Doctrine
In this case, the Court reaffirmed that as a general rule, a marriage solemnised by an unauthorized officiant is void. However, the Court held that under Article 35(2) of the Family Code, the marriage remains valid if one or both of the participating parties believe in good faith, and it is with this belief that grants the solemnising officer the authority. Hence, the marriage continues to have full legal effect, and even with the lack of legal capacity by the officiating person, the marriage should not be declared void.
Facts
Petitioner, Mrs. Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and private respondent, Mr. Amancio Reyes Melad were married many years ago through a solemnizing office, who was unknown to them at the time of their marriage, did not hold a proper legal authorization to perform the ceremony.
More than 20 years later, the petitioner filed a petition with the courts seeking declaration that the marriage be declared void on the ground that the solemnizing officer was unauthorized under the law. The respondent Melad opposed the petition, maintaining that he and his wife entered the marriage in good faith and believed that the ceremony was valid.
During the court proceedings, evidence was presented as to whether the couple reasonably believed in the solemniser’s authority, how long they lived as married before bringing the petition, and whether there was prejudice to either party if the marriage were declared void. The Court examined not just the formal defect but also the factual circumstances of the belief of the contracting parties.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent should be declared void because the solemnizing officer did not have legal authority to solemnize the marriage.
2. Whether the marriage remains valid under Article 35(2) of the Family Code because one or both parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer was duly authorised.
Ruling
Yes.
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is valid even if the solemnising officer lacked the legal authority to solemnise the marriage; this defect alone did not automatically render the marriage void. The petitioner’s case was weakened by the failure to establish beyond doubt that the belief in the solemnising officer’s authorization was absent or unjustified.
Given this gap in the evidence, the Court applied the exception under Article 35(2) of the Family Code. Because the parties entered into the marriage believing the ceremony was lawful, the marriage must stand. Hence, the petition for voidness was dismissed and the marital bond was affirmed.