Download Navarro v Domagtoy Digest PDF

TitleNavarro v Domagtoy Digest
TagsJudge Government Information Crime & Justice Justice Social Institutions
File Size44.1 KB
Total Pages2
Document Text Contents
Page 1

RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY,
respondent

A.M. No. MTJ-96 1088 July 19,1996

FACTS:

Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo Navarro, has submitted
evidence in relation to two specific acts committed by the respondent with the
following facts: First, on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the
wedding between Gaspar Tagahan and Arlyn Borga, despite the knowledge that
the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Second, on October 27, 1994
the respondent allegedly performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano
Dador Sumaylo and Gemma Del Rosario outside of the respondent’s court’s
jurisdiction. Such wedding was solemnized at the respondent’s residence in
municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within the respondent’s jurisdictional
area of Sta. Monica and Burgos.

Respondent, in one of his letter-comment to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), argued that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and Del
Rosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph one (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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del
Rosario was within the respondent’s court’s jurisdiction.

HELD:

No. The solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario was
not within the respondent’s court’s jurisdiction. As provided in Article 7 of
the Family Code, “Marriage may be solemnized by : (1) any incumbent
member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction…” not allowing
respondent judge to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao
del Norte since his jurisdiction only covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and
Burgos. Respondent judge cited Article 8 of the Family Code and the exceptions
therein. There are only three instances, which the Article 8 of the Family Code
provides, wherein a judge may solemnize a marriage publicly “in the chambers
of 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 at the point of death or in
remote places in accordance with Article 29, or were both of the parties
request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage
may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn
statement to that effect”. There is no pretence that either Sumaylo or del
Rosario was at the point of death or in a remote place. Moreover, the written

Similer Documents