RODOLFO G. NAVARO vs. NANDO C. DOMAGTOY 259 SCRA 129

Facts: For the first issue, the Judge held a wedding in between Gaspar Tagadaan and Arlyn Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom was merely separated from his first wife. He mainly relied on the affidavit issued by another judge confirming the fact that groom was separated from his wife for more than seven years. Second, the judge held a wedding between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside his court’s jurisdiction.

Issue: 1st issue: Whether or not a subsequent marriage, without a formal declaration of the presumptive death of a spouse from a previous marriage is void. 2nd issue: Whether or not a marriage held outside the jurisdiction of the judge makes it void.

Ruling: The first marriage is bigamous and void; it was clear that under article 41 of the Family Code a summary proceeding should be performed for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. The second marriage is valid even as it was held outside of jurisdiction but subjects the judge to administrative liability. The court finds fault on the judge for both issues and is therefore suspended for six months and a stern warning that a repetition of the same case would merit a more severe punishment.

Moreno vs. Bernabe 246 SCRA 120

Facts: Marilou Nama Moreno and Marcelo Moreno were married before the respondent Judge Jose Bernabe on October 4, 1993 but did not process the papers for the marriage contract. The complainant at that time was pregnant and begged to the judge to have her and her husband to be married by him. The complainant then filed a complaint allegedly for deceiving her that the marriage is valid.

Issue: Whether or not that a Judge who held a wedding without issuing a marriage contract should be held liable even if the complaint had “expressly” withdrawn by the complainant.

Ruling: Even with the withdrawal of the complainant against the respondent the Supreme Court insisted that it should still be dealt with accordingly as the accused was a member of the judiciary and a conduct of a higher level were expected. The judge displayed ignorance of the law which is unacceptable for his position and is therefore
fined with 10, 000.00 pesos and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act should be punished severely.

APOLONIO TANJANCO VS. COURT OF APPEALS & ARACELI

FACTS:
Apolonio Tanjanco courted the plaintiff Araceli Santos BOTH BEING OF ADULT AGE: that the defendant expressed and professed his undying love and affection for plaintiff who also in due time reciprocated the tender feelings: that in consideration of the defendant’s PROMISE OF MARRIAGE plaintiff consented and acceded to defendant’s pleas for carnal knowledge(sexual intercourse) which later Araceli Santos conceived a child. Apolonio REFUSED TO MARRY Araceli as promised and refrained from seeing the plaintiff which led to her suffering from mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feeling, moral shock and social humiliation. The plaintiff asked that the defendant  recognize the child she was bearing; to pay her not less than P430 a month for her support plus P100,000 in moral and exemplary damages plus 10,000 attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a breach of promise of marriage can bring any action for damages in court. Whether or not seduction has been an element in the relationship between Apolonio and Arceli

RULING: NO case can be made since the plaintiff Araceli was a woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with appellant with repeated acts of intercourse. Such is not compatible to the idea of seduction. Plainly, there is voluntariness and mutual passion: for had the appellant been deceived she would not have again yielded to his embraces much less for one year without exacting fulfillment of the alleged promises of marriage and she would have cut all relationship upon finding that defendant did not intend to fulfill his promises. One cannot be held liable for a breach of promise to marry. Digest by: Venus Beta-chi Badilla