Title
Navarro vs. Domagtoy
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088
Decision Date
Jul 19, 1996
Judge Domagtoy solemnized invalid marriages, violating Family Code provisions, demonstrating gross ignorance of the law and exceeding jurisdictional authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 42142)

First Act: Solemnization of Bigamous Marriage

On September 27, 1994, Judge Domagtoy officiated the marriage of Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga in Dapa. Tagadan was legally “separated” but still married to Ida Peñaranda. Respondent relied on a joint affidavit asserting Peñaranda’s absence for seven years and presumed death, without any judicial declaration of presumptive death.

Relevant Provision: Family Code Article 41

Article 41 requires that, before contracting a subsequent marriage, an absent spouse must be declared presumptively dead by summary judicial proceedings—even if there is a well-founded belief of death—unless disappearance under Articles 391 of the Civil Code (danger of death) justifies a two-year absence.

Analysis of Bigamy Charge

Because Tagadan failed to secure a court declaration of Peñaranda’s presumptive death, his marriage to Borga was void ab initio under Family Code Article 35(4). Respondent’s acceptance of an acknowledged affidavit in lieu of a judicial declaration constituted ignorance of mandatory procedural and substantive law, resulting in a bigamous union.

Second Act: Solemnization Outside Jurisdiction

On October 27, 1994, Judge Domagtoy conducted the wedding of Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario at his private residence in Dapa, which lies outside his territorial jurisdiction of Sta. Monica and Burgos. Respondent invoked Article 8’s exceptions for point-of-death, remote places, or written request by both parties.

Relevant Provisions: Family Code Articles 7 and 8

Article 7(1) limits the authority to officiate marriages to incumbent judges acting within their court’s jurisdiction. Article 8 prescribes permissible venues for ceremonies and allows exceptions only when (a) either party is near death, (b) the place is remote under Article 29, or (c) both parties submit a joint written request.

Analysis of Jurisdictional Charge

No evidence showed point-of-death circumstances or remoteness under Article 29. The sole written request came only from the bride. Respondent misapplied Article 8’s venue exceptions and overlooked Article 7’s territorial limitation, demonstrating gross ignorance of jurisdictional au

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.