. It is, therefore, the well settled and accepted doctrine in this jurisdiction. But it is argued that to grant support in an independent suit is equivalent to granting divorce or separation, as it necessitates a determination of the question whether the wife has a good and sufficient cause for living separate from her

husband; and, consequently, if a court lacks power to decree a divorce, as in the instant case, power to grant a separate maintenance must also be lacking. The weakness of this argument lies in the assumption that the power to grant support in a separate action is dependent upon a power to grant a divorce. That the one is not dependent upon the other is apparent from the very nature of the marital obligations of the spouses. The mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife. This obligation is founded not so much on the express or implied terms of the contract of marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband; an obligation, the enforcement of which is of such vital concern to the state itself that the laws will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection in the parental home. A judgment for separate maintenance is not due and payable either as damages or as a penalty; nor is it a debt in the strict legal sense of the term, but rather a judgment calling for the performance of a duty made specific by the mandate of the sovereign. This is done from necessity and with a view to preserve the public peace and the purity of the wife; as where the husband makes so base demands upon his wife and indulges in the habit of assaulting her. The pro tanto separation resulting from a decree for separate support is not an impeachment of that public policy by which marriage is regarded as so sacred and inviolable in its nature; it is merely a stronger policy overruling a weaker one; and except in so far only as such separation is tolerated as a means of preserving the public peace and morals may be considered, it does not in any respect whatever impair the marriage contract or for any purpose place the wife in the situation of a feme sole. The foregoing are the grounds upon which our short opinion and order for judgment, heretofore filed in this case, rest.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 83598 March 7, 1997 LEONCIA BALOGBOG and GAUDIOSO BALOGBOG, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMONITO BALOGBOG and GENEROSO BALOGBOG, respondents.

accompany Catalina and carry her wedding dress from her residence in Camanaol to the poblacion of Asturias before the wedding day. He testified that Gavino died in 1935 in his residence at Obogon, Balamban, Cebu, in the presence of his wife. (This contradicts petitioners' claim made in their answer that Gavino died in the ancestral house at Tag-amakan, Asturias.) Pogoy said he was a carpenter and he was the one who had made the coffin of Gavino. He also made the coffin of the couple's son, Petronilo, who died when he was six. Catalina Ubas testified concerning her marriage to Gavino. 4 She testified that after the wedding, she was handed a "receipt," presumably the marriage certificate, by Fr. Jomao-as, but it was burned during the war. She said that she and Gavino lived together in Obogon and begot three children, namely, Ramonito, Petronilo, and Generoso. Petronilo died after an illness at the age of six. On crossexamination, she stated that after the death of Gavino, she lived in common law relation with a man for a year and then they separated. Private respondents produced a certificate from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (Exh. P) that the Register of Marriages did not have a record of the marriage of Gavino and Catalina, another certificate from the Office of the Treasurer (Exh. L) that there was no record of the birth of Ramonito in that office and, for this reason, the record must be presumed to have been lost or destroyed during the war, and a certificate by the Parish Priest of Asturias that there was likewise no record of birth of Ramonito in the church, the records of which were either lost or destroyed during the war. (Exh. M) On the other hand, as defendant below, petitioner Leoncia Balogbog testified 5 that Gavino died single at the family residence in Asturias. She denied that her brother had any legitimate children and stated that she did not know private respondents before this case was filed. She obtained a certificate (Exh. 10) from the Local Civil Registrar of Asturias to the effect that that office did not have a record of the names of Gavino and Catalina. The certificate was prepared by Assistant Municipal Treasurer Juan Maranga, who testified that there was no record of the marriage of Gavino and Catalina in the Book of Marriages between 1925 to 1935. 6 Witness Jose Narvasa testified 7 that Gavino died single in 1935 and that Catalina lived with a certain Eleuterio Keriado after the war, although he did not know whether they were legally married. He added, however, that Catalina had children by a man she had married before the war, although he did not know the names of the children. On crossexamination, Narvasa stated that Leoncia Balogbog, who requested him to testify, was also his bondsman in a criminal case filed by a certain Mr. Cuyos. Ramonito Balogbog was presented 8 to rebut Leoncia Balogbog's testimony. On June 15, 1973, the Court of First Instance of Cebu City rendered judgment for private respondents (plaintiffs below), ordering petitioners to render an accounting from 1960 until the finality of its judgment, to partition the estate and deliver to private respondents one-third of the estate of Basilio and Genoveva, and to pay attorney's fees and costs.

MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for review of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu City (Branch IX), declaring private respondents heirs of the deceased Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog entitled to inherit from them. The facts are as follows. Petitioners Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog are the children of Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arzibal who died intestate in 1951 and 1961, respectively. They had an older brother, Gavino, but he died in 1935, predeceasing their parents. In 1968, private respondents Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog brought an action for partition and accounting against petitioners, claiming that they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as such, they were entitled to the one-third share of Gavino in the estate of their grandparents. In their answer, petitioners denied knowing private respondents. They alleged that their brother Gavino died single and without issue in their parents' residence at Tag-amakan, Asturias, Cebu. In the beginning they claimed that the properties of the estate had been sold to them by their mother when she was still alive, but they later withdrew this allegation. Private respondents presented Priscilo Y. Trazo, 2 then 81 years old, mayor of the municipality of Asturias from 1928 to 1934, who testified that he knew Gavino and Catalina to be husband and wife and Ramonito to be their first child. On cross examination, Trazo explained that he knew Gavino and Catalina because they performed at his campaign rallies, Catalina as "balitaw" dancer and Gavino Balogbog as her guitarist. Trazo said he attended the wedding of Gavino and Catalina sometime in 1929, in which Rev. Father Emiliano Jomao-as officiated and Egmidio Manuel, then a municipal councilor, acted as one of the witnesses. The second witness presented was Matias Pogoy, a family friend of private respondents, who testified that private respondents are the children of Gavino and Catalina. According to him, the wedding of Gavino and Catalina was solemnized in the Catholic Church of Asturias, Cebu and that he knew this because he attended their wedding and was in fact asked by Gavino to
3

Petitioners filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, contending that the trial court erred in not giving weight to the certification of the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Asturias (Exh. 10) to the effect that no marriage of Gavino and Catalina was recorded in the Book of Marriages for the years 1925-1935. Their motion was denied by the trial court, as was their second motion for new trial and/or reconsideration based on the church records of the parish of Asturias which did not contain the record of the alleged marriage in that church. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that private respondents failed to overcome the legal presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are in fact married, that a child is presumed to be legitimate, and that things happen according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. 9 Hence, this petition. We find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals. First. Petitioners contend that the marriage of Gavino and Catalina should have been proven in accordance with Arts. 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889 because this was the law in force at the time the alleged marriage was celebrated. Art. 53 provides that marriages celebrated under the Civil Code of 1889 should be proven only by a certified copy of the memorandum in the Civil Registry, unless the books thereof have not been kept or have been lost, or unless they are questioned in the courts, in which case any other proof, such as that of the continuous possession by parents of the status of husband and wife, may be considered, provided that the registration of the birth of their children as their legitimate children is also submitted in evidence. This Court noted long ago, however, that Arts. 42 to 107 of the Civil Code of 1889 of Spain did not take effect, having been suspended by the Governor General of the Philippines shortly after the extension of that code to this country. 10 Consequently, Arts. 53 and 54 never came into force. Since this case was brought in the lower court in 1968, the existence of the marriage must be determined in accordance with the present Civil Code, which repealed the provisions of the former Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights, 11 and the rules on evidence. Under the Rules of Court, the presumption is that a man and a woman conducting themselves as husband and wife are legally married. 12 This presumption may be rebutted only by cogent proof to the contrary. 13 In this case, petitioners' claim that the certification presented by private respondents (to the effect that the record of the marriage had been lost or destroyed during the war) was belied by the production of the Book of Marriages by the assistant municipal treasurer of Asturias. Petitioners argue that this book does not contain any entry pertaining to the alleged marriage of private respondents' parents. This contention has no merit. In Pugeda v. Trias, 14 the defendants, who questioned the marriage of the plaintiffs, produced a photostatic copy of the record of marriages of the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite for the month of January, 1916, to show that there was no record of the alleged marriage. Nonetheless, evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the marriage. Indeed, although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, 15 the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented to prove

marriage. 16 Here, private respondents proved, through testimonial evidence, that Gavino and Catalina were married in 1929; that they had three children, one of whom died in infancy; that their marriage subsisted until 1935 when Gavino died; and that their children, private respondents herein, were recognized by Gavino's family and by the public as the legitimate children of Gavino. Neither is there merit in the argument that the existence of the marriage cannot be presumed because there was no evidence showing in particular that Gavino and Catalina, in the presence of two witnesses, declared that they were taking each other as husband and wife. 17 An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for having a wedding is to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would indeed be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and quite unnatural for people not to notice its absence. The law favors the validity of marriage, because the State is interested in the preservation of the family and the sanctity of the family is a matter of constitutional concern. As stated in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee: 18 The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is "that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage." (Sec. 334, No. 28) Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio Always presume marriage. (U.S. vs. Villafuerte and Rabano [1905], 4 Phil., 476; Son Cui vs. Guepangco, supra; U.S. vs. Memoracion and Uri [1916], 34 Phil., 633; Teter vs. Teter [1884], 101 Ind., 129.) Second. Petitioners contend that private respondents' reliance solely on testimonial evidence to support their claim that private respondents had been in the continuous possession of the status of legitimate children is contrary to Art. 265 of the Civil Code which provides that such status shall be proven by the record of birth in the Civil Register, by an authentic document or by final judgment. But in accordance with Arts. 266 and 267, in the absence of titles indicated in Art. 265, the filiation of children may be proven by continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child and by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. Thus the Civil Code provides:

Art. 266. In the absence of the titles indicated in the preceding article, the filiation shall be proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child. Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Petitioners contend that there is no justification for presenting testimonies as to the possession by private respondents of the status of legitimate children because the Book of Marriages for the years 1928-1929 is available. What is in issue, however, is not the marriage of Gavino and Catalina but the filiation of private respondents as their children. The marriage of Gavino and Catalina has already been shown in the preceding discussion. The treasurer of Asturias, Cebu certified that the records of birth of that municipality for the year 1930 could not be found, presumably because they were lost or destroyed during the war (Exh. L). But Matias Pogoy testified that Gavino and Catalina begot three children, one of whom, Petronilo, died at the age of six. Catalina testified that private respondents Ramonito and Generoso are her children by Gavino Balogbog. That private respondents are the children of Gavino and Catalina Balogbog cannot therefore be doubted. Moreover, the evidence in the record shows that petitioner Gaudioso Balogbog admitted to the police of Balamban, Cebu that Ramonito is his nephew. As the Court of Appeals found: Ironically, it is appellant Gaudioso himself who supplies the clincher that tips the balance in favor of the appellees. In an investigation before the Police Investigating Committee of Balamban, Cebu, held on March 8, 1968, conducted for the purpose of inquiring into a complaint filed by Ramonito against a patrolman of the Balamban police force, Gaudioso testified that the complainant in that administrative case is his nephew. Excerpts from the transcript of the proceedings conducted on that date (Exhs. "N", "N-1", "N-2", "N-3" and "N-4") read: Atty. Kiamco May it please this investigative body. Q. Do you know the complainant in this Administrative Case No. 1? A. Yes I know. Q. Why do you know him? A. I know because he is my nephew. Q. Are you in good terms with your nephew, the complainant? A. Yes.

