ESPINOSA VS OMANA

FACTS :

 On 17 November 1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omana’s legal advice on
whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately.
 Omana prepared a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” Espinosa and Marantal started
implanting the conditions of the said contract.
 However, Marantal took custody of all their children and took possession of most of the conjugal property.
 Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a law graduate, who informed him that
the contract executed by Omana was not valid.
 They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied
that she prepared the contract.
 She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the contract but she told
him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa returned the next day while she was out of the office
and managed to persuade her part-time office staff to notarize the document.
 Her office staff forged her signature and notarized the contract.

ISSUE: W/N Omaña violated the CPR in notartizing the “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” W/N the Kasunduaan ng
Paghihiwalay is valid.

RULING:

 SC has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval is void.
 The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the
family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership,
which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.
 The IBP-CBD found that Omaña violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
 Wherefore, the court suspend atty.Omana from the practice of law for ONE YEAR and revoke Atty. Omana
notarial commission, if still existing and suspend her as a notary public for 2 YEARS

CASE INVOLVED:

Selanova v. Judge Mendoza,4 the Court cited a number of cases where the lawyer was sanctioned for notarizing similar
documents as the contract in this case, such as: notarizing a document between the spouses which permitted the husband
to take a concubine and allowed the wife to live with another man, without opposition from each other;5 ratifying a document
entitled "Legal Separation" where the couple agreed to be separated from each other mutually and voluntarily, renouncing
their rights and obligations, authorizing each other to remarry, and renouncing any action that they might have against each
other;6 preparing a document authorizing a married couple who had been separated for nine years to marry again,
renouncing the right of action which each may have against the other;7 and preparing a document declaring the conjugal
partnership dissolved.8

1
 DE MIJARES V. VILLALUZ
FACTS :

 Complainant Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares is the presiding judge in Pasay City while respondent
Onofre A. Villaluz, a retired Justice of the Court of Appeals, is a consult at the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission.
 Judge Mijares is actually widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares. She obtained a
decree declaring her husband presumptively dead, after an absence of 16 years. Thus, she got married to
respondent in a civil wedding on January 7, 1994 before Judge Myrna Lim Verano.
 They (complainant and respondent) knew each other when the latter, who was at that time the Presiding
Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in Pasig, was trying a murder case involving the death of the son of
Mijares.
 During their marriage, complainant judge discovered that respondent was having an illicit affair with another
woman. Respondent denied such rather he uttered harsh words to the complainant judge. As a result, they
lived separately and did not get in touch with one another and the respondent did not bother
to apologize for what happened.
 Through Judge Ramon Makasiar, complainant knew that respondent married Lydia Geraldez. Complainant
then filed a complaint against respondent for disbarment for the latter immorally and bigamously entered
into a second marriage while having a subsisting marriage and distorted the truth by stating his civil status
as single.
 In his defense, he contended that his marriage to the complainant judge was a “sham marriage”; that he
voluntarily signed the marriage contract to help her in the administrative case for immorality filed against
her by her legal researcher. Likewise, he maintained that when he contracted his marriage with
complainant, he had a subsisting marriage with his first wife because the decision declaring the annulment
of such marriage had not yet become final and executory or published.
 Judge Purisima the found respondent guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct and later on affirmed by
the Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not marriage of complainant and respondent valid.

RULING:

 Yes. It was a valid marriage. All the essential and formal requisites of a valid marriage under Articles 2 and 3 of the
Family Code were satisfied and complied. Given the circumstance that he was facing criminal case for bigamy and
assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment in civil case declaring the annulment of marriage between
respondent and the first wife had not attained complete finality, the marriage between complainant and respondent
is not void but only voidable
 As to the issue that it was a “sham” marriage is too incredible to deserve serious consideration. Thus, former
Justice Onofre Villaluz is found guilty of immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; he
is hereby suspended from practice of law for two years with the specific warning.

2
3