Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
EN BANC
ROSARIO T. MECARAL, A.C.
No.
8392
Complainant,
[ Formerly CBD
Case No. 08-2175]
Present:
- versus -
ATTY. DANILO S.
VELASQUEZ,
Respondent.
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
x------------------------------- - - - -x
DECISI
ON
PER
CURIAM:
Rosario T.
Mecaral
Court
Maritess Dorado
- Sabi ko, pwede na ang P1,500.00 kasi foreigner.
Tapos sabi niya, eh kasi uuwi na sila sa Iloilo.
Tapos sabi ko, kasi pwede nating iano yan, kaya
lang mahal, maybayad kasi hindi tayo
makakakuha tsaka hindi ka makaka-aalis, sabi
kong ganon sa kanya, pumayag naman sila,
Huwebes yon Maam, nagmamadali sila, eh di
pinalakad ko na po, Maam nung Huwebes.
Court
- Kanino mo pinalakad?
Maritess Dorado
- Duon po sa naglalakad ng license, kay Raquel.
Court
- Sino yung Raquel, sann [sic] nagtatrabajo?
Maritess Dorado
- Sa Property ata yon.
Court
- Property ng?
Maritess Dorado
Maritess Dorado
- Ng Makati.
Court
Court
- Property o licensing?
Maritess Dorado
Maritess Dorado
- Property.
Court
Court
- Ano ang full name niya?
- So yung P2,000.00 ibinigay mo kay Raquel?
Maritess Dorado
Maritess Dorado
- Basta Raquel ang alani ko.
- Yes, Maam.
Court
Court
- Eh Eapos binigay mo yung pera, yung P2,000.00?
Maritess Dorado
- Maam, kailangan ng license, dahil kasi i-a-anti-date
yung ano ng kapatid niya, dahil yuon ng ang
request nila para rnakasal sila dahil aalis sila
daw.
Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffense
shallhavetherighttobeinformedofhisrighttoremainsilentandto
havecompetentandindependentcounselpreferablyofhisown
choice.
This provision is not applicable because respondent was
not under investigation for the commission of an offense;
hence, the rights granted by said provision did not attach.
Judge Ulibarri was under no constitutional obligation to inform
respondent of such right.
Lastly, respondent insists that the acts complained of have
no connection with her duties as court stenographer and that
she was merely helping complainants sister, for which
punishment is undeserved.
The law prescribes certain requirements for a valid
marriage license to issue.[10] By agreeing to make it appear
that complainants sister and her fianc complied with these
requirements, specifically by the antedating of the marriage
license, respondent abetted the circumvention of the law.
Worse, she did this for a fee. If respondent believes such to be
an act of kindness, she certainly has a skewed notion of
charity.
Clearly, respondent may be held for her acts although
they do not involve her functions as stenographer. The Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees[11] mandates all public officials and employees to
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
Customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest.[12] The conduct especially of Court personnel must
always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility as to let them be free of any suspicion
that may taint the judiciary.[13]
Ynares-
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 133778. March 14, 2000]
ENGRACE NIAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of
the minors BABYLINE NIAL, INGRID NIAL, ARCHIE NIAL &
PEPITO NIAL, JR., petitioners, vs. NORMA
BAYADOG, respondent. Ncmmis
DECISION
YNARES_SANTIAGO, J.:
May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death?
Pepito Nial was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September
26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born herein petitioners.
Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24,
1985. One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 11,
1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married
without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and
Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating
that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least
five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage
license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident.
After their fathers death, petitioners filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma
alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage
license. The case was filed under the assumption that the
validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect
petitioners successional rights. Norma filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action
since they are not among the persons who could file an action
for "annulment of marriage" under Article 47 of the Family
Code.
Thus, the lower court ruled that petitioners should have filed
the action to declare null and void their fathers marriage to
respondent before his death, applying by analogy Article 47 of
the Family Code which enumerates the time and the persons
who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage.
[2]
Hence, this petition for review with this Court grounded on a
pure question of law. Scnc m
This petition was originally dismissed for non-compliance with
Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and
because "the verification failed to state the basis of petitioners
averment that the allegations in the petition are true and
correct." It was thus treated as an unsigned pleading which
produces no legal effect under Section 3, Rule 7, of the 1997
SO ORDERED.