Q. Do you mean to say that you are close to him? A. Yes. We are close. Q. Why do you say you are close? A. We are close because aside from the fact that he is my nephew we were also leaving (sic) in the same house in Butuan City, and I even barrow (sic) from him money in the amount of P300.00, when I return to Balamban, Cebu. xxx xxx xxx Q. Why is Ramonito Balogbog your nephew? A. Because he is the son of my elder brother. This admission of relationship is admissible against Gaudioso although made in another case. It is considered as a reliable declaration against interest (Rule 130, Section 22). Significantly, Gaudioso did not try to offer any explanation to blunt the effects of that declaration. He did not even testify during the trial. Such silence can only mean that Ramonito is indeed the nephew of Gaudioso, the former being the son of Gavino. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 167746 August 28, 2007

Respondent prays that the petition for annulment of marriage be denied for lack of merit. On 14 February 2000, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, rendered its Decision disposing as follows: The foregoing considered, judgment is rendered as follows: 1. The Petition is dismissed for lack of merit; 2. Petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the sum of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) per month as support for their two (2) children on the first five (5) days of each month; and 3. To pay the costs.
11

RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. ROSITA A. ALCANTARA and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Restituto 1 Alcantara assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 in 2 CA-G.R. CV No. 66724 denying petitioners appeal and affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143, in Civil Case No. 97-1325 dated 14 February 2000, dismissing his petition for annulment of marriage. The antecedent facts are: A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by petitioner against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and respondent, without securing the required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange a marriage for them. They met a person who, for a fee, arranged their wedding before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of 4 the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel. They got married on the same day, 8 December 1982. Petitioner and respondent went through another marriage ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. The alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said place. On 14 October 1985, respondent gave birth to their child Rose Ann Alcantara. In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives. Petitioner prayed that after due hearing, judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to 5 6 cancel the corresponding marriage contract and its entry on file. Answering petitioners petition for annulment of marriage, respondent asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. Contrary to petitioners representation, respondent gave birth to their first child named Rose Ann Alcantara on 14 October 1985 and to another daughter named Rachel Ann 7 Alcantara on 27 October 1992. Petitioner has a mistress with whom he has three 8 children. Petitioner only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution 9 for concubinage. Respondent, in fact, has filed a case for concubinage against 10 petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.
3

As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing the petitioners appeal. His Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a resolution 12 of the Court of Appeals dated 6 April 2005. The Court of Appeals held that the marriage license of the parties is presumed to be regularly issued and petitioner had not presented any evidence to overcome the presumption. Moreover, the parties marriage contract being a public document is a prima facie proof of the questioned marriage under Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules 13 of Court. In his Petition before this Court, petitioner raises the following issues for resolution: a. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it ruled that the Petition for Annulment has no legal and factual basis despite the evidence on record that there was no marriage license at the precise moment of the solemnization of the marriage. b. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it gave weight to the Marriage License No. 7054133 despite the fact that the same was not identified and offered as evidence during the trial, and was not the Marriage license number appearing on the face of the marriage contract. c. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it failed to apply the ruling laid down by this Honorable Court in the case of Sy vs. Court of Appeals. (G.R. No. 127263, 12 April 2000 [330 SCRA 550]). d. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it failed to relax the observance of procedural rules to protect and promote the 14 substantial rights of the party litigants. We deny the petition. Petitioner submits that at the precise time that his marriage with the respondent was celebrated, there was no marriage license because he and respondent just went to 15 the Manila City Hall and dealt with a "fixer" who arranged everything for them. The wedding took place at the stairs in Manila City Hall and not in CDCC BR Chapel 16 where Rev. Aquilino Navarro who solemnized the marriage belongs. He and respondent did not go to Carmona, Cavite, to apply for a marriage license. Assuming a marriage license from Carmona, Cavite, was issued to them, neither he nor the respondent was a resident of the place. The certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weight because the certification states that "Marriage License number 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto

Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario" but their marriage contract bears the number 7054033 for their marriage license number. The marriage involved herein having been solemnized on 8 December 1982, or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law to determine its validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, 18 the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in 19 relation to Article 58 of the same Code. Article 53 of the Civil Code of the parties states:
20

17

In all these cases, there was clearly an absence of a marriage license which rendered the marriage void. Clearly, from these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the 25 local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in that it specifically identified the parties to whom the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein. The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of Carmona, Cavite, reads: This is to certify that as per the registry Records of Marriage filed in this office, Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on December 8, 1982. This Certification is being issued upon the request of Mrs. Rosita A. Alcantara for 26 whatever legal purpose or intents it may serve. This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done in the regular conduct 27 of official business. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. However, the presumption prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and, in case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or unlawful, construction 28 should be in favor of its lawfulness. Significantly, apart from these, petitioner, by 29 counsel, admitted that a marriage license was, indeed, issued in Carmona, Cavite. Petitioner, in a faint attempt to demolish the probative value of the marriage license, claims that neither he nor respondent is a resident of Carmona, Cavite. Even then, we still hold that there is no sufficient basis to annul petitioner and respondents marriage. Issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality, not the residence of either of the contracting parties, and issuance of a marriage license despite the absence of publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication 30 are considered mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage. An irregularity in any of the formal requisites of marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly, criminally and 31 administratively liable. Again, petitioner harps on the discrepancy between the marriage license number in the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar, which states that the marriage license issued to the parties is No. 7054133, while the marriage contract states that the marriage license number of the parties is number 7054033. Once more, this argument fails to sway us. It is not impossible to assume that the same is a mere a typographical error, as a closer scrutiny of the marriage contract reveals the overlapping of the numbers 0 and 1, such that the marriage license may read either as 7054133 or 7054033. It therefore does not detract from our conclusion regarding the existence and issuance of said marriage license to the parties.

which was the law applicable at the time of the marriage

Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (2) Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character. The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the States demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the 21 general public is interested. Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the validity of his marriage. The cases where the court considered the absence of a marriage license as a ground for considering the marriage void are clear-cut. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals , the Local Civil Registrar issued a certification of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the effect that Marriage License No. 3196182 was issued to the parties. The Court held that the certification of "due search and inability to find" a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Based on said certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the marriage void ab initio. In Cario v. Cario, the Court considered the marriage of therein petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santiago S. Carino as void ab initio. The records reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such marriage license. The court held that the certification issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license. Their marriage having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly void ab initio. In Sy v. Court of Appeals, the marriage license was issued on 17 September 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on 15 November 1973. The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license.
24 23 22

Under the principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands, petitioner cannot pretend that he was not responsible or a party to the marriage celebration which he now insists took place without the requisite marriage license. 33 Petitioner admitted that the civil marriage took place because he "initiated it." Petitioner is an educated person. He is a mechanical engineer by profession. He knowingly and voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through a marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his action and be allowed to extricate himself from the marriage bond at his mere say-so when the situation is no longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle. We cannot countenance such effrontery. His attempt to make a mockery of the institution of 34 marriage betrays his bad faith. Petitioner and respondent went through a marriage ceremony twice in a span of less than one year utilizing the same marriage license. There is no claim that he went through the second wedding ceremony in church under duress or with a gun to his head. Everything was executed without nary a whimper on the part of the petitioner.lavvphi1 In fact, for the second wedding of petitioner and respondent, they presented to the San Jose de Manuguit Church the marriage contract executed during the previous wedding ceremony before the Manila City Hall. This is confirmed in petitioners testimony as follows WITNESS As I remember your honor, they asked us to get the necessary document prior to the wedding. COURT What particular document did the church asked you to produce? I am referring to the San Jose de Manuguit church. WITNESS I dont remember your honor. COURT Were you asked by the church to present a Marriage License? WITNESS I think they asked us for documents and I said we have already a Marriage Contract and I dont know if it is good enough for the marriage and they accepted it your honor. COURT In other words, you represented to the San Jose de Manuguit church that you have with you already a Marriage Contract? WITNESS Yes your honor. COURT That is why the San Jose de Manuguit church copied the same marriage License in the Marriage Contract issued which Marriage License is Number 7054033.

32

WITNESS Yes your honor.

35

The logical conclusion is that petitioner was amenable and a willing participant to all that took place at that time. Obviously, the church ceremony was confirmatory of their civil marriage, thereby cleansing whatever irregularity or defect attended the civil 36 wedding. Likewise, the issue raised by petitioner -- that they appeared before a "fixer" who arranged everything for them and who facilitated the ceremony before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC Br Chapel -- will not strengthen his posture. The authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of any showing to 37 the contrary. Moreover, the solemnizing officer is not duty-bound to investigate whether or not a marriage license has been duly and regularly issued by the local civil registrar. All the solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license has been issued by the competent official, and it may be presumed from the issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled the duty to ascertain whether the contracting parties had 38 fulfilled the requirements of law. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in favor of the 39 validity of the marriage. Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is Denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 September 2004 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143 of Makati City, dated 14 February 2000, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 175581 March 28, 2008

Subsequently, she filed an administrative complaint against Jose with the Office of the Ombudsman, since Jose and Rufina were both employees of the National Statistics and Coordinating Board.6 The Ombudsman found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct, and meted out to him the penalty of suspension from service for one year without emolument.7 On 26 July 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision8 dismissing the Complaint. It disposed: WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation and analysis of the evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds and so holds that the [C]omplaint does not deserve a favorable consideration. Accordingly, the above-entitled case is hereby ordered DISMISSED with costs against [Jose]. 9 The RTC ruled that from the testimonies and evidence presented, the marriage celebrated between Jose and Felisa on 24 November 1986 was valid. It dismissed Joses version of the story as implausible, and rationalized that: Any person in his right frame of mind would easily suspect any attempt to make him or her sign a blank sheet of paper. [Jose] could have already detected that something was amiss, unusual, as they were at Pasay City Hall to get a package for [Felisa] but it [was] he who was made to sign the pieces of paper for the release of the said package. Another indirect suggestion that could have put him on guard was the fact that, by his own admission, [Felisa] told him that her brother would kill them if he will not sign the papers. And yet it took him, more or less, three months to "discover" that the pieces of paper that he signed was [sic] purportedly the marriage contract. [Jose] does not seem to be that ignorant, as perceived by this Court, to be "taken in for a ride" by [Felisa.] [Joses] claim that he did not consent to the marriage was belied by the fact that he acknowledged Felisa Tecson as his wife when he wrote [Felisas] name in the duly notarized statement of assets and liabilities he filled up on May 12, 1988, one year after he discovered the marriage contract he is now claiming to be sham and false. [Jose], again, in his company I.D., wrote the name of [Felisa] as the person to be contacted in case of emergency. This Court does not believe that the only reason why her name was written in his company I.D. was because he was residing there then. This is just but a lame excuse because if he really considers her not his lawfully wedded wife, he would have written instead the name of his sister. When [Joses] sister was put into the witness stand, under oath, she testified that she signed her name voluntarily as a witness to the marriage in the marriage certificate (T.S.N., page 25, November 29, 1996) and she further testified that the signature appearing over the name of Jose Dayot was the signature of his [sic] brother that he voluntarily affixed in the marriage contract (page 26 of T.S.N. taken on November 29, 1996), and when she was asked by the Honorable Court if indeed she believed that Felisa Tecson was really chosen by her brother she answered yes. The testimony of his sister all the more belied his claim that his consent was procured through fraud.10 Moreover, on the matter of fraud, the RTC ruled that Joses action had prescribed. It cited Article 8711 of the New Civil Code which requires that the action for annulment of marriage must be commenced by the injured party within four years after the discovery of the fraud. Thus: That granting even for the sake of argument that his consent was obtained by [Felisa] through fraud, trickery and machinations, he could have filed an annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage at the earliest possible opportunity, the time when he discovered the alleged sham and false marriage contract. [Jose] did not take any action to void the marriage at the earliest instance. x x x.12 Undeterred, Jose filed an appeal from the foregoing RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 11 August 2005, the Court of Appeals found the appeal to be without merit. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.13 The Court of Appeals applied the Civil Code to the marriage between Jose and Felisa as it was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The appellate court observed that the

