Masangcay - Magnaye Law Office

13/10/2025

SUPREME COURT: MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED BY UNAUTHORIZED OFFICER REMAINS VALID IF ONE SPOUSE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the validity of a marriage of a couple even though the one who solemnized the ceremony was an unauthorized officer, saying they acted in good faith and believed the officer had the legal authority.

In a 10-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired), the SC's Second Division upheld the validity of the marriage contracted by Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and Amancio Melad as it junked the petition filed by the former to declare their marriage void on the ground that the officiant was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

In March 1993, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Tarlac City Hall. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by Judge Condrado De Gracia. They were blessed with three children.

Throughout their union, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted a lawyer regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against her husband. Eloisa showed their marriage contract to her lawyer, who said he knew Judge De Gracia, the solemnizing officer of Eloisa and Amancio's marriage.

Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to her lawyer, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the picture. The lawyer found out that it seemed Judge De Gracia was not the solemnizing officer, but Rosalio Florendo, whom he knew as a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This prompted Eloisa to file a petition to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, emphasizing that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as prima facie, or initial, proof of the marriage and its details. Aggrieved, Eloisa elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the lower court's ruling, the SC clarified that while a marriage officiated by someone without legal authority is generally void, it has an exemption: if one or both spouses genuinely believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

The high court cited Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, which provide that one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. It likewise mentioned Article 35(2), which states that a marriage is void if the officiant lacks authority—unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized.

The SC explained that Eloisa failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority, as it found that the marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

It stressed that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The highest bench stressed out that Eloisa and Amancio's marriage falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code and remains valid.

Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from the decision, saying even if the solemnizing officer’s lack of authority falls under the exception, the absence of a personal declaration by the spouses during the ceremony—where they publicly take each other as husband and wife—renders the marriage void.

Leonen added that irregularities in the ceremony and the officiant’s authority raise reasonable doubt about the marriage’s validity.

06/09/2025

On this day in 2017, Reynaldo de Guzman, the 14-year-old friend of slain teenager Carl Angelo Arnaiz, was found dead with 31 stab wounds in Nueva Ecija.

In March 2023, a dismissed Caloocan policeman was convicted for the murders of two teenagers and was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

READ MORE: https://inq.news/Deguzman14 ; https://inq.news/2017drugwar

28/07/2025

09/07/2025

07/07/2025

Kinilala ng Korte Suprema na ang biglaan at hindi mapigilang bugso ng damdamin bunga ng maraming taong pang-aabuso ng ama ng akusado ay maituturing na passion o obfuscation o matinding damdamin o pagkalito na isang mitigating circumstance na magpapababa sa parusa sa parricide.

Sa Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, pinagtibay ng First Division ng Korte Suprema ang hatol na guilty o maysala kay Leopoldo Singcol (Singcol) sa pagpatay sa kanyang ama, pero ibinaba ang kanyang parusa dahil sa pagkakaroon ng nasabing mitigating factor.

Batay sa court record, sa gitna ng pagtatalo, tinangkang atakehin ng bolo si Singcol ng kanyang ama pero nadapa ito. Kinuha ni Singcol ang bolo at sinaksak sa dibdib ang ama, na siyang ikinamatay nito.

Napatay din ni Singcol sa pamamagitan ng saksak ang kanyang hipag habang nasugatan niya ang dalawang-taong-gulang na anak nito.

Inamin ni Singcol sa paglilitis na siya ang sumaksak sa kanyang ama, hipag, at pamangkin. Pinaliwanag niya na nagdilim ang kanyang paningin nang sandaling iyon dahil na rin sa pang-aabuso sa kanya ng kanyang ama mula pagkabata.

Habang sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema sa trial court at Court of Appeals na hindi mailalapat ang konsepto ng self-defense, nagpasya ito na maaaring ituring ang passion o obfuscation bilang mitigating circumstance na magpapababa sa parusa. Hinatulan si Singcol ng dalawang bilang ng reclusion perpetua o aabot sa 40 taon sa kulungan para sa kasong parricide sa pagpatay sa kanyang ama at pagpatay sa kanyang hipag.

