Kristin C.

Peña, LS201900021

Beso vs. Daguman

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211. January 28, 2000

FACTS:

On August 23, 1997, Judge Juan J. Daguman, Jr. solemnized the marriage of
Zenaida S. Beso and Bernardino Yman. After the wedding, Yman left Beso without
any reason, prompting Beso to write to the City Civil Registrar to inquire regarding
her marriage contract. Upon learning that the marriage was not registered, Beso filed
an administrative complaint against Judge Daguman, for solemnizing the former’s
marriage outside of the judge’s jurisdiction (the jurisdiction is in MCTC, Sta.
Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar and the ceremony was conducted in
Calbayog City, Samar) and for negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering
the marriage contract with the office of the Local Civil Registrar.

The respondent contented that Beso and Yman came to his residence and urgently
requesting him to celebrate their marriage on the reason that Beso is a Filipino
overseas worker that needs to leave the country on the same day to fly abroad as
scheduled. In addition, Judge Daguman commented that, according to the parties,
going to another town for the marriage would be costly and inconvenient and that he
acted good faith. Lastly, the respondent Judge asserted that he conducted diligent
search to recover all the copies of the marriage certificate.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent Judge can validly solemnize marriage outside
his jurisdiction.
2. Whether or not the respondent performed proper documentation of the
complainant’s marriage.

HELD:

The recommendation of Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was adopted by

the Court, respondent Judge is fined with Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with
more severely.

The respondent should only solemnize marriage within his jurisdiction, Article 8 of
the Family Code provides for its exceptions, that a marriage can be held outside 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 the request of
both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. Thus, the respondent Judge
has no jurisdiction to conduct solemnization of the marriage of the complainant.
There is no indication that either complainant Beso or Yman was at the point of
death or in a remote place. Neither was there a sworn written request made by the
contracting parties to respondent Judge that the marriage be solemnized outside his
chambers.
On the second issue, it appears that the respondent judge was negligent in the
performance of proper documentation of the complainant’s marriage. Article 23 of
the same statute indicates that - It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the
marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the marriage
contract referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the
certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of
the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the
local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage
certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of
the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license and, in proper cases, the
affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a
place other than those mentioned in Article 8. A judge is charged with exercising
extra care in ensuring that the records of the cases and official documents in his
custody are intact. The respondent Judge failed to document the marriage in
accordance with what the law requires, that renders him at fault.

In this case, it is said that marriage plays an integral role in every member of a
society, its solemnity is paramount, that persons allowed to officiate such should
abide by the laws related to it. It is to be understood that failure to comply with the
rules laid down by statutes, i.e. Family Code would make the ceremony to be
meaningless, thereby losing its sacredness and credibility.