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSE A. DAYOT, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 179474 FELISA TECSON-DAYOT, Petitioner, vs. JOSE A. DAYOT, Respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before us are two consolidated petitions. G.R. No. 175581 and G.R. No. 179474 are Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Republic of the Philippines and Felisa Tecson-Dayot (Felisa), respectively, both challenging the Amended Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated 7 November 2006, in CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, which declared the marriage between Jose Dayot (Jose) and Felisa void ab initio. The records disclose that on 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall. The marriage was solemnized by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza. 2 In lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit, 3 also dated 24 November 1986, attesting that both of them had attained the age of maturity, and that being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. On 7 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint4 for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bian, Laguna, Branch 25. He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife for at least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud. In his Complaint, Jose gave his version of the events which led to his filing of the same. According to Jose, he was introduced to Felisa in 1986. Immediately thereafter, he came to live as a boarder in Felisas house, the latter being his landlady. Some three weeks later, Felisa requested him to accompany her to the Pasay City Hall, ostensibly so she could claim a package sent to her by her brother from Saudi Arabia. At the Pasay City Hall, upon a prearranged signal from Felisa, a man bearing three folded pieces of paper approached them. They were told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the package could be released to Felisa. He initially refused to do so. However, Felisa cajoled him, and told him that his refusal could get both of them killed by her brother who had learned about their relationship. Reluctantly, he signed the pieces of paper, and gave them to the man who immediately left. It was in February 1987 when he discovered that he had contracted marriage with Felisa. He alleged that he saw a piece of paper lying on top of the table at the sala of Felisas house. When he perused the same, he discovered that it was a copy of his marriage contract with Felisa. When he confronted Felisa, the latter feigned ignorance. In opposing the Complaint, Felisa denied Joses allegations and defended the validity of their marriage. She declared that they had maintained their relationship as man and wife absent the legality of marriage in the early part of 1980, but that she had deferred contracting marriage with him on account of their age difference.5 In her pre-trial brief, Felisa expounded that while her marriage to Jose was subsisting, the latter contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual (Rufina) on 31 August 1990. On 3 June 1993, Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose.

circumstances constituting fraud as a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 14 of the Civil Code did not exist in the marriage between the parties. Further, it ruled that the action for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud was filed beyond the prescriptive period provided by law. The Court of Appeals struck down Joses appeal in the following manner: Nonetheless, even if we consider that fraud or intimidation was employed on Jose in giving his consent to the marriage, the action for the annulment thereof had already prescribed. Article 87 (4) and (5) of the Civil Code provides that the action for annulment of marriage on the ground that the consent of a party was obtained by fraud, force or intimidation must be commenced by said party within four (4) years after the discovery of the fraud and within four (4) years from the time the force or intimidation ceased. Inasmuch as the fraud was allegedly discovered by Jose in February, 1987 then he had only until February, 1991 within which to file an action for annulment of marriage. However, it was only on July 7, 1993 that Jose filed the complaint for annulment of his marriage to Felisa.15 Likewise, the Court of Appeals did not accept Joses assertion that his marriage to Felisa was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. It ruled that the marriage was solemnized under Article 7616 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character, with the parties executing an affidavit of marriage between man and woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The Court of Appeals concluded that the falsity in the affidavit to the effect that Jose and Felisa had lived together as husband and wife for the period required by Article 76 did not affect the validity of the marriage, seeing that the solemnizing officer was misled by the statements contained therein. In this manner, the Court of Appeals gave credence to the goodfaith reliance of the solemnizing officer over the falsity of the affidavit. The appellate court further noted that on the dorsal side of said affidavit of marriage, Rev. Tomas V. Atienza, the solemnizing officer, stated that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to their marriage. Finally, the Court of Appeals dismissed Joses argument that neither he nor Felisa was a member of the sect to which Rev. Tomas V. Atienza belonged. According to the Court of Appeals, Article 56 17 of the Civil Code did not require that either one of the contracting parties to the marriage must belong to the solemnizing officers church or religious sect. The prescription was established only in Article 718 of the Family Code which does not govern the parties marriage. Differing with the ruling of the Court of Appeals, Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof.1avvphi1 His central opposition was that the requisites for the proper application of the exemption from a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil Code were not fully attendant in the case at bar. In particular, Jose cited the legal condition that the man and the woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage. Essentially, he maintained that the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false. The Court of Appeals granted Joses Motion for Reconsideration and rev ersed itself. Accordingly, it rendered an Amended Decision, dated 7 November 2006, the fallo of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 11, 2005 is RECALLED and SET ASIDE and another one entered declaring the marriage between Jose A. Dayot and Felisa C. Tecson void ab initio. Furnish a copy of this Amended Decision to the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City. 19 In its Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals relied on the ruling of this Court in Nial v. Bayadog,20 and reasoned that: In Nial v. Bayadog, where the contracting parties to a marriage solemnized without a marriage license on the basis of their affidavit that they had attained the age of majority, that being unmarried, they had lived together for at least five (5) years and that they desired to marry each other, the Supreme Court ruled as follows: "x x x In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of

the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a special relationship must be respected as such and its requirements must be strictly observed. The presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a pre-conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception. It should be noted that a license is required in order to notify the public that two persons are about to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make it known to the local civil registrar. Article 80(3) of the Civil Code provides that a marriage solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character, shall be void from the beginning. Inasmuch as the marriage between Jose and Felisa is not covered by the exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is, therefore, void ab initio because of the absence of a marriage license.21 Felisa sought reconsideration of the Amended Decision, but to no avail. The appellate court rendered a Resolution22 dated 10 May 2007, denying Felisas motion. Meanwhile, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Review before this Court in G.R. No. 175581, praying that the Court of Appeals Amended Decision dated 7 November 2006 be reversed and set aside for lack of merit, and that the marriage between Jose and Felisa be declared valid and subsisting. Felisa filed a separate Petition for Review, docketed as G.R. No. 179474, similarly assailing the appellate courts Amended Decision. On 1 August 2007, this Court resolved to consolidate the two Petitions in the interest of uniformity of the Court rulings in similar cases brought before it for resolution.23 The Republic of the Philippines propounds the following arguments for the allowance of its Petition, to wit: I RESPONDENT FAILED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF HIS MARRIAGE TO FELISA. II RESPONDENT DID NOT COME TO THE COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROFIT FROM HIS OWN FRAUDULENT CONDUCT. III RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING THE LEGALITY OF HIS MARRIAGE FOR LACK OF MARRIAGE LICEN[S]E.24 Correlative to the above, Felisa submits that the Court of Appeals misapplied Nial. 25 She differentiates the case at bar from Nial by reasoning that one of the parties therein had an existing prior marriage, a circumstance which does not obtain in her cohabitation with Jose. Finally, Felisa adduces that Jose only sought the annulment of their marriage after a criminal case for bigamy and an administrative case had been filed against him in order to avoid liability. Felisa surmises that the declaration of nullity of their marriage would exonerate Jose from any liability.

For our resolution is the validity of the marriage between Jose and Felisa. To reach a considered ruling on the issue, we shall jointly tackle the related arguments vented by petitioners Republic of the Philippines and Felisa. The Republic of the Philippines asserts that several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage exists between Jose and Felisa. For her part, Felisa echoes the claim that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage by citing this Courts ruling in Hernandez v. Court of Appeals.26 To buttress its assertion, the Republic points to the affidavit executed by Jose and Felisa, dated 24 November 1986, attesting that they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, which they used in lieu of a marriage license. It is the Republics position that the falsity of the statements in the affidavit does not affe ct the validity of the marriage, as the essential and formal requisites were complied with; and the solemnizing officer was not required to investigate as to whether the said affidavit was legally obtained. The Republic opines that as a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by the fact that the parties incorporated a fabricated statement in their affidavit that they cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years. In addition, the Republic posits that the parties marriage contract states that their marriage was solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code. It also bears the signature of the parties and their witnesses, and must be considered a primary evidence of marriage. To further fortify its Petition, the Republic adduces the following documents: (1) Joses notarized Statement of Assets and Liabilities, dated 12 May 1988 wherein he wrote Felisas name as his wife; (2) Certification dated 25 July 1993 issued by the Barangay Chairman 192, Zone ZZ, District 24 of Pasay City, attesting that Jose and Felisa had lived together as husband and wife in said barangay; and (3) Joses company ID card, dated 2 May 1988, indicating Felisas name as his wife. The first assignment of error compels this Court to rule on the issue of the effect of a false affidavit under Article 76 of the Civil Code. A survey of the prevailing rules is in order. It is beyond dispute that the marriage of Jose and Felisa was celebrated on 24 November 1986, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Accordingly, the Civil Code governs their union. Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a contract: ART. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (2) Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character. (Emphasis ours.) Article 5827 makes explicit that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, save marriages of an exceptional character authorized by the Civil Code, but not those under Article 75.28 Article 80(3)29 of the Civil Code makes it clear that a marriage performed without the corresponding marriage license is void, this being nothing more than the legitimate consequence flowing from the fact that the license is the essence of the marriage contract. 30 This is in stark contrast to the old Marriage Law,31 whereby the absence of a marriage license did not make the marriage void. The rationale for the compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil Code is that it is the authority granted by the State to the contracting parties, after the proper government official has inquired into their capacity to contract marriage. 32 Under the Civil Code, marriages of exceptional character are covered by Chapter 2, Title III, comprising Articles 72 to 79. To wit, these marriages are: (1) marriages in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or war, (2) marriages in remote places, (2) consular marriages, 33 (3) ratification of marital cohabitation, (4) religious ratification of a civil marriage, (5) Mohammedan or pagan marriages, and (6) mixed marriages.34

The instant case pertains to a ratification of marital cohabitation under Article 76 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. The reason for the law,35 as espoused by the Code Commission, is that the publicity attending a marriage license may discourage such persons who have lived in a state of cohabitation from legalizing their status.36 It is not contested herein that the marriage of Jose and Felisa was performed without a marriage license. In lieu thereof, they executed an affidavit declaring that "they have attained the age of maturity; that being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years; and that because of this union, they desire to marry each other." 37 One of the central issues in the Petition at bar is thus: whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen short of the minimum five-year requirement, effectively renders the marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. We answer in the affirmative. Marriages of exceptional character are, doubtless, the exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage license. Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions, as a general rule, should be strictly38 but reasonably construed.39 They extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception.40 Where a general rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not curtail the former or add to the latter by implication. 41 For the exception in Article 76 to apply, it is a sine qua non thereto that the man and the woman must have attained the age of majority, and that, being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. A strict but reasonable construction of Article 76 leaves us with no other expediency but to read the law as it is plainly written. The exception of a marriage license under Article 76 applies only to those who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and desire to marry each other. The Civil Code, in no ambiguous terms, places a minimum period requirement of five years of cohabitation. No other reading of the law can be had, since the language of Article 76 is precise. The minimum requisite of five years of cohabitation is an indispensability carved in the language of the law. For a marriage celebrated under Article 76 to be valid, this material fact cannot be dispensed with. It is embodied in the law not as a directory requirement, but as one that partakes of a mandatory character. It is worthy to mention that Article 76 also prescribes that the contracting parties shall state the requisite facts 42 in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths; and that the official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the time they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. The Republic admitted that Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration of their marriage.43 The Court of Appeals also noted Felisas testimony that Jose was introduced to her by her neighbor, Teresita Perwel, sometime in February or March 1986 after the EDSA Revolution.44 The appellate court also cited Felisas own testimony that it was only in June 1986 when Jose commenced to live in her house.45 Moreover, it is noteworthy that the question as to whether they satisfied the minimum five-year requisite is factual in nature. A question of fact arises when there is a need to decide on the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.46 Under Rule 45, factual findings are ordinarily not subject to this Courts review.47 It is already well-settled that:

