G.R. No.
182438 made an official church recognition of the cohabitation of the
RENE ROMULO, petitioner, vs, PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
Authority of the solemnizing officer
PONENTE: Brion, J.
DOCTRINE: Section 39, Illegal Solemnization of
Marriage- any priest or minister solemnizing marriage,
without being authorized by the Director of the Philippine
National Library or who, upon solemnizing marriage, refuses
to the authorization in force when called upon to do so by the
parties or by the parents, grandparents, guardians or or persons
having charge and any bishop or officer or priest or minister of
any church or religion or sect the regulations and practices
whereof requires banns or publications previous to the
solemnization of a marriage in accordance with Section 10,
who authorized the immediate solemnization of a marriage that
is subsequently declared illegal; or any officer, priest, or
minister solemnizing marriage in violation of this act, shall be
punished by imprisonment for not less than one month nor
more than two years or by fine of not less than 200.00 pesos
nor more than 2,000.00 pesos.
RULING FORMAT:
MTC: Found the petitioner guilty of violation Art. 352 of the
RPC, as amended, and imposed him a fine pursuant to Sec. 44
of Act. No. 3613 because of the petitioners act of giving a
blessing which constitutes to a marriage ceremony as he
couple as husband and wife. It ruled that when performing a
marriage ceremony without the couples marriage license, the
petitioner violated Art. 352 of the RPC which imposes a the
penalty provided under Art. 3613or the Marriage Law.
RTC: Affirmed the findings of the MTC and added that
positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses deserve more
credence than the petitioners negative statements. However, it
ruled that the basis of the fine should be in pursuant of Sec. 39
and not Sec. 44 of the Marriage Law.
CA: Affirmed the RTCs ruling. There is no prescribed form
or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage. The law
provides minimum standards in determining whether a
marriage ceremony has been conducted:
(1) The contracting parties must appear before the solemnizing
officer;
(2) They should declare each other as husband and wife in
front of two legal-aged witnesses.
PETITION: Petitioner argued that: (1) the Art. 352 of the
RPC is vague and does not defines what constitutes an illegal
marriage ceremony; (2) Principle of Separation of Church and
State; (3) He conducted the blessing in good faith; (4) Non-
filing of the violation of Art. 350 of the RPC should be
precluding before the present case was filed at him and; (5)
The present case is not covered with the Art. 352 of the RPC.
FACTS:

1.) (2003, March 29) Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were
scheduled to marry each other. The priest that supposed to
solemnize them refused to when the priest knew that they dont
have a marriage license to begin with.

2.) Joey went to a recourse which in this case, to the Aglipayan

Church and have their solemnization be settled. Despite of the
absence of a marriage license, the Church still pursued on
solemnizing their marriage.

ISSUE/S:

WON, the lack of marriage certificate negates the criminal

liability of the Aglipayan priest that solemnized the marriage
between Uamdac and Bingayen.

HELD:

The petition is unmeritorious.

YES, the elements of the crime punishable under Art. 352 of

the RPC were proven by the prosecution. The petitioner
conducted the marriage ceremony despite the knowledge that
the essential and formal requirements of the marriage set by
law were lacking. Therefore, the marriage was illegal. The
petitioners knowledge of the absence of these requirements
negates his defense of good faith.