Beso vs. Daguman

A judge who solemnizes a marriage outside his court's territorial jurisdiction, absent any of the exceptions under Article 8 of the Family Code, and who fails to retain and transmit copies of the marriage certificate as mandated by Article 23 of the Family Code, is administratively liable for non-feasance. Good faith and liberality do not excuse a judge from complying with the statutory safeguards surrounding the solemnization of marriage and the custody of official documents.

Zenaida S. Beso and Bernardito A. Yman were married by respondent Judge Juan Daguman at his residence in J.P.R. Subdivision, Calbayog City, Samar on August 28, 1997. Subsequently, Yman abandoned Beso. Upon inquiring with the Local Civil Registrar of Calbayog City, Beso discovered that her marriage was not registered. Judge Daguman informed her that all copies of the marriage contract were taken by Yman, and no copies were retained by the judge.

• Nature: Administrative complaint for Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority filed by Zenaida S. Beso against Judge Juan Daguman.
• The Solemnization: On August 28, 1997, Beso and Bernardito Yman were married by Judge Daguman at his private residence in Calbayog City. Judge Daguman was the presiding judge of the MCTC of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar, making Calbayog City outside his territorial jurisdiction.
• Justifications by Judge: The couple unexpectedly went to the judge's residence, citing the bride's imminent departure abroad as an overseas worker, the potential lapse of their marriage license if delayed, and the presence of sponsors. Judge Daguman claimed he acted in good faith and liberality to avoid expense and complication for the parties.
• The Missing Documents: After the wedding, Judge Daguman left the duplicate, triplicate, and quadruplicate copies of the marriage certificate on his desk. Days later, he could not find them. He subpoenaed Yman, who claimed Beso took them. Beso denied this. The marriage was never registered with the Local Civil Registrar.

Petitioner alleged that respondent Judge committed acts prejudicial to her interest by solemnizing the marriage outside his jurisdiction and by being negligent in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the Local Civil Registrar.

Respondent argued that the solemnization outside his territory was justified by pressing circumstances: the bride's imminent departure abroad, the potential lapse of the marriage license, the presence of sponsors, and the policy of giving attention to overseas workers. Regarding the missing documents, respondent claimed they were likely taken by Yman or Beso, and thus the failure to register was beyond his control.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for solemnizing a marriage outside his court's jurisdiction.
  • Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for failing to retain and register the marriage certificate.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court held respondent administratively liable for solemnizing the marriage outside his jurisdiction. Under Article 7 of the Family Code, a judge may solemnize marriages only within the court's jurisdiction. Article 8 provides that marriages must be solemnized in the judge's chambers, except when at the point of death, in remote places, or upon written request of both parties in a sworn statement. None of these exceptions applied. A judge must apply the law and not resort to shortcuts, regardless of good faith or liberality.
  • The Court held respondent administratively liable for failing to retain and register the marriage certificate. Under Article 23 of the Family Code, the solemnizing officer has a duty to furnish the original to the parties, send the duplicate and triplicate copies to the local civil registrar within fifteen days, and retain the quadruplicate copy. The loss of the copies due to carelessness, rather than a fortuitous event, constitutes non-feasance. Judges must exercise extra care in handling official documents and adopt an efficient recording and filing system.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Judges in Solemnizing Marriages — A judge appointed to a specific jurisdiction may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. Solemnizing a marriage outside the court's jurisdiction constitutes an irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3 of the Family Code, which, while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, subjects the officiating official to administrative liability.
• Duty of the Solemnizing Officer to Register and Retain Marriage Certificates — Pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code, the solemnizing officer must furnish the original to the parties, send the duplicate and triplicate copies to the local civil registrar within fifteen days, and retain the quadruplicate copy. Failure to do so, especially due to carelessness in handling official documents, renders the judge administratively liable for non-feasance.

• "A person presiding over a court of law must not only apply the law but must also live and abide by it and render justice at all times without resorting to shortcuts clearly uncalled for."
• "Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court's 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."
• "There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events."

• Navarro v. Domagtoy, 259 SCRA 129 [1996] — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that a judge appointed to a specific jurisdiction may officiate weddings only within said areas, and solemnizing a marriage outside the court's jurisdiction results in administrative liability.
• Jimenez v. Republic, 109 Phil 273 [1960] — Cited to underscore the importance of marriage as a social institution surrounded by state safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity, and permanence.
• Sabitsana v. Villamor, 202 SCRA 435 [1991] — Cited for the principle that there is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events.

• Article 7, Family Code — Provides that marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction. The Court applied this to rule that Judge Daguman exceeded his jurisdiction by solemnizing the marriage in Calbayog City, which was outside his MCTC jurisdiction.
• Article 8, Family Code — Mandates that marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge, except in cases of marriages at the point of death, in remote places, or upon written request of both parties in a sworn statement. The Court found none of the exceptions applied to justify the solemnization at the judge's residence.
• Article 23, Family Code — Imposes the duty on the solemnizing officer to furnish the original marriage certificate to the contracting parties, send the duplicate and triplicate copies to the local civil registrar within fifteen days, and retain the quadruplicate copy. The Court held the judge liable for non-feasance for failing to fulfill this duty due to the loss of the documents.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ.