Lack of authority
A marriage is not automatically void just because the officiating officer allegedly lacked authority.
Text size
A marriage is not automatically void just because the officiating officer allegedly lacked authority.
Dear Atty. Joji,
My sister recently learned that the person who officiated their wedding ceremony might not have been authorized under the law. Although the marriage certificate shows the name of a minister, someone later claimed that this minister was never listed as an authorized solemnizing officer. If this turns out to be true, is the marriage automatically void?
Carla
θ θ θ
Dear Carla,
A marriage is not automatically void just because the officiating officer allegedly lacked authority. In Eloisa Maliwat-Melad v. Amancio Reyes Melad and Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 267998), the Supreme Court ruled that even if the officiant is later alleged to have lacked authority, the marriage remains valid so long as one or both spouses believed in good faith that the person officiating was authorized.
The Court explained that while the authority of the solemnizing officer is a formal requirement under Articles 3 and 7 of the Family Code, and although Article 35(2) generally voids marriages performed by someone without such authority, the law makes an important exception: good-faith belief on the part of the spouses preserves the validity of the marriage.
In that case, the Supreme Court refused to nullify the marriage because the petitioner could not present clear evidence that the officiant was actually unauthorized at the time of the wedding. The marriage certificate indicated a specific officiant, and official documents carry a presumption of regularity that cannot be overturned by mere suspicion or unverified claims. There was also no indication that the spouses themselves questioned the officiant’s authority during the ceremony.
In short, even if the officiant may not have been authorized, the marriage will still be considered valid if the parties entered into it believing in good faith that the person had the legal authority to solemnize it.
Article 35 (2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by a person with no legal authority are considered void, except if one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage, to wit:
ARTICLE 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below 18 years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; (Emphasis supplied)
In that case, the records show that petitioner had always believed in good faith, since the inception of her marriage in the year 1990, that the solemnizing officer was Judge De Gracia — a person who had the legal authority to solemnize the marriage. She had never doubted the authority of the solemnizing officer. It was only in 2017 that she sought legal advice on how to be legally separated from her husband, wherein she was notified by her lawyer that Judge De Gracia was not the actual person who officiated the marriage. However, as discussed, petitioner and Atty. Cunanan palpably failed to establish the veracity of their allegations.
Thus, petitioner’s case falls under the exception of void marriages as provided in Article 35 (2) of the Family Code. Petitioner’s marriage with private respondent is valid owing to her genuine belief, in good faith, that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate their marriage.
Hope this helps.
Atty. Joji Alonso
Three decades after the Marcopper mining disaster devastated Marinduque’s waterways, the province is again pressing the…
Housing is probably the biggest issue affecting people the world over.
Malacañang on Monday called for a more thorough investigation into the questioned flood control projects in Taguig…
The defense on Monday backed the move by senator-judges to exclude a prosecution witness who testified on the firearms…
