A.M. No.
MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996
RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, respondent.
FACTS: Complainant Mayor Rodolfo Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte 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, respondent judge solemnized a wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga despite the
knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Second, he performed a marriage ceremony
between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction. 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.
ISSUE: WON the marriages solemnized were void.
RULING: Yes, both marriage solemnized by respondent judge were void.
First, the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is void and bigamous as there was a subsisting
marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Peñaranda. The first wife left Bukidnon and she has not returned nor
been heard of for almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead. If Tagadan has
a well-founded belief that Peñaranda 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 in the Family Code (Article 42 Paragraph 2).
Second, under article 8…where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the
marriage be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. The written
request presented addressed to the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario. Non-
compliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage. Respondent judge is subject to administrative liability.
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.
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 request presented addressed to the respondent
judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario.
In this case, the solemnization of the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario was outside the respondent’s court’s
jurisdiction.