The general rule is that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. A recognized exception to this rule is when the Court of Appeals and the trial court, or in this case the administrative body, make contradictory findings. However, the exception does not apply in every instance that the Court of Appeals and the trial court or administrative body disagree. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals remain conclusive on this Court if such findings are supported by the record or based on substantial evidence.48 Therefore, the falsity of the affidavit dated 24 November 1986, executed by Jose and Felisa to exempt them from the requirement of a marriage license, is beyond question. We cannot accept the insistence of the Republic that the falsity of the statements in the parties affidavit will not affect the validity of marriage, since all the essential and formal requisites were complied with. The argument deserves scant merit. Patently, it cannot be denied that the marriage between Jose and Felisa was celebrated without the formal requisite of a marriage license. Neither did Jose and Felisa meet the explicit legal requirement in Article 76, that they should have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, so as to be excepted from the requirement of a marriage license. Anent petitioners reliance on the presumption of marriage, this Court holds that the same finds no applicability to the case at bar. Essentially, when we speak of a presumption of marriage, it is with reference to the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.49 Restated more explicitly, persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. 50 The present case does not involve an apparent marriage to which the presumption still needs to be applied. There is no question that Jose and Felisa actually entered into a contract of marriage on 24 November 1986, hence, compelling Jose to institute a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, which spawned the instant consolidated Petitions. In the same vein, the declaration of the Civil Code51 that every intendment of law or fact leans towards the validity of marriage will not salvage the parties marriage, and extricate them from the effect of a violation of the law. The marriage of Jose and Felisa was entered into without the requisite marriage license or compliance with the stringent requirements of a marriage under exceptional circumstance. The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties, which was one of the evils that the law sought to prevent by making a prior license a prerequisite for a valid marriage. 52 The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.53 To permit a false affidavit to take the place of a marriage license is to allow an abject circumvention of the law. If this Court is to protect the fabric of the institution of marriage, we must be wary of deceptive schemes that violate the legal measures set forth in our laws. Similarly, we are not impressed by the ratiocination of the Republic that as a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by a fabricated statement that the parties have cohabited for at least five years as required by law. The contrast is flagrant. The former is with reference to an irregularity of the marriage license, and not to the absence of one. Here, there is no marriage license at all. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisas cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all. In its second assignment of error, the Republic puts forth the argument that based on equity, Jose should be denied relief because he perpetrated the fabrication, and cannot thereby profit from his wrongdoing. This is a misplaced invocation. It must be stated that equity finds no room for application where there is a law.54 There is a law on the ratification of marital cohabitation, which is set in precise terms under Article 76 of the Civil Code. Nonetheless, the authorities are

consistent that the declaration of nullity of the parties marriage is without prejudice to their criminal liability.55 The Republic further avers in its third assignment of error that Jose is deemed estopped from assailing the legality of his marriage for lack of a marriage license. It is claimed that Jose and Felisa had lived together from 1986 to 1990, notwithstanding Joses subsequent marriage to Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990, and that it took Jose seven years before he sought the declaration of nullity; hence, estoppel had set in. This is erroneous. An action for nullity of marriage is imprescriptible. 56 Jose and Felisas marriage was celebrated sans a marriage license. No other conclusion can be reached except that it is void ab initio. In this case, the right to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe, and may be raised any time. Lastly, to settle all doubts, jurisprudence has laid down the rule that the five-year common-law cohabitation period under Article 76 means a five-year period computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of a marriage.57 It covers the years immediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity - meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years - and continuity that is unbroken.58 WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 7 November 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, declaring the marriage of Jose Dayot to Felisa Tecson-Dayot void ab initio, is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to their criminal liability, if any. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

A.M. No. MTJ-92-721 September 30, 1994 JUVY N. COSCA, EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, RAMON C. SAMBO, and APOLLO A. VILLAMORA, complainants, vs. HON. LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., Presiding Judge, and NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY, Clerk of Court II, both of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, respondents. Esteban R. Abonal for complainants. Haide B. Vista-Gumba for respondents.

Respondent Nelia Baroy claims that when she was appointed Clerk of Court II, the employees of the court were already hostile to her, especially complainant Ramon Sambo who told her that he was filing a protest against her appointment. She 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. Complainant Sambo, however, claims that all file copies of the marriage contracts were kept by respondent Baroy, but the latter 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. Respondent 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 file 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 filed 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; that copies of these marriage contracts are in the custody of complainant Sambo; that the alleged marriage of Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido, Eddie Terrobias and Maria Emma Gaor, Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga, and of Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario were not celebrated by him since he refused to solemnize them in the absence of a marriage license; that the marriage of Samy Bocaya and Gina Bismonte was celebrated even without the requisite license due to the insistence of the parties in order to avoid embarrassment to their guests but that, at any rate, he did not sign their marriage contract which remains unsigned up to the present. 2. Falsification of monthly report for July, 1991 regarding the number of marriages solemnized and the number of documents notarized. It is alleged that respondent judge made it appear that he solemnized seven (7) marriages in the month of July, 1992, when in truth he did not do so or at most those marriages were null and void; that respondents likewise made it appear that they have notarized only six (6) documents for July, 1992, but the Notarial Register will show that there were one hundred thirteen (113) documents which were notarized during that month; and that respondents reported a notarial fee of only P18.50 for each document, although in fact they collected P20.00 therefor and failed to account for the difference. Respondent Baroy contends, however, that the marriage registry where all marriages celebrated by respondent judge are entered is under the exclusive control and custody of complainant Ramon Sambo, hence he is the only one who should be held responsible for the entries made therein; that the reported marriages are merely based on the payments made as solemnization fees which are in the custody of respondent Baroy. She further avers that it is Sambo who is likewise the custodian of the Notarial Register; that she cannot be held accountable for whatever alleged difference there is in the notarial fees because she is liable only for those payments tendered to her by Sambo himself; that the notarial fees she collects are duly covered by receipts; that of the P20.00 charged, P18.50 is remitted directly to the Supreme Court as part of the Judiciary Development Fund and P150 goes to the general fund of the Supreme Court which is paid to the Municipal Treasurer of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondent theorizes that the discrepancies in the monthly report were manipulated by complainant Sambo considering that he is the one in charge of the preparation of the monthly report. Respondent Judge Palaypayon avers that the erroneous number of marriages celebrated was intentionally placed by complainant Sambo; that the number of marriages solemnized should not be based on solemnization fees paid for that month since not all the marriages paid for are solemnized in the same month. He claims that there were actually only six (6) documents notarized in the month of July, 1992 which tallied with the official receipts issued by the clerk of court; that it is Sambo who should be held accountable for any unreceipted payment for notarial fees because he is the one in charge of the Notarial Register; and that this case filed by

PER CURIAM, J.: Complainants Juvy N. Cosca, Edmundo B. Peralta, Ramon C. Sambo, and Apollo Villamora, are Stenographer I, Interpreter I, Clerk II, and Process Server, respectively, of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondents Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy are respectively the Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court II of the same court. In an administrative complaint filed 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 filing fees from exempted entities. 1 Pursuant to a resolution issued by this Court respondents filed their respective Comments. 2 A Reply to Answers of Respondents was filed by complainants. 3 The case was thereafter referred to Executive Judge David C. Naval of the Regional Trial Court, Naga City, for investigation report and recommendation. The case was however transferred to First Assistant Executive Judge Antonio N. Gerona when Judge Naval inhibited himself for the reason that his wife is a cousin of respondent Judge Palaypayon, Jr. 4 The contending versions of the parties regarding the factual antecedents of this administrative matter, as culled from the records thereof, are set out under each particular charge against respondents. 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 to respondent Baroy, despite the absence of a marriage license, viz.: Alano P. Abellano and Nelly Edralin, Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido, Eddie Terrobias and Maria Gacer, Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga, Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario, and Sammy Bocaya and Gina Bismonte. As a consequence, their marriage contracts (Exhibits B, C, D, F, G, and A, respectively) did not reflect any marriage license number. 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 filed 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.

complainant Sambo is merely in retaliation for his failure to be appointed as the clerk of court. Furthermore, respondent judge contends that he is not the one supervising or preparing the monthly report, and that he merely has the ministerial duty to sign the same. 3. Bribery in consideration of an appointment in the court Complainants allege that because of the retirement of the clerk of court, respondent judge forwarded to the Supreme Court the applications of Rodel Abogado, Ramon Sambo, and Jessell Abiog. However, they were surprised when respondent Baroy reported for duty as clerk of court on October 21, 1991. They later found out that respondent Baroy was the one appointed because she gave a brand-new air-conditioning unit to respondent judge. Respondent Baroy claims that when she was still in Naga City she purchased an air-conditioning unit but when she was appointed clerk of court she had to transfer to Tinambac and, since she no longer needed the air conditioner, she decided to sell the same to respondent judge. The installation and use thereof by the latter in his office was with the consent of the Mayor of Tinambac. Respondent judge contends that he endorsed all the applications for the position of clerk of court to the Supreme Court which has the sole authority over such appointments and that he had no hand in the appointment of respondent Baroy. He contends that the air-conditioning unit was bought from his co-respondent on installment basis on May 29, 1992, eight (8) months after Baroy had been appointed clerk of court. He claims that he would not be that naive to exhibit to the public as item which could not be defended as a matter of honor and prestige. 4. Cash bond issued without a receipt It is alleged that in Criminal Case No. 5438, entitled "People vs. Mendeza, et al., "bondswoman Januaria Dacara was allowed by respondent judge to change her property bond to cash bond; that she paid the amount of P1,000.00 but was never issued a receipt therefor nor was it made to appear in the records that the bond has been paid; that despite the lapse of two years, the money was never returned to the bondswoman; and that it has not been shown that the money was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer of Tinambac. Respondent Baroy counters that the cash bond was deposited with the former clerk of court, then turned over to the acting clerk of court and, later, given to her under a corresponding receipt; that the cash bond is deposited with the bank; and that should the bondswoman desire to withdraw the same, she should follow the proper procedure therefor. Respondent judge contends that Criminal Case No. 5438 was archieved for failure of the bondsman to deliver the body of the accused in court despite notice; and that he has nothing to do with the payment of the cash bond as this is the duty of the clerk of court. 5. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners Complainants contend that respondent judge usually got detention prisoners to work in his house, one of whom was Alex Alano, who is accused in Criminal Case No. 5647 for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act; that while Alano was in the custody of respondent judge, the former escaped and was never recaptured; that in order to conceal this fact, the case was archived pursuant to an order issued by respondent judge dated April 6, 1992. Respondent judge denied the accusation and claims that he never employed detention prisoners and that he has adequate household help; and that he had to order the case archived because it had been pending for more than six (6) months and the accused therein remained at large. 6. Unlawful collection of docket fees Finally, respondents are charged with collecting docket fees from the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Inc. although such entity is exempt by law from the payment of said fees, and that while the corresponding receipt was issued, respondent Baroy failed to remit the amount to the Supreme Court and, instead, she deposited the same in her personal account.

