Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Case - Aranes vs. Occiano

    Uploaded by

    Orange Zee Meline
    1) A judge solemnized a marriage without the requisite marriage license, which is required to give the judge authority to perform marriages. 2) The judge claimed he refused at first but eventually performed the marriage due to requests and reassurances, warning the parties it would be void without a license. 3) The court ruled the judge was guilty of performing the marriage without a license in violation of legal precedent, and fined him despite the petitioner later desisting from the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case - Aranes vs. Occiano

    Uploaded by

    Orange Zee Meline
    176 views2 pages
    1) A judge solemnized a marriage without the requisite marriage license, which is required to give the judge authority to perform marriages. 2) The judge claimed he refused at first but eventually performed the marriage due to requests and reassurances, warning the parties it would be void without a license. 3) The court ruled the judge was guilty of performing the marriage without a license in violation of legal precedent, and fined him despite the petitioner later desisting from the complaint.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A judge solemnized a marriage without the requisite marriage license, which is required to give the judge authority to perform marriages. 2) The judge claimed he refused at first but eventually performed the marriage due to requests and reassurances, warning the parties it would be void without a license. 3) The court ruled the judge was guilty of performing the marriage without a license in violation of legal precedent, and fined him despite the petitioner later desisting from the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views2 pages

    Case - Aranes vs. Occiano

    Uploaded by

    Orange Zee Meline
    1) A judge solemnized a marriage without the requisite marriage license, which is required to give the judge authority to perform marriages. 2) The judge claimed he refused at first but eventually performed the marriage due to requests and reassurances, warning the parties it would be void without a license. 3) The court ruled the judge was guilty of performing the marriage without a license in violation of legal precedent, and fined him despite the petitioner later desisting from the complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Requisites for a Valid Marriage – Formal Requisite

    MERCEDITA MATA ARANES, petitioner, 


    vs. JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent.
    A.M. No. MJT-02-1390 April 11, 2002

    PUNO, J.:

    FACTS:
    Petitioner, Mercedita Mata Aranes charges respondent Judge with Gross Ignorance
    of the Law via a sworn Letter-Complaint dated May 23, 2001. Respondent is the Presiding
    Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that on
    February 17, 2000, respondent Judge solemnized her marriage to her late groom Dominador
    B. Orobia without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is
    outside his territorial jurisdiction.

    Since the marriage was a nullity, petitioner’s right to inherit the “vast properties” left
    by Orobia was not recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the pensions of
    Orobia, a retired Commodore of the Philippine Navy.

    Respondent Judge averred that he was requested to solemnize the marriage of the
    parties on February 17, 2000. Further, Respondent Judge further asserted that he carefully
    examined the documents submitted to him by the petitioner. When he discovered that the
    parties did not possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnize the marriage
    and suggested its resetting to another date. However due to earnest pleas of the parties, he
    proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he
    reset the marriage, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia who just suffered
    from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the marriage license
    and admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void.

    On September 12, 2001, petitioner filed her Affidavit of Desistance attesting that
    Respondent Judge initially refused to solemnize her marriage due to the want of a duly
    issued marriage license and that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that he
    eventually solemnized the same.

    ISSUE:
    Is the Respondent Judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued
    marriage license?

    RULING:
    Respondent Judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without
    marriage license. In People vs. Lara, the court held that a marriage which preceded the
    issuance of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license
    cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. It is the marriage license
    that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent Judge
    did not possesse such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this
    respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.

    Respondent Judge cannot be exculpated despite the Affidavit of Desistance filed by


    the petitioner. The Court has consistently held in a catena of cases that the withdrawal of
    the complaint does not necessarily have the legal effect of exonerating respondent from
    disciplinary action. Otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the
    discipline of court personnel, would be undermined. Disciplinary action of this nature do not
    involve purely private or personal matters. They cannot be made to depend upon the will of
    the complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. We cannot
    be bound by the unilateral act of a complainant in a matter which involves the Court’s
    constitutional power to discipline judges. Otherwise, the power may be put to naught,
    undermine the trust character of the public office and impair the dignity and integrity of this
    Court as a Disciplining authority.

    Respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano is fined Php 5,000.00 pesos with stern
    warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
    severely.

    You might also like