Mercedita Araes vs.

Judge Occiano Facts: Araes filed an administrative case against Judge Occiano for gross ignorance of the law. Judge Occiano was an MTC judge of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Araes alleges that Occiano solemnized her marriage with Domingo Orobia in Nabua, Camsur which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Judges court and without a valid marriage license. She said that because of such ignorance of the law, her marriage with Orobio, a retired commodore of the Philippine Navy, was a nullity. And because of such nullity, she was prevented from inheriting vast properties and pensions left by Orobia (deceased). As defense, Judge Occiano said that he was only asked by a certain Juan Arroyo to solemnize the marriage of the parties on Feb. 1, 2000, to which he agreed to, so long as it be done in his sala in Nabua. But Arroyo informed Occiano that the groom would not be able to go to Balatan due to his condition (Orobia suffered from a stroke). As defense, Judge Occiano said that before he solemnized the marriage, he inspected the documents of the parties. Upon seeing the lack of a valid marriage license, he informed the parties that he could not solemnize their marriage. But because of the earnest pleas of the parties and a promise that they would subsequently get a marriage license, Judge Occiano solemnized the marriage. Issue: Was Judge Occiano guilty of gross ignorance of the law? Yes. Ruling:

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P.129, the authority of the regional trial court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court. Citing the case of Navarro vs. Domagtoy, the SC said that: A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do so only within the area or diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his courts jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to administrative liability. Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license. In People vs. Lara,[4] we 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. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law. Judge Occiano was fined P5,000 + STERN WARNING for gross ignorance of the law.