Persons Cases 10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONA.M. No. MTJ!"#$%% Jul& #!' #!!"RODO()O *. NAVARRO' co+plainant',s.JUD*E -ERNANDO C. DOMA*TO.' /espon0ent.ROMERO, J.:pThe complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor ofDapa, Surigao del orte, Rodolfo !. avarro. "e has su#mitted evidence in relation to t$o specific acts committed #y respondent Municipal %ircuit Trial %ourt Judge "ernando Domagtoy, $hich, he contends, e&hi#its gross misconduct as $ell as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the la$.'irst, on Septem#er (), *++,, respondent -udge solemni.ed the $edding #et$een !aspar /. Tagadan and /rlyn '. 0orga, despite the1no$ledge that the groom is merely separated from his first $ife.Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony #et$een 'loriano Dador Sumaylo and !emma !. del Rosario outside his court2s -urisdiction on Octo#er (), *++,. Respondent -udge holds office and has -urisdiction in the Municipal %ircuit Trial %ourt of Sta. Monica30urgos, Surigao del orte. The $edding $as solemni.ed at the respondent -udge2s residence in the municipality ofDapa, $hich does not fall $ithin his -urisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and 0urgos, located some ,4 to ,5 1ilometers a$ay from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del orte.6n his letter3comment to the office of the %ourt /dministrator, respondent -udge avers that the office and name of the Municipal Mayor of Dapa have #een used #y someone else, $ho, as the mayor2s 7lac1ey,7 is overly concerned $ith his actuations #oth as -udge and as a private person. The same person had earlier filed /dministrative Matter o +,3+843MT%, $hich $as dismissed for lac1 of merit on Septem#er *5, *++,, and /dministrative Matter o. O%/36963+53*:, 7/ntonio /dapon v. Judge "ernando %. Domagtoy,7 $hich is still pending.6n relation to the charges against him, respondent -udge see1s e&culpation from his act of having solemni.ed the marriage #et$een !aspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his $ife, and /rlyn '. 0orga #y stating that he merely relied on the /ffidavit issued #y theMunicipal Trial Judge of 0asey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first $ife have not seen each other for almost sevenyears. * ;ith respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemni.ing the marriage #et$een Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate /rticle ), paragraph * of the 'amily %ode $hich states that: 7Marriage may #e solemni.ed #y: 7 and that article 8 thereof applies to the case in ?uestion.The complaint $as not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the pleadings su#mitted $ere considered sufficient for a resolution ofthe case. (Since the countercharges of sinister motives and fraud on the part of complainant have not #een sufficiently proven, they $ill not #e d$elt upon. The acts complained of and respondent -udge2s ans$er thereto $ill suffice and can #e o#-ectively assessed #y themselves toprove the latter2s malfeasance.The certified true copy of the marriage contract #et$een !aspar Tagadan and /rlyn 0orga states that Tagadan2s civil status is 7separated.7 Despite this declaration, the $edding ceremony $as solemni.ed #y respondent -udge. "e presented in evidence a -oint affidavit #y Maurecio /. @a#ado, Sr. and Eugenio 0ullecer, su#scri#ed and s$orn to #efore Judge Demosthenes %. Du?uilla, Municipal Trial Judge of 0asey, Samar. A The affidavit $as not issued #y the latter -udge, as claimed #y respondent -udge, #ut merely ac1no$ledged #efore him. 6n their affidavit, the affiants statedthat they 1ne$ !aspar Tagadan to have #een civilly married to 6da D.9eBaranda in Septem#er *+8A> that after thirteen years of coha#itation and having #orne five children, 6da 9eBaranda left the con-ugal d$elling in Calencia, 0u1idnon and that she has not returned nor #een heard of for almost seven years, there#y giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead.6n effect, Judge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned -oint affidavit is sufficient proof of 6da 9eBaranda2s presumptive death, andample reason for him to proceed $ith the marriage ceremony. ;e donot agree./rticle ,* of the 'amily %ode e&pressly provides:/ marriage contracted #y any person during the su#sistence of a previous marriage shall #e null and void, unless #efore the cele#ration of the su#se?uent marriage, the prior spouse had #een a#sent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a $ell3founded #elief that the a#sent spouse $as already dead. 6n case of disappearance $here there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of /rticles A+* of the %ivil %ode, an a#sence of only t$o years shall #e sufficient.'or the purpose of contracting the su#se?uent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this %ode for the declaration of presumptive death of the a#sentee, $ithout pre-udice to the effect of reappearance of the a#sent spouse. hence, the need to dra$ attention ofthe #ench and the #ar to $hat had #een done. /rticle ,4) of the%ivil%odestates thatHaIcts,eventsand-udicialdecrees concerning the civilstatus of persons shall#e recorded inthecivil register. Thela$re?uirestheentryinthecivil registryof-udicialdecrees thatproducelegal conse?uences touchingupon apersons legal capacity and status, i"e", those affecting all hispersonal?ualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature,not ordinarily termina#le at his o$n $ill, such as his #eing legitimateor illegitimate, or his !eing married or not"HA5I / -udgment of divorce is a -udicial decree, although a foreignone, affectingapersonslegal capacityandstatusthat must #erecorded. 6n fact, /ct o. A)5A or the @a$ on Registry of %ivil Statusspecificallyre?uirestheregistrationof divorcedecreesinthecivilregistry: Sec. *. Civil Register. A ci,il /e?iste/ isestablishe0 fo/ /eco/0in? the ci,il status ofpe/sons' in Bhich shall be ente/e0;

2e50i,o/cesI

and