RONULO Versus. Some one
FACTS: Rosa Catholic Parish Chapel out-of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of your own matrimony, brand new heading officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza, would not solemnize the wedding abreast of learning that the couples failed so you can secure a married relationship licenses. As a recourse, Joey, who had been after that using barong tagalong, and Claire, clad into the a wedding gown, along with their mothers, sponsors and you may guests, went on to the Separate Chapel away from Filipino Christians, also known as this new Aglipayan Chapel. They asked this new petitioner, an enthusiastic Aglipayan priest, to do a ceremony to which the latter consented even with been told because of the pair that they had no relationships certification.
The fresh new petitioner wishing his choir and you can booked a bulk with the partners for a passing fancy big date. He held the new service in the exposure of your groom, the fresh bride to be, its mothers, the principal and you may additional sponsors and the remainder of their welcome tourist.
The brand new prosecution’s witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne Yere, affirmed on occurrences of your ceremony. Joseph is actually the fresh new veil sponsor if you’re Mary Anne was this new cord mentor from the matrimony. Mary Anne testified you to she noticed the newest bride walk-down new aisle. She including spotted the happy couple replace their wedding rings, kiss one another, and indication a file. She heard the brand new petitioner teaching the primary sponsors to help you indication brand new marriage bargain. After that, it visited new reception, got supper and you can grabbed images. She watched the fresh petitioner indeed there.
Fl Umadac, the caretaker from Joey, affirmed you to definitely she read the happy couple state inside service one to they take each other because the husband and wife. Days following wedding, she went along to the latest municipal local civil registrar out-of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte which have Atty. Mariano Roentgen. Nalupta Jr. in which she received a certification you to zero relationships license try provided toward partners.
The fresh new petitioner, when you are admitting that he used a service, rejected that his operate regarding blessing the couple are tantamount to a great solemnization of your own relationship as contemplated by-law.
ISSUE: Obtained the petitioner is accountable for breaking Article 352 of your own Modified Penal Code (RPC) getting allegedly undertaking an illegal marriage ceremony.
She as well as recognized the wedding invitation supplied to the girl from the Joey
RATIO: Petitioner presented an unlawful wedding ceremony. The fresh new crime because the taken to in Art 352 of one’s RPC is the overall performance out-of ily Code and this reads:
(3) A marriage service which takes place to your appearance of this new hiring functions till the solemnizing manager and their private declaration one they need one another since the husband and wife on the presence regarding no less than one or two witnesses out-of courtroom ages.
Artwork. 6. No given setting or religious rite into the solemnization of one’s relationship is needed. It will be called for, however, for the contracting functions to appear physically before the solemnizing administrator and declare from the presence out of for around several witnesses out of legal many years which they simply take both due to the fact spouse and you hookup in Wichita may partner. So it declaration might be contained in the relationships certificate and that shall end up being finalized by employing activities and their witnesses and you may attested by the solemnizing manager.
The fresh Ultimate Courtroom informed me you to definitely what produced the newest petitioner’s operate an effective wedding ceremony and not just a mere blessing are you to if you are there is no prescribed function otherwise spiritual rite, all that is expected are “towards the hiring events to appear in person before solemnizing officer and you will claim from the visibility off not less than a couple witnesses regarding court years that they bring both while the spouse and spouse.”
As to what first specifications, new petitioner accepted the parties seemed just before him which fact are affirmed to help you from the witnesses. For the next requirement, we find that, contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, brand new prosecution has proven, through the testimony of witnesses, your hiring parties actually announced which they bring each other while the husband and wife. Hence, it’s clear that petitioner used a marriage ceremony rather than just true blessing.