Judges Can Only Solemnize Marriages Within Their Court’s Jurisdiction

A municipal trial judge who solemnizes a marriage outside his court's territorial jurisdiction violates the Family Code and is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Keuppers v. Murcia (A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860, April 3, 2018), which serves as a clear reminder that judges cannot officiate weddings outside their designated areas even out of pity or good intentions.

The Facts

In May 2008, complainant Rosilanda Keuppers and her German husband, Peter, wanted to marry before Peter's scheduled departure on May 22, 2008. They went to the Local Civil Registrar's Office in Davao City to apply for a marriage license but were told that the mandatory 10-day posting period would make it impossible to marry before Peter's departure.

An employee referred them to DLS Travel and Tours Corporation in Davao City, where they paid P15,750.00 for processing fees. On May 19, 2008, respondent Judge Virgilio G. Murcia, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Island Garden City of Samal, solemnized the marriage — not in his courtroom or chambers, but in the office premises of DLS Travel and Tours in Davao City, which was outside his territorial jurisdiction.

The marriage certificate later contained false entries, including a statement that the marriage was solemnized at the "Office of the MTCC Judge, Island Garden City of Samal" when it was actually held in Davao City.

The Issue

The central question was whether Judge Murcia was administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for solemnizing the marriage outside his territorial jurisdiction.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court held Judge Murcia guilty as charged. The Court cited Article 7 of the Family Code, which provides that marriage may be solemnized by an incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction. By solemnizing the marriage in Davao City when his court's jurisdiction covered only the Island Garden City of Samal, the judge acted without authority.

The Court also invoked Article 8 of the Family Code, which governs where a marriage may be solemnized. Under this provision, the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere. The phrase "and not elsewhere" is limiting. The only exceptions are:

• Marriages contracted on the point of death
• Marriages in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of the Family Code
• Where both parties request the solemnizing officer in writing, designating the place in a sworn statement

None of these exceptions applied in this case. Neither party was at the point of death or in a remote place, and there was no sworn written request from the couple designating DLS Travel and Tours as the venue.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court rejected Judge Murcia's explanation that he acted out of pity because the couple was in a hurry. Instead, his admission that he "risked" the sanctions highlighted his "dismissive and cavalier attitude towards express statutory requirements instituted to secure the solemnization of marriages from abuse."

The Court emphasized that the office of solemnizing marriages "should not be treated as a casual or trivial matter, or as a business activity." By solemnizing the marriage at a place that had nothing to do with his judicial duties, the judge "demeaned and cheapened the inviolable social institution of marriage."

Significantly, this was Judge Murcia's second offense involving the solemnization of marriages. He had previously been found guilty of gross misconduct in Palma v. Omelio (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223, August 30, 2017) for signing a marriage contract without actually solemnizing the marriage, and was fined P40,000.00.

Because the judge had already retired, the Court could no longer impose dismissal. Instead, it ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits except his accrued leaves, with prejudice to his appointment in the government service.

Practical Takeaways

• Judges are territorial. A judge may only solemnize marriages within the territorial jurisdiction of his or her court. Solemnizing a wedding outside that area violates Article 7 of the Family Code.
• Venue is strictly regulated. Under Article 8 of the Family Code, a judge may solemnize a marriage only in chambers or in open court, unless a specific exception applies — deathbed marriages, remote places, or a written sworn request by both parties designating another venue.
• Good intentions do not excuse violations. Acting out of pity or sympathy for a couple's urgency does not justify disregarding the law.
• Repeat offenses are treated severely. Administrative sanctions are heavier when the judge has a prior record of similar misconduct.
• Couples should verify the solemnizing officer's authority. To ensure a valid marriage and avoid complications, parties should confirm that the officiating judge has jurisdiction over the place of solemnization and that the venue complies with the Family Code.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.