Respondents Baroy contends that it was Judge-Designate Felimon Montenegro (because respondent judge was on sick leave) who instructed her to demand payment of docket fees from said rural bank; that the bank issued a check for P800.00; that she was not allowed by the Philippine National Bank to encash the check and, instead, was instructed to deposit the same in any bank account for clearing; that respondent deposited the same in her account; and that after the check was cleared, she remitted P400.00 to the Supreme Court and the other P400.00 was paid to the Municipal Treasurer of Tinambac. On the basis of the foregoing contentions, First Vice-Executive Judge Antonio N. Gerona prepared and submitted to us his Report and Recommendations dated May 20, 1994, together with the administrative matter. We have perspicaciously reviewed the same and we are favorably impressed by the thorough and exhaustive presentation and analysis of the facts and evidence in said report. We commend the investigating judge for his industry and perspicacity reflected by his findings in said report which, being amply substantiated by the evidence and supported by logical illations, we hereby approve and hereunder reproduce at length the material portions thereof. xxx xxx xxx The first charge against the respondents is illegal solemnization of marriage. Judge Palaypayon is charged with having solemnized without a marriage license the marriage of Sammy Bocaya and Gina Besmonte (Exh. A). Alano Abellano and Nelly Edralin (Exh. B), Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido (Exh. C), Eddie Terrobias and Maria Emma Gaor (Exh. D), Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga (Exh. F) and Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario (Exh. G). In all these aforementioned marriages, the blank space in the marriage contracts to show the number of the marriage was solemnized as required by Article 22 of the Family Code were not filled up. While the contracting parties and their witnesses signed their marriage contracts, Judge Palaypayon did not affix his signature in the marriage contracts, except that of Abellano and Edralin when Judge Palaypayon signed their marriage certificate as he claims that he solemnized this marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines. In said marriages the contracting parties were not furnished a copy of their marriage contract and the Local Civil Registrar was not sent either a copy of the marriage certificate as required by Article 23 of the Family Code. The marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte is shown to have been solemnized by Judge Palaypayon without a marriage license. The testimonies of Bocay himself and Pompeo Ariola, one of the witnesses of the marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte, and the photographs taken when Judge Palaypayon solemnized their marriage (Exhs. K-3 to K-9) sufficiently show that Judge Palaypayon really solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared that they were advised by Judge Palaypayon to return after ten (10) days after their marriage was solemnized and bring with them their marriage license. In the meantime, they already started living together as husband and wife believing that the formal requisites of marriage were complied with. Judge Palaypayon denied that he solemnized the marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte because the parties allegedly did not have a marriage license. He declared that in fact he did not sign the marriage certificate, there was no date stated on it and both the parties and the Local Civil Registrar did not have a copy of the marriage certificate. With respect to the photographs which show that he solemnized the marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte, Judge Palaypayon explains that they merely show as if he was solemnizing the marriage. It was actually a simulated solemnization of marriage and not a real one. This happened because of the pleading of the mother of one of the contracting parties that

he consent to be photographed to show that as if he was solemnizing the marriage as he was told that the food for the wedding reception was already prepared, visitors were already invited and the place of the parties where the reception would be held was more than twenty (20) kilometers away from the poblacion of Tinambac. The denial made by Judge Palaypayon is difficult to believe. The fact alone that he did not sign the marriage certificate or contract, the same did not bear a date and the parties and the Local Civil Registrar were not furnished a copy of the marriage certificate, do not by themselves show that he did not solemnize the marriage. His uncorroborated testimony cannot prevail over the testimony of Bocaya and Ariola who also declared, among others, that Bocaya and his bride were advised by Judge Palaypayon to return after ten (10) days with their marriage license and whose credibility had not been impeached. The pictures taken also from the start of the wedding ceremony up to the signing of the marriage certificate in front of Judge Palaypayon and on his table (Exhs. K-3, K-3-a, K-3-b, K-3-c, K-4, K-4-a, K-4-b, K-4-c, K-4-d, K-5, K-5-a, K-5-b, K-6, K-7, K-8, K-8-a and K-9), cannot possibly be just to show a simulated solemnization of marriage. One or two pictures may convince a person of the explanation of Judge Palaypayon, but not all those pictures. Besides, as a judge it is very difficult to believe that Judge Palaypayon would allows himself to be photographed as if he was solemnizing a marriage on a mere pleading of a person whom he did not even know for the alleged reasons given. It would be highly improper and unbecoming of him to allow himself to be used as an instrument of deceit by making it appear that Bocaya and Besmonte were married by him when in truth and in fact he did not solemnize their marriage. With respect to the marriage of Abellano and Edralin (Exh. B), Judge Palaypayon admitted that he solemnized their marriage, but he claims that it was under Article 34 of the Family Code, so a marriage license was not required. The contracting parties here executed a joint affidavit that they have been living together as husband and wife for almost six (6) years already (Exh. 12; Exh. AA). In their marriage contract which did not bear any date either when it was solemnized, it was stated that Abellano was only eighteen (18) years, two (2) months and seven (7) days old. If he and Edralin had been living together as husband and wife for almost six (6) years already before they got married as they stated in their joint affidavit, Abellano must ha(ve) been less than thirteen (13) years old when he started living with Edralin as his wife and this is hard to believe. Judge Palaypayon should ha(ve) been aware of this when he solemnized their marriage as it was his duty to ascertain the qualification of the contracting parties who might ha(ve) executed a false joint affidavit in order to have an instant marriage by avoiding the marriage license requirement. On May 23, 1992, however, after this case was already filed, Judge Palaypayon married again Abellano and Edralin, this time with a marriage license (Exh. BB). The explanation given by Judge Palaypayon why he solemnized the marriage of the same couple for the second time is that he did not consider the first marriage he solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code as (a) marriage at all because complainant Ramon Sambo did not follow his instruction that the date should be placed in the marriage certificate to show when he solemnized the marriage and that the contracting parties were not furnished a copy of their marriage certificate.

This act of Judge Palaypayon of solemnizing the marriage of Abellano and Edralin for the second time with a marriage license already only gave rise to the suspicion that the first time he solemnized the marriage it was only made to appear that it was solemnized under exceptional character as there was not marriage license and Judge Palaypayon had already signed the marriage certificate. If it was true that he solemnized the first marriage under exceptional character where a marriage license was not required, why did he already require the parties to have a marriage license when he solemnized their marriage for the second time? The explanation of Judge Palaypayon that the first marriage of Abellano and Edralin was not a marriage at all as the marriage certificate did not state the date when the marriage was solemnized and that the contracting parties were not furnished a copy of their marriage certificate, is not well taken as they are not any of those grounds under Article(s) 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code which declare a marriage void from the beginning. Even if no one, however, received a copy of the marriage certificate, the marriage is still valid (Jones vs. H(o)rtiguela, 64 Phil. 179). Judge Palaypayon cannot just absolve himself from responsibility by blaming his personnel. They are not the guardian(s) of his official function and under Article 23 of the Family Code it is his duty to furnish the contracting parties (a) copy of their marriage contract. With respect to the marriage of Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido (Exh. C), and Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario (Exh. G), Selpo and Carrido and Sabater and Nacarcio executed joint affidavits that Judge Palaypayon did not solemnize their marriage (Exh. 13-A and Exh. 1). Both Carrido and Nacario testified for the respondents that actually Judge Palaypayon did not solemnize their marriage as they did not have a marriage license. On crossexamination, however, both admitted that they did not know who prepared their affidavits. They were just told, Carrido by a certain Charito Palaypayon, and Nacario by a certain Kagawad Encinas, to just go to the Municipal building and sign their joint affidavits there which were already prepared before the Municipal Mayor of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. With respect to the marriage of Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga (Exh. f), their marriage contract was signed by them and by their two (2) witnesses, Atty. Elmer Brioso and respondent Baroy (Exhs. F-1 and F-2). Like the other aforementioned marriages, the solemnization fee was also paid as shown by a receipt dated June 7, 1992 and signed by respondent Baroy (Exh. F-4). Judge Palaypayon also denied having solemnized the marriage of Gamay and Belga allegedly because there was no marriage license. On her part, respondent Baroy at first denied that the marriage was solemnized. When she was asked, however, why did she sign the marriage contract as a witness she answered that she thought the marriage was already solemnized (TSN, p. 14; 10-28-93). Respondent Baroy was, and is, the clerk of court of Judge Palaypayon. She signed the marriage contract of Gamay and Belga as one of the two principal sponsors. Yet, she wanted to give the impression that she did not even know that the marriage was solemnized by Judge Palaypayon. This is found very difficult to believe. Judge Palaypayon made the same denial of having solemnized also the marriage of Terrobias and Gaor (Exh. D). The contracting parties and their witnesses also signed the marriage contract and paid the solemnization fee, but Judge Palaypayon allegedly did not solemnize their marriage due to lack of marriage license. Judge Palaypayon submitted the affidavit of William Medina, Vice-Mayor of Tinambac, to corroborate his testimony (Exh. 14).

Medina, however, did not testify in this case and so his affidavit has no probative value. Judge Palaypayon testified that his procedure and practice have been that before the contracting parties and their witnesses enter his chamber in order to get married, he already required complainant Ramon Sambo to whom he assigned the task of preparing the marriage contract, to already let the parties and their witnesses sign their marriage contracts, as what happened to Gamay and Belga, and Terrobias and Gaor, among others. His purpose was to save his precious time as he has been solemnizing marriages at the rate of three (3) to four (4) times everyday (TSN, p. 12; 2-1-94). This alleged practice and procedure, if true, is highly improper and irregular, if not illegal, because the contracting parties are supposed to be first asked by the solemnizing officer and declare that they take each other as husband and wife before the solemnizing officer in the presence of at least two (2) witnesses before they are supposed to sign their marriage contracts (Art. 6, Family Code). The uncorroborated testimony, however, of Judge Palaypayon as to his alleged practice and procedure before solemnizing a marriage, is not true as shown by the picture taken during the wedding of Bocaya and Besmonte (Exhs. K-3 to K-9) and by the testimony of respondent Baroy herself who declared that the practice of Judge Palaypayon ha(s) been to let the contracting parties and their witnesses sign the marriage contract only after Judge Palaypayon has solemnized their marriage (TSN, p. 53; 10-28-93). Judge Palaypayon did not present any evidence to show also that he was really solemnizing three (3) to four (4) marriages everyday. On the contrary his monthly report of cases for July, 1992 shows that his court had only twenty-seven (27) pending cases and he solemnized only seven (7) marriages for the whole month (Exh. E). His monthly report of cases for September, 1992 shows also that he solemnized only four (4) marriages during the whole month (Exh. 7). In this first charge of having illegally solemnized marriages, respondent Judge Palaypayon has presented and marked in evidence several marriage contracts of other persons, affidavits of persons and certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar (Exhs. 12-B to 12-H). These persons who executed affidavits, however, did not testify in this case. Besides, the marriage contracts and certification mentioned are immaterial as Judge Palaypayon is not charged of having solemnized these marriages illegally also. He is not charged that the marriages he solemnized were all illegal. The second charge against herein respondents, that of having falsified the monthly report of cases submitted to the Supreme Court and not stating in the monthly report the actual number of documents notarized and issuing the corresponding receipts of the notarial fees, have been sufficiently proven by the complainants insofar as the monthly report of cases for July and September, 1992 are concerned. The monthly report of cases of the MTC of Tinambac, Camarines Sur for July, 1992 both signed by the respondents, show that for said month there were six (6) documents notarized by Judge Palaypayon in his capacity as Ex-Officio Notary Public (Exhs. H to H-1-b). The notarial register of the MTC of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, however, shows that there were actually one hundred thirteen (113) documents notarized by Judge Palaypayon for the said month (Exhs. Q to Q-45).

