Aranes v.

Occiano
AM No. MTJ-02-1390, April 11, 2002
Petitioner: Mercedita Aranes
Respondent: Judge Salvador Occiano
Case: Administrative matter in the SC for Gross Ignorance of the Law
Facts: Mercedita Aranes charged Judge Occiano with gross ignorance of the law.
Judge Occiano presides over MTC Balatan, Camarines Sur. Aranes alleges that
Occiano solemnized her marriage to the deceased Orobia without the requisite
marriage license and at Nabua C. Sur which is outside of his jurisdiction. The
spouses had lived together as husband and wife until Orobia passed away. But
since the marriage was a nullity, Aranes right to succession was not recognized.
She was also deprived of receiving pensions of Orobia who was a retired
Commodore of the PH Navy. Petitioner prays for sanctions to be imposed against
Occiano for his illegal acts. In 2001, the case was referred by the OCJ to the
OCA which required Occiano to comment. He averred that he was requested by
a Juan Arroyo in 2000 to solemnizes the marriage. He was assured that all the
documents were complete, and then agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala,
but Arroyo told him that Orobia would have difficulty travelling to Balatan from
his residence in Nabua. Arroyo then requested Occiano if the marriage could be
celebrated in Nabua. However, Occiano initially refused to officiate the wedding
when he discovered that the parties did not have a marriage license. But because
of their earnest pleas and the preparations already completed for the ceremony,
he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also
feared that if the marriage had been reset, it might aggravate the physical
conditions of Orobia. After the wedding, he reiterated to the newlyweds the
necessity of the marriage license. The spouses reassured him that they would
send it over asap. Occiano vehemently denies telling the parties that their
marriage is valid despite the absence of a marriage license. He attributes the

hardships suffered by Aranes to her own fault and negligence. Petitioner then
filed her affidavit of desistance because it was after Occianos comment that she
realised her own shortcomings.
Reviewing the case, it appears that the parties duly applied for a license but they
never picked it up. It also appears in the records of the local civil registrar that
there was no license issued in favour of the parties.
OCA: found Occiano guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued
marriage license and for doing so outside of his jurisdiction.
Issue: W/N Occiano guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued
marriage license and for doing so outside of his jurisdiction?
Held: YES.
Ratio: Pursuant to BP 129 or the JRA, authority of lower court judges to
solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction as defined by the
SC. SC cites Navarro v. Domagtoy in that the respondent judge solemnized a
wedding at his residence in Dapa, Surigao del Norte when he held office nad had
jurisidition only Sta. Monica and Burgos.
In this case, the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent judge is limited to
Balatan. His act of officiating the wedding in Nabua is contrary to law and
subjects him to administrative liability. He should also be faulted for solemnizing
a marriage without the license. In PP. Lara, SC held that a marriage which
preceded the issuance of a license is void. Except in cases provided by law, it is
the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize
a marriage, but Occiano did not possess this authority.