Article 16 and 17 of Family Code

 Art. 16. 

In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed, the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles, attach a certificate issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this Code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling.

Failure to attach said certificates of marriage counseling shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application.

Issuance of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage.

Should only one of the contracting parties need parental consent or parental advice, the other party must be present at the counseling referred to in the preceding paragraph. (n)

The mere fact that the advice was not given and the marriage was solemnized does not make the marriage void. The formalities required by law must however be complied with.

The issuance of the marriage license even before the lapse of the 90-day period if no advice was granted does not make the marriage void. It is still valid, but criminal, civil or administrative sanctions may be imposed on the officer issuing the license.

Art. 17. The local civil registrar shall prepare a notice which shall contain the full names and residences of the applicants for a marriage license and other data given in the applications. 

The notice shall be posted for ten consecutive days on a bulletin board outside the office of the local civil registrar located in a conspicuous place within the building and accessible to the general public.

This notice shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to advise the local civil registrar thereof. The marriage license shall be issued after the completion of the period of publication. (63a)

After the receipt of the application for marriage license, the local civil registrar shall prepare a notice which shall be posted for at least ten (10) days at the bulletin board outside of his office in conspicuous places or even in places accessible to the public. 

It calls upon  anyone who has any knowledge of any legal impediment of either or both of the contracting parties to report to the local civil registrar.

This notice is one of the modes by which the State interferes in the marriage to prevent violations of the marriage law. It is noted, however, that if the local civil registrar does not publish the application and still, he issues the license, the marriage is still valid, because after all, publicity is not an essential requisite of marriage. The said public officer may,  however, be held criminally or administratively liable.

Case digest:

A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088

Rodolfo Navarro v Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy

July 19, 1996 , 72 SCAD 328 

ROMERO, J.

FACTS:

First, on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife.

Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Respondent judge holds office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte.

The wedding was solemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within his jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, located some 40 to 45 kilometers away from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte.

Issue:

Whether or not marriage is void

Ruling:

No, the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered bigamous and void, there being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Peñaranda.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends, in its Memorandum to the Court, a six-month suspension and a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. 

Considering that one of the marriages in question resulted in a bigamous union and therefore void, and the other lacked the necessary authority of respondent judge, the Court adopts said recommendation. Respondent is advised to be more circumspect in applying the law and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the law.

Respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and given a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.