Judge Palaypayon claims that there was no falsification of the monthly report of cases for July, 1992 because there were only six (6) notarized documents that were paid (for) as shown by official receipts. He did not, however, present evidence of the alleged official receipts showing that the notarial fee for the six (6) documetns were paid. Besides, the monthly report of cases with respect to the number of documents notarized should not be based on how many notarized documents were paid of the notarial fees, but the number of documents placed or recorded in the notarial register. Judge Palaypayon admitted that he was not personally verifying and checking anymore the correctness of the monthly reports because he relies on his co-respondent who is the Clerk of Court and whom he has assumed to have checked and verified the records. He merely signs the monthly report when it is already signed by respondent Baroy. The explanation of Judge Palaypayon is not well taken because he is required to have close supervision in the preparation of the monthly report of cases of which he certifies as to their correctness. As a judge he is personally responsible for the proper discharge of his functions (The Phil. Trial Lawyer's Asso. Inc. vs. Agana, Sr., 102 SCRA 517). In Nidera vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581, it was held that "A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel." On the part of respondent Baroy, she puts the blame of the falsification of the monthly report of cases on complainant Sambo whom she allegedly assigned to prepare not only the monthly report of cases, but the preparation and custody of marriage contracts, notarized documents and the notarial register. By her own admission she has assigned to complainant Sambo duties she was supposed to perform, yet according to her she never bother(ed) to check the notarial register of the court to find out the number of documents notarized in a month (TSN, p. 30; 11-23-93). Assuming that respondent Baroy assigned the preparation of the monthly report of cases to Sambo, which was denied by the latter as he claims that he only typed the monthly report based on the data given to him by her, still it is her duty to verify and check whether the report is correct. The explanation of respondent Baroy that Sambo was the one in custody of marriage contracts, notarized documents and notarial register, among other things, is not acceptable not only because as clerk of court she was supposed to be in custody, control and supervision of all court records including documents and other properties of the court (p. 32, Manual for Clerks of Court), but she herself admitted that from January, 1992 she was already in full control of all the records of the court including receipts (TSN, p. 11; 11-23-93). The evidence adduced in this cases in connection with the charge of falsification, however, also shows that respondent Baroy did not account for what happened to the notarial fees received for those documents notarized during the month of July and September, 1992. The evidence adduced in this case also sufficiently show that she received cash bond deposits and she did not deposit them to a bank or to the Municipal Treasurer; and that she only issued temporary receipts for said cash bond deposits. For July, 1992 there were only six (6) documents reported to have been notarized by Judge Palaypayon although the documents notarized for said month were actually one hundred thirteen (113) as recorded in the notarial register. For September, 1992, there were only five (5) documents reported as notarized for that month, though the notarial register show(s) that there were fifty-six (56) documents actually notarized. The fee for each document notarized as appearing in the notarial register was P18.50. Respondent

Baroy and Sambo declared that what was actually being charged was P20.00. Respondent Baroy declared that P18.50 went to the Supreme Court and P1.50 was being turned over to the Municipal Treasurer. Baroy, however, did not present any evidence to show that she really sent to the Supreme Court the notarial fees of P18.50 for each document notarized and to the Municipal Treasurer the additional notarial fee of P1.50. This should be fully accounted for considering that Baroy herself declared that some notarial fees were allowed by her at her own discretion to be paid later. Similarly, the solemnization fees have not been accounted for by Baroy considering that she admitted that even (i)n those instances where the marriages were not solemnized due to lack of marriage license the solemnization fees were not returned anymore, unless the contracting parties made a demand for their return. Judge Palaypayon declared that he did not know of any instance when solemnization fee was returned when the marriage was not solemnized due to lack of marriage license. Respondent Baroy also claims that Ramon Sambo did not turn over to her some of the notarial fees. This is difficult to believe. It was not only because Sambo vehemently denied it, but the minutes of the conference of the personnel of the MTC of Tinambac dated January 20, 1992 shows that on that date Baroy informed the personnel of the court that she was taking over the functions she assigned to Sambo, particularly the collection of legal fees (Exh. 7). The notarial fees she claims that Sambo did not turn over to her were for those documents notarized (i)n July and September, 1992 already. Besides there never was any demand she made for Sambo to turn over some notarial fees supposedly in his possession. Neither was there any memorandum she issued on this matter, in spite of the fact that she has been holding meetings and issuing memoranda to the personnel of the court (Exhs. V, W, FF, FF-1, FF-2, FF-3; Exhs. 4-A (supplement(s), 5-8, 6-S, 7-S and 8-S). It is admitted by respondent Baroy that on October 29, 1991 a cash bond deposit of a certain Dacara in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos was turned over to her after she assumed office and for this cash bond she issued only a temporary receipt (Exh. Y). She did not deposit this cash bond in any bank or to the Municipal Treasurer. She just kept it in her own cash box on the alleged ground that the parties in that case where the cash bond was deposited informed her that they would settle the case amicably. Respondent Baroy declared that she finally deposited the aforementioned cash bond of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in February, 1993, after this administrative case was already filed (TSN, pp. 27-28; 12-22-93). The Pass Book, however, shows that actually Baroy opened an account with the LBP, Naga Branch, only on March 26, 1993 when she deposited an amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos (Exhs. 8 to 8-1-a). She claims that One Thousand (P1,000.000) Pesos of the initial deposit was the cash bond of Dacara. If it were true, it was only after keeping to herself the cash bond of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos for around one year and five months when she finally deposited it because of the filing of this case. On April 29, 1993, or only one month and two days after she finally deposited the One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos cash bond of Dacara, she withdrew it from the bank without any authority or order from the court. It was only on July 23, 1993, or after almost three (3) months after she withdrew it, when she redeposited said cash bond (TSN, p. 6; 1-4-94).

The evidence presented in this case also show that on February 28, 1993 respondent Baroy received also a cash bond of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos from a certain Alfredo Seprones in Crim. Case No. 5180. For this cash bond deposit, respondent Baroy issued only an annumbered temporary receipt (Exh. X and X-1). Again Baroy just kept this Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos cash bond to herself. She did not deposit it either (in) a bank or (with) the Municipal Treasurer. Her explanation was that the parties in Crim. Case No. 5180 informed her that they would settle the case amicably. It was on April 26, 1993, or almost two months later when Judge Palaypayon issued an order for the release of said cash bond (Exh. 7). Respondent Baroy also admitted that since she assumed office on October 21, 1991 she used to issue temporary receipt only for cash bond deposits and other payments and collections she received. She further admitted that some of these temporary receipts she issued she failed to place the number of the receipts such as that receipt marked Exhibit X (TSN, p. 35; 11-23-93). Baroy claims that she did not know that she had to use the official receipts of the Supreme Court. It was only from February, 1993, after this case was already filed, when she only started issuing official receipts. The next charge against the respondents is that in order to be appointed Clerk of Court, Baroy gave Judge Palaypayon an air conditioner as a gift. The evidence adduced with respect to this charge, show that on August 24, 1991 Baroy bought an air conditioner for the sum of Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred (P17,600.00) Pesos (Exhs. I and I-1). The same was paid partly in cash and in check (Exhs. I-2 and I-3). When the air conditioner was brought to court in order to be installed in the chamber of Judge Palaypayon, it was still placed in the same box when it was bought and was not used yet. The respondents claim that Baroy sold it to Judge Palaypayon for Twenty Thousand (P20,00.00) Pesos on installment basis with a down payment of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos and as proof thereof the respondents presented a typewritten receipt dated May 29, 1993 (Exh. 22). The receipt was signed by both respondents and by the Municipal Mayor of Tinambac, Camarines Sur and another person as witness. The alleged sale between respondents is not beyond suspicion. It was bought by Baroy at a time when she was applying for the vacant position of Clerk of Court (to) which she was eventually appointed in October, 1991. From the time she bought the air conditioner on August 24, 1991 until it was installed in the office of Judge Palaypayon it was not used yet. The sale to Judge Palaypayon was only evidenced by a mere typewritten receipt dated May 29, 1992 when this case was already filed. The receipt could have been easily prepared. The Municipal Mayor of Tinambac who signed in the receipt as a witness did not testify in this case. The sale is between the Clerk of Court and the Judge of the same court. All these circumstances give rise to suspicion of at least impropriety. Judges should avoid such action as would subject (them) to suspicion and (their) conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety (Jaagueta vs. Boncasos, 60 SCRA 27). With respect to the charge that Judge Palaypayon received a cash bond deposit of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos from Januaria Dacara without issuing a receipt, Dacara executed an affidavit regarding this charge that Judge Palaypayon did not give her a receipt for the P1,000.00 cash bond she deposited (Exh. N). Her affidavit, however, has no probative value as she did not show that this cash bond of P1,000.00 found its way into the

hands of respondent Baroy who issued only a temporary receipt for it and this has been discussed earlier. Another charge against Judge Palaypayon is the getting of detention prisoners to work in his house and one of them escaped while in his custody and was never found again. To hide this fact, the case against said accused was ordered archived by Judge Palaypayon. The evidence adduced with respect to this particular charge, show that in Crim. Case No. 5647 entitled People vs. Stephen Kalaw, Alex Alano and Allan Adupe, accused Alex Alano and Allan Adupe were arrested on April 12, 1991 and placed in the municipal jail of Tinambac, Camarines Sur (Exhs. 0, 0-1, 0-2 and 0-3; Exh. 25). The evidence presented that Alex Alano was taken by Judge Palaypayon from the municipal jail where said accused was confined and that he escaped while in custody of Judge Palaypayon is solely testimonial, particularly that of David Ortiz, a former utility worker of the MTC of Tinambac. Herein investigator finds said evidence not sufficient. The complainants should have presented records from the police of Tinambac to show that Judge Palaypayon took out from the municipal jail Alex Alano where he was under detention and said accused escaped while in the custody of Judge Palaypayon. The order, however, of Judge Palaypayon dated April 6, 1992 in Crim. Case No. 5047 archiving said case appears to be without basis. The order states: "this case was filed on April 12, 1991 and the records show that the warrant of arrest (was) issued against the accused, but up to this moment there is no return of service for the warrant of arrest issued against said accused" (Exh. 0-4). The records of said case, however, show that in fact there was a return of the service of the warrant of arrest dated April 12, 1991 showing that Alano and Adupe were arrested (Exh. 0-3). Judge Palaypayon explained that his order dated April 6, 1992 archiving Crim. Case No. 5047 referred only to one of the accused who remained at large. The explanation cannot be accepted because the two other accused, Alano and Adupe, were arrested. Judge Palaypayon should have issued an order for the arrest of Adupe who allegedly jumped bail, but Alano was supposed to be confined in the municipal jail if his claim is true that he did not take custody of Alano. The explanation also of Judge Palaypayon why he ordered the case archived was because he heard from the police that Alano escaped. This explanation is not acceptable either. He should ha(ve) set the case and if the police failed to bring to court Alano, the former should have been required to explain in writing why Alano was not brought to court. If the explanation was that Alano escaped from jail, he should have issued an order for his arrest. It is only later on when he could not be arrested when the case should have been ordered archived. The order archiving this case for the reason that he only heard that Alano escaped is another circumstance which gave rise to a suspicion that Alano might have really escaped while in his custody only that the complainants could not present records or other documentary evidence to prove the same. The last charge against the respondents is that they collected filing fees on collection cases filed by the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur which was supposed to be exempted in paying filing fees under existing laws and that the filing fees received was deposited by respondent Baroy in her personal account in the bank. The evidence presented show that on February 4, 1992 the Rural Bank of Tinambac filed ten (10) civil cases for collection against farmers and it paid the total amount of Four Hundred

