0 More Next Blog Create Blog Sign In
Digests et al.
About Me April 10, 2011 Followers
Cosca vs Palaypayon
hyper_jetsetter Cosca vs. Palaypayon
View my complete 237 SCRA 249
profile
FACTS:
The following are the complainants: Juvy N. Cosca (Stenographer 1), Blog Archive
Edmundo B. Peralta (Interpreter 1), Ramon C. Sambo (Clerk II) and Apollo
Villamora (Process Server). Respondents are Judge Lucio Palaypayon June (2)
Jr., the presiding judge, and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy, clerk of court II. April (119)
All work in MTC-Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
Complainants alleged that Palaypayon solemnized marriages even
without the requisite of a marriage license. Hence, the following couples
were able to get married just by paying the marriage fees to respondent
Baroy: Alano P. Abellano & Nelly Edralin; Francisco Selpo & Julieta
Carrido; Eddie Terrobias & Maria Gacer; Renato Gamay & Maricris Belga;
Arsenio Sabater & Margarita Nacario; Sammy Bocaya & Gina Bismonte.
As a consequence, the marriage contracts of the following couples did not
reflect any marriage license number. In addition, Palaypayon did not sign
the marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of solemnization
reasoning out that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be
submitted by the parties which happens usually several days after the
marriage ceremony.
Palaypayon contends that marriage between Abellano & Edralin falls
under Article 34 of the Civil Code thus exempted from the marriage
license requirement. According to him, he gave strict instructions to
complainant Sambo to furnish the couple copy of the marriage contract
and to file the same with the civil registrar but the latter failed to do so. In
order to solve the problem, the spouses subsequently formalized the
marriage by securing a marriage license and executing their marriage
contract, a copy of which was then filed with the civil registrar. The other
five marriages were not illegally solemnized because Palaypayon did not
sign their marriage contracts and the date and place of marriage are not
included. It was alleged that copies of these marriage contracts are in the
custody of complainant Sambo. The alleged marriage of Selpo & Carrido,
Terrobias & Gacer, Gamay & Belga, Sabater & Nacario were not
celebrated by him since he refused to solemnize them in the absence of a
marriage license and that the marriage of Bocaya & Bismonte was
celebrated even without the requisite license due to the insistence of the
parties to avoid embarrassment with the guests which he again did not
sign the marriage contract.
An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged against the
respondents.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
ISSUE: Whether the marriage solemnized by Judge Palaypayon were
valid.
HELD:
Bocaya & Besmontes marriage was solemnized without a marriage
license along with the other couples. The testimonies of Bocay and
Pompeo Ariola including the photographs taken showed that it was really
Judge Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared that
they were advised by judge to return after 10 days after the solemnization
and bring with them their marriage license. They already started living
together as husband and wife even without the formal requisite. With
respect to the photographs, judge explained that it was a simulated
solemnization of marriage and not a real one. However, considering that
there were pictures from the start of the wedding ceremony up to the
signing of the marriage certificates in front of him. The court held that it is
hard to believe that it was simulated.
On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he solemnized
marriage between Abellano & Edralin and claimed it was under Article 34
of the Civil Code so the marriage license was dispensed with considering
that the contracting parties executed a joint affidavit that they have been
living together as husband and wife for almost 6 years already. However,
it was shown in the marriage contract that Abellano was only 18 yrs
2months and 7 days old. If he and Edralin had been living together for 6
years already before they got married as what is stated in the joint
affidavit, Abellano must have been less than 13 years old when they
started living together which is hard to believe. Palaypayon should have
been aware, as it is his duty to ascertain the qualification of the
contracting parties who might have executed a false joint affidavit in order
to avoid the marriage license requirement.
Article 4 of the Family Code pertinently provides that in the absence of
any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab
initio whereas an irregularity in the formal requisite shall not affect the
validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the
irregularity shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.
Posted by hyper_jetsetter at 5:52:00 PM
Recommend this on Google
No comments:
Post a Comment
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Enter your comment...
Comment as: Select profile...
Publish Preview
Newer Post Home Older Post
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
