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