(P400.00) Pesos representing filing fees. The complainants cited Section 14 of Republic Act 720, as amended, which exempts Rural Banks (from) the payment of filing fees on collection of sums of money cases filed against farmers on loans they obtained. Judge Palaypayon, however, had nothing to do with the payment of the filing fees of the Rural Bank of Tinambac as it was respondent Baroy who received them and besides, on February 4, 1992, he was on sick leave. On her part Baroy claims that the bank paid voluntarily the filing fees. The records, however, shows that respondent Baroy sent a letter to the manager of the bank dated January 28, 1992 to the effect that if the bank would not pay she would submit all Rural Bank cases for dismissal (Annex 6, comment by respondent Baroy). Respondent Baroy should have checked whether the Rural Bank of Tinambac was really exempt from the payment of filing fees pursuant to Republic Act 720, as amended, instead of threatening the bank to have its cases be submitted to the court in order to have them dismissed. Here the payment of the filing fees was made on February 4, 1992, but the Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos was only turned over to the Municipal Treasurer on March 12, 1992. Here, there is an undue delay again in complying with her obligation as accountable officer. In view of the foregoing findings that the evidence presented by the complainants sufficiently show that respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. had solemnized marriages, particularly that of Sammy Bocaya and Gina Besmonte, without a marriage license, and that it having been shown that he did not comply with his duty in closely supervising his clerk of court in the preparation of the monthly report of cases being submitted to the Supreme Court, particularly for the months of July and September, 1992 where it has been proven that the reports for said two (2) months were falsified with respect to the number of documents notarized, it is respectfully recommended that he be imposed a fine of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a warning that the same or similar offenses will be more severely dealt with. The fact that Judge Palaypayon did not sign the marriage contracts or certificates of those marriages he solemnized without a marriage license, there were no dates placed in the marriage contracts to show when they were solemnized, the contracting parties were not furnished their marriage contracts and the Local Civil Registrar was not being sent any copy of the marriage contract, will not absolve him from liability. By solemnizing alone a marriage without a marriage license he as the solemnizing officer is the one responsible for the irregularity in not complying (with) the formal requ(i)sites of marriage and under Article 4(3) of the Family Code of the Philippines, he shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. Judge Palaypayon is likewise liable for his negligence or failure to comply with his duty of closely supervising his clerk of court in the performance of the latter's duties and functions, particularly the preparation of the monthly report of cases (Bendesula vs. Laya, 58 SCRA 16). His explanation that he only signed the monthly report of cases only when his clerk of court already signed the same, cannot be accepted. It is his duty to closely supervise her, to check and verify the records if the monthly reports prepared by his clerk of court do not contain false statements. It was held that "A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or incompetence of court personnel (Nidua vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 158). In view also of the foregoing finding that respondent Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy, the clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur,

has been found to have falsified the monthly report of cases for the months of July and September, 1992 with respect to the number of documents notarized, for having failed to account (for) the notarial fees she received for said two (2) months period; for having failed to account (for) the solemnization fees of those marriages allegedly not solemnized, but the solemnization fees were not returned; for unauthorized issuance of temporary receipts, some of which were issued unnumbered; for receiving the cash bond of Dacara on October 29, 1991 in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos for which she issued only a temporary receipt (Exh. Y) and for depositing it with the Land Bank of the Philippines only on March 26, 1993, or after one year and five months in her possession and after this case was already filed; for withdrawing said cash bond of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos on April 29, 1993 without any court order or authority and redepositing it only on July 23, 1993; for receiving a cash bond of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos from Alfredo Seprones in Crim. Case No. 5180, MTC, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, for which she issued only an unnumbered temporary receipt (Exhs. X and X-1) and for not depositing it with a bank or with the Municipal Treasurer until it was ordered released; and for requiring the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur to pay filing fees on February 4, 1992 for collection cases filed against farmers in the amount of Four Hundred (P400.00) Pesos, but turning over said amount to the Municipal Treasurer only on March 12, 1992, it is respectfully recommended that said respondent clerk of court Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy be dismissed from the service. It is provided that "Withdrawal of court deposits shall be by the clerk of court who shall issue official receipt to the provincial, city or municipal treasurer for the amount withdrawn. Court deposits cannot be withdrawn except by order of the court, . . . ." (Revised Manual of Instructions for Treasurers, Sec. 183, 184 and 626; p. 127, Manual for Clerks of Court). A circular also provides that the Clerks of Court shall immediately issue an official receipt upon receipt of deposits from party litigants and thereafter deposit intact the collection with the municipal, city or provincial treasurer and their deposits, can only be withdrawn upon proper receipt and order of the Court (DOJ Circular No. 52, 26 April 1968; p. 136, Manual for Clerks of Court). Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 5, 25 November 1982, also provides that "all collections of funds of fiduciary character including rental deposits, shall be deposited immediately by the clerk of court concerned upon receipt thereof with City, Municipal or Provincial Treasurer where his court is located" and that "no withdrawal of any of such deposits shall be made except upon lawful order of the court exercising jurisdiction over the subject matter. Respondent Baroy had either failed to comply with the foregoing circulars, or deliberately disregarded, or even intentionally violated them. By her conduct, she demonstrated her callous unconcern for the obligations and responsibility of her duties and functions as a clerk of court and accountable officer. The gross neglect of her duties shown by her constitute(s) a serious misconduct which warrant(s) her removal from office. In the case of Belen P. Ferriola vs. Norma Hiam, Clerk of Court, MTCC, Branch I, Batangas City; A.M. No. P-90-414; August 9, 1993, it was held that "The clerk of court is not authorized to keep funds in his/her custody; monies received by him/her shall be deposited immediately upon receipt thereof with the City, Municipal or Provincial Treasurer. Supreme Court Circular Nos. 5 dated November 25, 1982 and 5-A dated December 3, 1982. Respondent Hiam's failure to remit the cash bail bonds and fine she collected constitutes serious misconduct and her misappropriation of said funds constitutes dishonesty. "Respondent Norma Hiam was found guilty of dishonesty and serious misconduct

prejudicial to the best interest of the service and (the Court) ordered her immediate dismissal (from) the service. xxx xxx xxx We here emphasize once again our adjuration that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be beyond suspicion. Every employee should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. 5 Integrity in a judicial office is more than a virtue, it is a necessity. 6 It applies, without qualification as to rank or position, from the judge to the least of its personnel, they being standard-bearers of the exacting norms of ethics and morality imposed upon a Court of justice. On the charge regarding illegal marriages the Family Code pertinently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. 7 Complementarily, it declares that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that, while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. 8 The civil aspect is addressed to the contracting parties and those affected by the illegal marriages, and what we are providing for herein pertains to the administrative liability of respondents, all without prejudice to their criminal responsibility. The Revised Penal Code provides that "(p)riests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law." 9 This is of course, within the province of the prosecutorial agencies of the Government. The recommendation with respect to the administrative sanction to be imposed on respondent judge should, therefore, be modified. For one, with respect to the charge of illegal solemnization of marriages, it does appear that he had not taken to heart, but actually trifled with, the law's concern for the institution of marriage and the legal effects flowing from civil status. This, and his undeniable participation in the other offenses charged as hereinbefore narrated in detail, approximate such serious degree of misconduct and of gross negligence in the performance of judicial duties as to ineludibly require a higher penalty. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby imposes a FINE of P20,000.00 on respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon. Jr., with a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offenses in the future will definitely be severely dealt with. Respondent Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the Government, including governmentowned or controlled corporations. Let copies of this decision be spread on their records and furnished to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 BEATRIZ P. WASSMER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ, defendant-appellant. Jalandoni & Jamir for defendant-appellant. Samson S. Alcantara for plaintiff-appellee. BENGZON, J.P., J.: The facts that culminated in this case started with dreams and hopes, followed by appropriate planning and serious endeavors, but terminated in frustration and, what is worse, complete public humiliation. Francisco X. Velez and Beatriz P. Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love, decided to get married and set September 4, 1954 as the big day. On September 2, 1954 Velez left this note for his bride-tobe: Dear Bet Will have to postpone wedding My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today. Please do not ask too many people about the reason why That would only create a scandal. Paquing But the next day, September 3, he sent her the following telegram: NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE . PAKING Thereafter Velez did not appear nor was he heard from again. Sued by Beatriz for damages, Velez filed no answer and was declared in default. Plaintiff adduced evidence before the clerk of court as commissioner, and on April 29, 1955, judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P2,000.00 as actual damages;

P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as attorney's fees; and the costs. On June 21, 1955 defendant filed a "petition for relief from orders, judgment and proceedings and motion for new trial and reconsideration." Plaintiff moved to strike it cut. But the court, on August 2, 1955, ordered the parties and their attorneys to appear before it on August 23, 1955 "to explore at this stage of the proceedings the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement." It added that should any of them fail to appear "the petition for relief and the opposition thereto will be deemed submitted for resolution." On August 23, 1955 defendant failed to appear before court. Instead, on the following day his counsel filed a motion to defer for two weeks the resolution on defendants petition for relief. The counsel stated that he would confer with defendant in Cagayan de Oro City the latter's residence on the possibility of an amicable element. The court granted two weeks counted from August 25, 1955. Plaintiff manifested on June 15, 1956 that the two weeks given by the court had expired on September 8, 1955 but that defendant and his counsel had failed to appear. Another chance for amicable settlement was given by the court in its order of July 6, 1956 calling the parties and their attorneys to appear on July 13, 1956. This time. however, defendant's counsel informed the court that chances of settling the case amicably were nil. On July 20, 1956 the court issued an order denying defendant's aforesaid petition. Defendant has appealed to this Court. In his petition of June 21, 1955 in the court a quo defendant alleged excusable negligence as ground to set aside the judgment by default. Specifically, it was stated that defendant filed no answer in the belief that an amicable settlement was being negotiated. A petition for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, must be duly supported by an affidavit of merits stating facts constituting a valid defense. (Sec. 3, Rule 38, Rules of Court.) Defendant's affidavit of merits attached to his petition of June 21, 1955 stated: "That he has a good and valid defense against plaintiff's cause of action, his failure to marry the plaintiff as scheduled having been due to fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control." An affidavit of merits like this stating mere conclusions or opinions instead of facts is not valid.

