Performance of illegal marriage ceremony – refers to the act of solemnizing an illegal marriage.
1. Concept
Performance of illegal marriage ceremony – refers to the act of solemnizing an illegal marriage.
a. Legal basis
Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. – Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law.
(NB: If the article has been amended by legislation or has been the subject of Supreme Court decision which may have impacted how it is interpreted, do let us know so we can consider for the next update of this article. You may send it via: Feedback.)
b. Modes of commission
The following are the modes of committing the offense:
1) Performance of an illegal marriage
2. Mode 1: Solemnizing or authorizing
Elements of the offense:
1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; and
2) His performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014, Per Brion, J.)
a. Element 1: Authority of solemnizing officer
The solemnizing officer must have authority to solemnize a marriage. Thus, all those who do not have authority to solemnize a marriage are not covered by this section, including any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church who are not duly authorized to solemnize marriages.
To be clear, the Article 7 of Family Code requires that solemnizing officers be “duly authorized by [their] church or religious sect” and that they be “registered with the civil registrar general” and they are “acting within the limits of the written authority granted by [their] church or religious sect.”
Thus, persons who officiate a marriage ceremony without the required authority may not be liable under this provision, but may be liable for another offense, such as estafa.
b. Element 2: Performance of illegal marriage ceremony
Thus, in Romulo v. People, the accused, an Aglipayan priest, put up the defense that what he did was a “blessing” and not a solemnization of a marriage. However, it was held that the “blessing” constituted performance of an illegal marriage considering the circumstances of the case as explained below.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014, Per Brion, J.:
• [J.] Umadac and [C.] Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on March 29, 2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of the wedding, the supposed officiating priest, Fr. [M.] Ragaza, refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning that the couple failed to secure a marriage license. As a recourse, [Umadac], who was then dressed in barong tagalong, and [Bingayen], clad in a wedding gown, together with their parents, sponsors and guests, proceeded to the Independent Church of Filipino Christians, also known as the Aglipayan Church. They requested [the accused], an Aglipayan priest, to perform a ceremony to which the latter agreed despite having been informed by the couple that they had no marriage certificate.
• [The accused] prepared his choir and scheduled a mass for the couple on the same date. He conducted the ceremony in the presence of the groom, the bride, their parents, the principal and secondary sponsors and the rest of their invited guests.
[Resolution]
• In the present case, [the accused] admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage. Hence, the only issue to be resolved is whether the alleged “blessing” by [the accused] is tantamount to the performance of an “illegal marriage ceremony” which is punishable under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
• While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not specifically define a “marriage ceremony” and what constitutes its “illegal” performance, Articles 3(3) and 6 of the Family Code are clear on these matters. These provisions were taken from Article 55 of the New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3 of the Marriage Law with no substantial amendments. Article 6 of the Family Code provides that “[n]o prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife.” Pertinently, Article 3(3) mirrors Article 6 of the Family Code and particularly defines a marriage ceremony as that which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
• Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, the rule was clear that no prescribed form of religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. However, as correctly found by the CA, the law sets the minimum requirements constituting a marriage ceremony: first, there should be the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer; and second, heir declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife.
• As to the first requirement, [the accused] admitted that the parties appeared before him and this fact was testified to by witnesses. On the second requirement, we find that, contrary to [the accused]’s allegation, the prosecution has proven, through the testimony of Florida, that the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.
• In addition, the testimonies of Joseph and Mary Anne, and even [the accused]’s admission regarding the circumstances of the ceremony, support Florida’s testimony that there had indeed been the declaration by the couple that they take each other as husband and wife. The testimony of Joey disowning their declaration as husband and wife cannot overcome these clear and convincing pieces of evidence. Notably, the defense failed to show that the prosecution witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne, had any ill-motive to testify against [the accused].
• We also do not agree with [the accused] that the principle of separation of church and State precludes the State from qualifying the church “blessing” into a marriage ceremony. Contrary to [the accused]’s allegation, this principle has been duly preserved by Article 6 of the Family Code when it provides that no prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage is required. This pronouncement gives any religion or sect the freedom or latitude in conducting its respective marital rites, subject only to the requirement that the core requirements of law be observed.
• We emphasize at this point that Article 15 of the Constitution recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and that our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State has paramount interest in the enforcement of its constitutional policies and the preservation of the sanctity of marriage. To this end, it is within its power to enact laws and regulations, such as Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, which penalize the commission of acts resulting in the disintegration and mockery of marriage.
• From these perspectives, we find it clear that what [the accused] conducted was a marriage ceremony, as the minimum requirements set by law were complied with. While [the accused] may view this merely as a “blessing,” the presence of the requirements of the law constitutive of a marriage ceremony qualified this “blessing” into a “marriage ceremony” as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the Family Code and Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
• We come now to the issue of whether the solemnization by [the accused] of this marriage ceremony was illegal.
• Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage is the presence of a valid marriage certificate. In the present case, [the accused] admitted that he knew that the couple had no marriage license, yet he conducted the “blessing” of their relationship.
• Undoubtedly, [the accused] conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal. [the accused]’s knowledge of the absence of these requirements negates his defense of good faith.
• We also do not agree with [the accused] that the lack of a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the present case. For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has been conducted, a marriage certificate is not included in the requirements provided by Article 3(3) of the Family Code, as discussed above.
• Neither does the non-filing of a criminal complaint against the couple negate criminal liability of [the accused]. Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not make this an element of the crime…
3. Things to note
The following are some additional things to note about this offense.
a. Penalties
For penalties related to this offense, the provisions reference the Marriage Law. This was tackled in the following case.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014, Per Brion, J.:
• On the issue on the penalty for violation of Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, this provision clearly provides that it shall be imposed in accordance with the provision of the Marriage Law. The penalty provisions of the Marriage Law are Sections 39 and 44 which provide as follows: Section 39 of the Marriage Law provides that:
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 exhibit the authorization in force when called upon to do so by the parties or parents, grandparents, guardians, or persons having charge and any bishop or officer, priest, or minister of any church, religion or sect the regulations and practices whereof require banns or publications previous to the solemnization of a marriage in accordance with section ten, 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 a fine of not less than two hundred pesos nor more than two thousand pesos. [emphasis ours]
• On the other hand, Section 44 of the Marriage Law states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any provision of this Act not specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court. [emphasis ours]
• From a reading of the provisions cited above, we find merit in the ruling of the CA and the MTC that the penalty imposable in the present case is that covered under Section 44, and not Section 39, of the Marriage Law.
• The penalized acts under Section 39 of Act No. 3613 do not include the present case. As correctly found by the MTC, the petitioner was not found violating the provisions of the Marriage Law but Article 352 of the RPC, as amended. It is only the imposition of the penalty for the violation of this provision which is referred to the Marriage Law. On this point, Article 352 falls squarely under the provision of Section 44 of Act No. 3613 which provides for the penalty for any violation of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities; Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, which was enacted after the Marriage Law, is one of such regulations.
• Therefore, the CA did not err in imposing the penalty of fine of ₱200.00 pursuant to Section 44 of the Marriage Law.
References
• Title XII – Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code
—
/Updated: May 20, 2023
