A.M.

  No. MTJ-15-1860

ROSILANDA M. KEUPPERS, Complainant
vs
JUDGE VIRGILIO G. MURCIA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2.
ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL, Respondent.

Syllabus:

(a) Article 7 of the Family Code disallows solemnizing the marriage in a venue other than the judge's
courtroom or chambers.

(b) Article 8 of the Family Code contains the limiting phrase and not elsewhere, which emphasizes
that the place of the solemnization of a marriage by a judge like him should only be in his office or
courtroom. Indeed, the limiting phrase highlighted the nature and status of the marriage of the
complainant and her husband as "a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman,"
and as "the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences,
and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation."

(c)  The office of solemnizing marriages should not be treated as a casual or trivial matter, or as
business activity. 

Issue: Whether respondent Judge is liable for grave misconduct for solemnizing a marriage outside his
territorial jurisdiction.

Facts:

Complainant intends to be married with his German fiance before the latters departure back to
Germany, hence, since there is a required mandatory 10-day posting of the application for marriage
license before the issuance thereof, she looked for that will help them. The owner of the DLS Travel
and Tours told the couple that he would help them upon payment of processing fees. On May 19,
2008, then, their marriage was solemnized by herein respondent Judge of Municipal Trial Court of
Samal, in the premises of the DLS Travel and Tours and thereafter they were asked to sign a copy of
marriage certificate. However, they surprised to find erroneous entries to their marriage certificate as
well as to the marriage license, specifically, the place of marriage to be the Office of the MTCC
Judge, that they applied for a marriage license on May 8, 2008 although they only accomplished their
application on May 12.

Herein Respondent avers that the marriage certificate itself stated the place of the solemnization of the
marriage; and that he did not alter, modify or amend the entries therein. He claimed that he was
entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties considering that the
documents submitted by her had been issued by the appropriate government agencies.

Ruling:

Yes, such place of solemnization was a blatant violation of Article 7 of the Family Code. The
provision disallows solemnizing the marriage in a venue other than the judge's courtroom or chambers
(Article 8 provides: “The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chamber of the judge or in open
court..xx”). Article 8 of the Family Code contains the limiting phrase and not elsewhere, which
emphasizes that the place of the solemnization of a marriage by a judge like him should only be in his
office or courtroom. 
The only exceptions to the limitation are when the marriage was to be contracted on the point of death
of one or both of the complainant and her husband, or in remote place in accordance with Article 29 of
the Family Code, or where both of the complainant and her husband had requested him as the
solemnizing officer in writing to solemnize the marriage at a house or place designated by them in
their sworn statement to that effect.  The office of solemnizing marriages should not be treated as a
casual or trivial matter, or as business activity. Respondent must be dismissed from serviece, however,
in view of his intervening retirement, the Court forfeits all his retirement benefits except his accrued
leaves.