August 17, 2013

TO: Atty. Meralyn M. Talon, Senior Partner

Talon and Associates

FROM: Atty. Johayra M. Pangandaman

SUBJECT: Legality of the Marriage of Raul and Martha

ISSUE: Whether the mayor of Libona, Bukidnon committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by signing the marriage contract in Manolo Fortiich, Bukidnon which divested him of his authority as a solemnizing officer, as defined in Article 4 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

a. Whether the lack of authority of the mayor renders the marriage void.

b. Whether Martha and Raul did not know the foregoing which is essential consideration to deem them in good faith for the validity of their marriage.

c. Whether Raul’s underage, being just 19 years old during the marriage, affects the legitimacy of the marriage.

d. Whether the marriage was valid notwithstanding the absence of witnesses during the solemnization of the same which is one of the requisites of marriage as enumerated in Article 3 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

ANSWER: Yes. The Local Government Code of 1991 restored to the mayors their authority to solemnize marriages. However, this authority may only be exercised within the place of their jurisdiction. In this case, the mayor can only validly solemnize marriage, which necessarily includes the signing of the marriage contract, in Libona, Bukidnon where he is seated as mayor. He is not permitted by law to carry this authority anywhere else except in Libona, Bukidnon to do

otherwise would constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

a. No. Article 4 of the Family Code of the Philippines draws a difference between absence, defect, and, irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage, to wit:

The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.

An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. 

It may be true that the mayor had no authority when he signed the marriage license in Manolo Fortich but such only amounted to irregularity in the marriage. As clearly stated in the aforementioned Article, an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. 

b. Maybe not. The letter of Mrs. Tagra, Martha’s mother, is silent as to the couple’s knowledge on the lack of authority of the mayor to solemnize their marriage. Giving them the benefit of the doubt for absence of showing of their bad faith, they are considered in good faith. A new rule in the Family Code has been promulgated that once the couple or at least one of them believed that the solemnizing officer had an authority it shall not affect the validity of their marriage.

c. No. Article 5 of the Family Code of the Philippines is controlling in this matter. It states, “Any male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38, may contract marriage.” Since Raul neither Martha possesses the legal impediments

enumerated in Article 38 and 39, their marriage is completely valid.

d. Yes. It is settled that a marriage ceremony regardless of form or religious rite requires the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age (Paras, Persons and Family Relations). This, however, is just an irregularity in the formal requisites and does not affect the validity of the marriage.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS: Mrs. Andrea S. Tagra wrote her concern about the legitimacy of the marriage between her daughter, Martha, and the latter’s husband, Raul. Martha, 18 years old, and Raul, 19 years old decided to have a civil wedding. They went to the office of the municipal mayor of Libona, Bukidnon after obtaining a marriage license. However, only the secretary was present who told them that the mayor was in a nearby town, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, attending a fiesta. They proceeded to Manolo Fortich where the mayor signed the marriage contract upon receiving and reading the marriage license. They return to Libona, Bukidnon with their marriage contract. They lived happily ever after and bore two (2) children.

DISCUSSION: Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law (Article 1, Family Code of the Philippines). Thus, we shall centre our discussion as to how this controversial marriage of Raul and Martha has complied with the requirements of the law to finally come out with a conclusion of its legitimacy.

In the Family Code, an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage. One of the formal requisites under Article 3 is the authority of the solemnizing officer. In this case, there is no doubt to the power of the mayor to solemnize a marriage. The issue delves on his jurisdiction. As stated in the facts of the case, he is the mayor of Libona, Bukindon; thus, he is by law limited to solemnize marriage within the said municipality. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that such lack of jurisdiction does not affect the validity of the marriage when either or both of the couple believe that the

solemnizing officer holds an authority. So in this case, the mayor’s lack of authority to solemnize marriage in the municipality of Manolo Fortich has no effect to the validity of marriage between Raul and Martha. Moreover, voidability of the marriage can neither be grounded on Raul’s supposed underage. Article 5 sets forth the marriageable ages of the contracting parties to a marriage (Paras, Persons and Family Relations). It states that male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38, may contract marriage. As to the absence of witnesses, our law only has not included this as one of the grounds to annul or declare the nullity of a marriage. This only constitutes an irregularity in the formal requisites; thus, does not affect the legitimacy of the marriage.

Mrs. Martha needs not to be worried on the legitimacy of her daughter with Raul. Generally, the marriage only suffers from irregularity as briefly discussed in the foregoing which is not a ground to nullify the said marriage. The grave abuse of discretion that amounted to lack of jurisdiction of the mayor appears to be the most divisive among these irregularities. Although it has no effect to the legitimacy of the marriage, Article 4 states that the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. In this case, the mayor may be administratively liable because a person who holds power under the law is responsible to know the limits of his authority and must adhere to such limitations. This is necessary to deter the commission of the same mistake. Hence, I recommend the fling of administrative case against the mayor by the married couple if it will not bring them inconvenience.