JUVY N. COSCA, EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, RAMON C. SAMBO, and APOLLO A.

VILLAMORA 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
A.M. No. MTJ-92-721 September 30, 1994

FACTS:
Complainants alleged that the respondent solemnized marriages even without
marriage license. The couples get married by simply paying marriage fees to
respondent Baroy. The marriage contract of 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 did not show any marriage license number. The respondent judge
explained that he did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of
solemnization because he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted
by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony.
In the marriage of Alano P. Abellano and Nelly Edralin, respondent judge claims
that it falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code. They are exempt from requiring a
marriage license. Respondent judge instructed Sambo to furnish a copy of the marriage
contract for the couples and have it filed in the civil registrar. However, he failed.
Therefore, 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.
Moreover, 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriages solemnized by the respondent judge were valid.

RULING:
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.
Testimonies of Bocay and Pompeo Ariola and other evidence like the photograph
show that it was respondent judge who solemnized their marriage. They were advised
by the respondent judge to return and show the marriage license after obtaining it. The
photographs also proved that there was a marriage took place because pictures were
taken from the beginning to the end of the said ceremony. The denial of the judge is not
considered.
Respondent Judge claimed that he solemnized the marriage between Abellano &
Edralin. He 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 found out that one of the parties was just 18 yrs 2months and 7 days
old. The respondent judge, as his duty, should ascertain the genuineness of the facts
being presented to him.
Absence of essential or formal requisite/s render/s a marriage void.