RONULO Vs. Some one
FACTS: Rosa Catholic Parish Church off San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. But not, at the time of matrimony, the brand new supposed officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza, refused to solemnize the wedding through to reading the couple failed so you’re able to secure a married relationship licenses. Because the a good recourse, Joey, who was simply following wearing barong tagalong, and you may Claire, clothed for the a married relationship outfit, along with their parents, sponsors and you can traffic, proceeded into Independent Church out of Filipino Christians, known as new Aglipayan Church. It asked the newest petitioner, an enthusiastic Aglipayan priest, to do a ceremony to which the second concurred despite already been advised from the partners they’d zero marriage certificate.
Brand new petitioner prepared their choir and you can scheduled a size with the few on a single go out. The guy conducted the fresh new ceremony on the exposure of bridegroom, brand new fiance, its mothers, the primary and you may secondary sponsors in addition to remainder of their enjoy visitors.
The new prosecution’s witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne Yere, affirmed on occurrences of ceremony. Joseph is the new veil sponsor whenever you are Mary Anne is the fresh wire sponsor throughout the relationships. Mary Anne testified one she watched brand new bride-to-be walk-down the fresh new aisle. She as well as watched the couple replace its wedding rings, kiss one another, and you may signal a document. She read this new petitioner instructing the primary sponsors to help you indication this new relationship contract. Afterwards, it visited this new lobby, had lunch and took photos. She saw the fresh petitioner here.
Fl Umadac, mom away from Joey, testified you to she read the couple state during the service one to it take each other because couple. Days after the matrimony, she decided to go to this new civil local civil registrar away from San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte having Atty. Mariano R. Nalupta Jr. in which she received a certificate you to definitely no matrimony license was given toward pair.
This new petitioner, whenever you are admitting he held a ceremony, declined that his act regarding blessing the couple is actually tantamount so you’re able to a beneficial solemnization of the relationships due to the fact considered by law.
ISSUE: Won the newest petitioner are responsible for breaking Post 352 of the Revised Penal Password (RPC) having allegedly doing an unlawful wedding service.
She plus identified the wedding invite made available to the lady from the Joey
RATIO: Petitioner held an unlawful marriage ceremony. The fresh crime once the delivered to inside Ways 352 of the RPC refers to the overall performance off ily Password and this reads:
(3) A marriage service that takes lay towards look of the fresh new employing parties before the solemnizing manager in addition to their individual statement you to definitely they take one another once the couple in the visibility out-of not less than a couple witnesses out of courtroom many years.
Art. six. No recommended mode or religious rite to the solemnization of the relationship will become necessary. They will likely be required, but not, for the employing parties to appear directly until the solemnizing manager and you will claim from the exposure out-of for around a couple of witnesses out of court decades that they bring each other because spouse and you can wife. This report shall be contained in the matrimony certification hence will be finalized by contracting parties and their witnesses and you may attested because of the solemnizing manager.
The fresh new Ultimate Courtroom explained one to what produced the fresh petitioner’s work an excellent wedding and not soleley just true blessing try you to definitely whenever you are there’s absolutely no given form or spiritual rite, all of that is actually necessary are “to the contracting people to seem privately until the solemnizing officer and you may state regarding exposure out-of no less than a couple of witnesses out of legal age which they just take one another because husband and you can partner.”
To what first requirement, this new petitioner acknowledge the functions looked ahead of your and that fact is testified so you’re able to by the witnesses. To the second requisite, we find Adventure dating site one to, resistant to the petitioner’s allegation, the fresh prosecution has proven, through the testimony from witnesses, that the contracting events in person stated that they need both once the husband and wife. Hence, it’s clear one to petitioner presented a wedding ceremony rather than only true blessing.