PUNO, J.:
The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife
since the marriage was unknown to Castro's parents. Thus, it was
only in March 1971, when Castro discovered she was pregnant,
Castro testified that she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig
on or before June 24, 1970 in order to apply for a license.
Neither did she sign any application therefor. She affixed her
signature only on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in
Pasay City.
The trial court denied the petition. 2 It held that the above
certification was inadequate to establish the alleged nonissuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the
marriage between the parties. It ruled that the "inability of the
certifying official to locate the marriage license is not
conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued."
Unsatisfied with the decision, Castro appealed to respondent
appellate court. She insisted that the certification from the local
civil registrar sufficiently established the absence of a marriage
license.
As stated earlier, respondent appellate court reversed the
Decision of the trial court. 3 It declared the marriage between
the contracting parties null and void and directed the Civil
Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract.
Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines urges that respondent
appellate court erred when it ruled that the certification issued
by the civil registrar that marriage license no. 3196182 was not
in their record adequately proved that no such license was
ever issued. Petitioner also faults the respondent court for
relying on the self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of
private respondent Castro that she had no part in the
procurement of the subject marriage license. Petitioner thus
insists that the certification and the uncorroborated testimony
THE
- versus -
JOSE A. DAYOT,
Respondent.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.,
Acting Chairperson,
TINGA,*
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,** and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
March 28, 2008
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
LACK
OF
MARRIAGE
cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years. In addition, the
Republic posits that the parties marriage contract states that their
marriage was solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code. It also
bears the signature of the parties and their witnesses, and must be
considered a primary evidence of marriage. To further fortify its
Petition, the Republic adduces the following documents: (1) Joses
notarized Statement of Assets and Liabilities, dated 12 May 1988
wherein he wrote Felisas name as his wife; (2) Certification dated 25
July 1993 issued by the Barangay Chairman 192, Zone ZZ, District
24 of Pasay City, attesting that Jose and Felisa had lived together as
husband and wife in said barangay; and (3) Joses company ID card,
dated 2 May 1988, indicating Felisas name as his wife.
The first assignment of error compels this Court to rule on
the issue of the effect of a false affidavit under Article 76 of the Civil
Code. A survey of the prevailing rules is in order.
It is beyond dispute that the marriage of Jose and Felisa was
celebrated on 24 November 1986, prior to the effectivity of the
Family Code. Accordingly, the Civil Code governs their
union. Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites
of marriage as a contract:
ART. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all
these requisites are complied with:
(1)
Legal
contracting parties;
capacity
of
the
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
EN BANC
Respondent Baroy claims that when she was still in Naga City
she purchased an air-conditioning unit but when she was
appointed clerk of court she had to transfer to Tinambac and,
since she no longer needed the air conditioner, she decided to
sell the same to respondent judge. The installation and use
thereof by the latter in his office was with the consent of the
Mayor of Tinambac.
Respondent judge contends that he endorsed all the applications
for the position of clerk of court to the Supreme Court which has
the sole authority over such appointments and that he had no
hand in the appointment of respondent Baroy. He contends that
the air-conditioning unit was bought from his
co-respondent on installment basis on May 29, 1992, eight (8)
months after Baroy had been appointed clerk of court. He claims
that he would not be that naive to exhibit to the public as item
which could not be defended as a matter of honor and prestige.
4. Cash bond issued without a receipt
It is alleged that in Criminal Case No. 5438, entitled "People vs.
Mendeza, et al., "bondswoman Januaria Dacara was allowed by
respondent judge to change her property bond to cash bond; that
she paid the amount of P1,000.00 but was never issued a receipt
therefor nor was it made to appear in the records that the bond
has been paid; that despite the lapse of two years, the money
was never returned to the bondswoman; and that it has not been
shown that the money was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer
of Tinambac.
Respondent Baroy counters that the cash bond was deposited
with the former clerk of court, then turned over to the acting clerk
of court and, later, given to her under a corresponding receipt;
that the cash bond is deposited with the bank; and that should the
bondswoman desire to withdraw the same, she should follow the
proper procedure therefor.
SO ORDERED.