(Cortes vs. Co Bun Kim, L-3926, Oct. 10, 1951; Vaswani vs. P. Tarrachand Bros., L-15800, December 29, 1960.) Defendant, however, would contend that the affidavit of merits was in fact unnecessary, or a mere surplusage, because the judgment sought to be set aside was null and void, it having been based on evidence adduced before the clerk of court. In Province of Pangasinan vs. Palisoc, L-16519, October 30, 1962, this Court pointed out that the procedure of designating the clerk of court as commissioner to receive evidence is sanctioned by Rule 34 (now Rule 33) of the Rules of Court. Now as to defendant's consent to said procedure, the same did not have to be obtained for he was declared in default and thus had no standing in court (Velez vs. Ramas, 40 Phil. 787; Alano vs. Court of First Instance, L-14557, October 30, 1959). In support of his "motion for new trial and reconsideration," defendant asserts that the judgment is contrary to law. The reason given is that "there is no provision of the Civil Code authorizing" an action for breach of promise to marry. Indeed, our ruling in Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (L-14628, Sept. 30, 1960), as reiterated in Estopa vs. Biansay (L-14733, Sept. 30, 1960), is that "mere breach of a promise to marry" is not an actionable wrong. We pointed out that Congress deliberately eliminated from the draft of the new Civil Code the provisions that would have it so. It must not be overlooked, however, that the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for Article 21 of said Code provides that "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." The record reveals that on August 23, 1954 plaintiff and defendant applied for a license to contract marriage, which was subsequently issued (Exhs. A, A-1). Their wedding was set for September 4, 1954. Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances (Tsn., 5; Exh. C). The bride-to-be's trousseau, party drsrses and other apparel for the important occasion were purchased (Tsn., 7-8). Dresses for the maid of honor and the flower girl were prepared. A matrimonial bed, with accessories, was bought. Bridal showers were given and gifts received (Tsn., 6; Exh. E). And then, with but two days before the wedding, defendant, who was then 28 years old,: simply left a note for plaintiff stating: "Will have to postpone wedding My mother opposes it ... " He enplaned to his home city in

Mindanao, and the next day, the day before the wedding, he wired plaintiff: "Nothing changed rest assured returning soon." But he never returned and was never heard from again. Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid. Defendant urges in his afore-stated petition that the damages awarded were excessive. No question is raised as to the award of actual damages. What defendant would really assert hereunder is that the award of moral and exemplary damages, in the amount of P25,000.00, should be totally eliminated. Per express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to exemplary damages, defendant contends that the same could not be adjudged against him because under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the condition precedent is that "the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner." The argument is devoid of merit as under the abovenarrated circumstances of this case defendant clearly acted in a "wanton ... , reckless [and] oppressive manner." This Court's opinion, however, is that considering the particular circumstances of this case, P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is deemed to be a reasonable award. PREMISES CONSIDERED, with the above-indicated modification, the lower court's judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

The complaint was not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the pleadings 2 submitted were considered sufficient for a resolution of the case. Since the countercharges of sinister motives and fraud on the part of complainant have not been sufficiently proven, they will not be dwelt upon. The acts complained of and respondent judge's answer thereto will suffice and can be objectively assessed by themselves to prove the latter's malfeasance. The certified true copy of the marriage contract between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga states that Tagadan's civil status is "separated." Despite this declaration, the wedding ceremony was solemnized by respondent judge. He presented in evidence a joint affidavit by Maurecio A. Labado, Sr. and Eugenio Bullecer, subscribed and sworn to before Judge Demosthenes C. Duquilla, Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, 3 Samar. The affidavit was not issued by the latter judge, as claimed by respondent judge, but merely acknowledged before him. In their affidavit, the affiants stated that they knew Gaspar Tagadan to have been civilly married to Ida D. Pearanda in September 1983; that after thirteen years of cohabitation and having borne five children, Ida Pearanda left the conjugal dwelling in Valencia, Bukidnon and that she has not returned nor been heard of for almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead. In effect, Judge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned joint affidavit is sufficient proof of Ida Pearanda's presumptive death, and ample reason for him to proceed with the marriage ceremony. We do not agree. Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides: A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (Emphasis added.) There is nothing ambiguous or difficult to comprehend in this provision. In fact, the law is clear and simple. Even if the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a subsequent marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been precisely incorporated into the Family Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not proven that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent provisions of law. In the case at bar, Gaspar Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife's presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains married to Ida Pearanda. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by

A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996 RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, respondent.

ROMERO, J.:p The complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro. He has submitted evidence in relation to two specific acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law. First, on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Respondent judge holds office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The wedding was solemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within his jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, located some 40 to 45 kilometers away from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. In his letter-comment to the office of the Court Administrator, respondent judge avers that the office and name of the Municipal Mayor of Dapa have been used by someone else, who, as the mayor's "lackey," is overly concerned with his actuations both as judge and as a private person. The same person had earlier filed Administrative Matter No 94-980-MTC, which was dismissed for lack of merit on September 15, 1994, and Administrative Matter No. OCA-IPI-95-16, "Antonio Adapon v. Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy," which is still pending. In relation to the charges against him, respondent judge seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his wife, and Arlyn F. Borga by stating that he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that 1 Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. With respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Code which states that: "Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction;" and that article 8 thereof applies to the case in question.

the groom. Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. Under Article 35 of the Family Code, " The following marriage shall be void from the beginning: (4) Those bigamous . . . marriages not falling under Article 41." The second issue involves the solemnization of a marriage ceremony outside the court's jurisdiction, covered by Articles 7 and 8 of the Family Code, thus: Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by : (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied.) Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both 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. Respondent judge points to Article 8 and its exceptions as the justification for his having solemnized the marriage between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside of his court's jurisdiction. As the aforequoted provision states, a marriage can be held outside of the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: (1) at the point of death, (2) in remote places in accordance with Article 29 or (3) upon request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point of death or in the remote place. Moreover, the written request presented addressed to the respondent judge 4 was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario. More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the authority of the solemnizing judge. Under Article 3, one of the formal requisites of marriage is the "authority of the solemnizing officer." Under Article 7, marriage may be solemnized by, among others, "any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction." Article 8, which is a directory provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage. A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinary to marry the faithful, is authorized to do so only within the area of the diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. 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, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to 5 administrative liability.

Inasmuch as respondent judge's jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic principles of civil law. Accordingly, the Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the law. The legal principles applicable in the cases brought to our attention are elementary and uncomplicated, prompting us to conclude that respondent's failure to apply them is due to a lack of comprehension of the law. The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts, are at least, proficient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary laymen. They should be skilled and competent in understanding and applying the law. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles like the ones involved in 6 instant case. It is not too much to expect them to know and apply the law 7 intelligently. Otherwise, the system of justice rests on a shaky foundation indeed, compounded by the errors committed by those not learned in the law. While magistrates may at times make mistakes in judgment, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of elementary provisions of law, in an area which has greatly prejudiced the status of married persons. The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered bigamous and void, there being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Pearanda. The Office of the Court Administrator recommends, in its Memorandum to the Court, a six-month suspension and a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Considering that one of the marriages in question resulted in a bigamous union and therefore void, and the other lacked the necessary authority of respondent judge, the Court adopts said recommendation. Respondent is advised to be more circumspect in applying the law and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the law. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and given a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390 April 11, 2002 (Formerly IPI No. 01-1049-MTJ) MERCEDITA MATA ARAES, petitioner, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent. PUNO, J.: Petitioner Mercedita Mata Araes charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law via a sworn Letter-Complaint dated 23 May 2001. Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that on 17 February 2000, respondent judge solemnized her marriage to her late groom Dominador B. Orobia without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction. They lived together as husband and wife on the strength of this marriage until her husband passed away. However, since the marriage was a nullity, petitioner's right to inherit the "vast properties" left by Orobia was not recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the pensions of Orobia, a retired Commodore of the Philippine Navy. 1wphi1.nt Petitioner prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge for his illegal acts and unethical misrepresentations which allegedly caused her so much hardships, embarrassment and sufferings. On 28 May 2001, the case was referred by the Office of the Chief Justice to then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao for appropriate action. On 8 June 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator required respondent judge to comment. In his Comment dated 5 July 2001, respondent judge averred that he was requested by a certain Juan Arroyo on 15 February 2000 to solemnize the marriage of the parties on 17 February 2000. Having been assured that all the documents to the marriage were complete, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. However, on 17 February 2000, Arroyo informed him that Orobia had a difficulty walking and could not stand the rigors of travelling to Balatan which is located almost 25 kilometers from his residence in Nabua. Arroyo then requested if respondent judge could solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded. Respondent judge further avers that before he started the ceremony, he carefully examined the documents submitted to him by petitioner. When he

discovered that the parties did not possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested its resetting to another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the marriage license and admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void. Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent judge that they would give the license to him in the afternoon of that same day. When they failed to comply, respondent judge followed it up with Arroyo but the latter only gave him the same reassurance that the marriage license would be delivered to his sala at the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Respondent judge vigorously denies that he told the contracting parties that their marriage is valid despite the absence of a marriage license. He attributes the hardships and embarrassment suffered by the petitioner as due to her own fault and negligence. On 12 September 2001, petitioner filed her Affidavit of Desistance dated 28 August 2001 with the Office of the Court Administrator. She attested that respondent judge initially refused to solemnize her marriage due to the want of a duly issued marriage license and that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he eventually solemnized the same. She confessed that she filed this administrative case out of rage. However, after reading the Comment filed by respondent judge, she realized her own shortcomings and is now bothered by her conscience. Reviewing the records of the case, it appears that petitioner and Orobia filed their Application for Marriage License on 5 January 2000. It was stamped in this Application that the marriage license shall be issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither petitioner nor Orobia claimed it. It also appears that the Office of the Civil Registrar General issued a Certification that it has no record of such marriage that allegedly took place on 17 February 2000. Likewise, the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur issued another Certification dated 7 May 2001 that it cannot issue a true copy of the Marriage Contract of the parties since it has no record of their marriage. On 8 May 2001, petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge so the latter could communicate with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur for the issuance of her marriage license. Respondent judge wrote the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur. In a letter dated 9 May 2001, a Clerk of said office, Grace T. Escobal, informed respondent judge that their office cannot issue the marriage license due to the failure of Orobia to submit the Death Certificate of his previous spouse.

The Office of the Court Administrator, in its Report and Recommendation dated 15 November 2000, found the respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction. A fine of P5,000.00 was recommended to be imposed on respondent judge. We agree. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P. 129, the authority of the regional trial court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court.1wphi1.nt The case at bar is not without precedent. In Navarro vs. Domagtoy, respondent judge held office and had jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. However, he solemnized a wedding at his residence in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte which did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos. We held that:
1

marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage. Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without 4 the requisite marriage license. In People vs. Lara, we held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such 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 possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.1wphi1.nt Respondent judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of Desistance filed by petitioner. This Court has consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from disciplinary action. Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court personnel, 5 would be undermined. Disciplinary actions of this nature do not involve purely private or personal matters. They can not be made to depend upon the will of every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. We cannot be bound by the unilateral act of a complainant in a matter which involves the Court's constitutional power to discipline judges. Otherwise, that power may be put to naught, undermine the trust character of a public office and impair the integrity and dignity of this Court as a 6 disciplining authority. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur, is fined 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. SO ORDERED.

"A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do so only within the area or diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. 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, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may 2 subject the officiating official to administrative liability." (Emphasis supplied.) In said case, we suspended respondent judge for six (6) months on the ground that his act of solemnizing a marriage outside his jurisdiction constitutes gross ignorance of the law. We further held that: "The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts, are at least, proficient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary laymen. They should be skilled and competent in understanding and applying the law. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles like the ones involved in the instant case. x x x While magistrates may at times make mistakes in judgment, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of elementary provisions of law, in an area which 3 has greatly prejudiced the status of married persons." In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the