Sa ilalim ng Revised Penal Code, nagagawa ang krimen na parricide kapag ang akusado ay nakapatay ng kanyang magulang o anak, lehitimo man o hindi, o sinuman sa kaniyang mga ascendant o descendant, o legal na asawa.

Sa kabilang banda, ang passion o obfuscation ay isang estado ng pag-iisip kapag nakagawa ng isang krimen dahil sa hindi mapigilang bugso ng damdamin dala ng hindi makatarungan at hindi tamang karanasan.

Itinuring ng Korte Suprema ang parricide bilang resulta ng matagal nang kinikimkim na sama ng loob ng akusado laban sa ama, na ipinakita sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang hindi maipaliwanag na pananakit sa sarili matapos mapatay ang ama.

Basahin ang buong press release sa https://tinyurl.com/5yk5j7sr.

Basahin ang buong Desisyon sa https://tinyurl.com/4xm6xee3.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

28/06/2025

TODAY THIRTY-TWO YEARS AGO: On June 28, 1993, former Calauan, Laguna Mayor Antonio Sanchez and his six bodyguards r***d University of the Philippines-Los Baños (UPLB) student Mary Eileen Sarmenta and later brutally killed her along with her friend Alan Gomez.

The autopsy report revealed that Sarmenta was gang r***d by multiple men, including Sanchez. As proof, the doctor found enough semen to "fill a can of sardines" inside her s*x organ. Meanwhile, Gomez was brutally tortured in an adjacent room with burns from ci******es, beaten with blunt objects, and finally strangled to death. Sarmenta was later assassinated with a single gunshot to the head.

After a full-blown trial that lasted for 16 months, Sanchez and his co-accused were convicted by the Pasig Regional Trial Court of seven counts of r**e with homicide and sentenced to suffer 280 years of imprisonment, or 7 terms of reclusion perpetua.

In convicting them, the court described the crime as being borne out of a "plot seemingly hatched in hell. It found that Sanchez was proven to have masterminded the abduction, r**e, and murder of Sarmenta and her friend. On August 29, 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of Sanchez and his co-accused, calling them “unthinking beasts” for the brutal crime.

Sanchez sparked controversy in 2019 after he was supposed to be freed due to the benefits stipulated under the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), a law that reduces time off a convict’s sentence based on good behavior. The convicted former mayor reportedly died on March 27, 2021.

29/05/2025

Comelec announces that barangay certificates will no longer be used for voter’s registration as this has been “weaponized” by village officials.

Postal ID, senior citizen’s ID, student’s ID are accepted as proof of residency, Comelec Chairman George Garcia says.

"Napakadami naming inimbestigahan at kinasuhan na mga barangay officials. Dahil sa aming palagay, yan ay ginamit, na-weaponize upang mahakot ‘yung ibang tao sa ibang lugar at palabasin na sila ay taga-rito." he adds. | via Job Manahan, ABS-CBN News

04/02/2025

HIRING!

11/10/2024

Barrista Solutions: What are your tips and message to aspiring lawyers out there?

Dean Moya: Read, read, and read. There is no substitute for hardwork. Preparation starts during your first year. Start studying on your first day in law school. Also, don’t stop advancing yourself from further studies.

Full interview here:

https://www.facebook.com/share/eN4wXNybGtFJ5hpU/?mibextid=WC7FNe

Atty. Salvador N. Moya II

01/10/2024

SC Denies Atty. Harry Roque’s Amparo Petition against House Quad-Committee

The Supreme Court has denied Atty. Harry Roque Jr.’s petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo against the House of Representatives Quad-Committee.

Roque had sought the High Court’s protection after the Quad-Comm cited him in contempt for his failure to attend several hearings. He also did not submit some required documents.

But the Supreme Court held that an amparo petition is not the proper remedy against Congressional contempt and detention orders. A petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to those whose rights to life, liberty and security are violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The Court clarified that the scope of a writ of amparo is limited to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or such threats, which are not present in this case.

Instead, the Court directed the Quad-Committee to comment on Roque’s Petition for Prohibition within 10 days from receipt of the Court’s Resolution.

Roque’s daughter, Bianca Hacintha, represented him in filing the petition.

Read the press briefer at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/press-briefer-10-01-2024/