Facts:
Albano filed a case for malpractice against Judge Gapusan for having prepared and notarized a document providing for the personal separation of Sps. Valentina Andres and Guillermo Maligta and the extrajudicial liquidation of their conjugal partnership 5 years before his appointment to the bench. The separation agreement stipulated that if either spouse should commit adultery or concubinage, as the case may be, then the other should refrain from filing an action against the other.
Respondent judge denied that he drafted the said agreement and explained that the spouses had been separated for a long time when they signed it and the wife had begotten children with her paramour. He further added that there was a stipulation in the said agreement that the spouse would live together in case of reconciliation. His belief was that the separation agreement forestalled the occurrence of violent incidents between the spouses.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Gapusan should be disciplined for notarizing the void agreement between the spouses.
Held:
There is no question that the covenants contained in the said separation agreement are contrary to law, morals and good customs. Those stipulations undermine the institutions of marriage and the family. "Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution". "The family is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects."
To preserve the institutions of marriage and the family, the law considers as void "any contract for personal separation between husband and wife" and "every extrajudicial agreement, during the marriage, for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership".
A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudically dissolving the conjugal partnership.
Gapusan as a member of the bar should be censured for having notarized the void separation agreement already mentioned. However, his notarization of that document does not warrant any disciplinary action against him as a municipal judge (he was appointed in 1946 as justice of the peace) especially considering that his appointment to the judiciary was screened by the Commission on Appointments. (Redentor Albano vs Judge Patronicio C. Gapusan, A.M. No. 1022-MJ, May 7, 1976)
Albano filed a case for malpractice against Judge Gapusan for having prepared and notarized a document providing for the personal separation of Sps. Valentina Andres and Guillermo Maligta and the extrajudicial liquidation of their conjugal partnership 5 years before his appointment to the bench. The separation agreement stipulated that if either spouse should commit adultery or concubinage, as the case may be, then the other should refrain from filing an action against the other.
Respondent judge denied that he drafted the said agreement and explained that the spouses had been separated for a long time when they signed it and the wife had begotten children with her paramour. He further added that there was a stipulation in the said agreement that the spouse would live together in case of reconciliation. His belief was that the separation agreement forestalled the occurrence of violent incidents between the spouses.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Gapusan should be disciplined for notarizing the void agreement between the spouses.
Held:
There is no question that the covenants contained in the said separation agreement are contrary to law, morals and good customs. Those stipulations undermine the institutions of marriage and the family. "Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution". "The family is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects."
To preserve the institutions of marriage and the family, the law considers as void "any contract for personal separation between husband and wife" and "every extrajudicial agreement, during the marriage, for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership".
A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudically dissolving the conjugal partnership.
Gapusan as a member of the bar should be censured for having notarized the void separation agreement already mentioned. However, his notarization of that document does not warrant any disciplinary action against him as a municipal judge (he was appointed in 1946 as justice of the peace) especially considering that his appointment to the judiciary was screened by the Commission on Appointments. (Redentor Albano vs Judge Patronicio C. Gapusan, A.M. No. 1022-MJ, May 7, 1976)
1 Comments
I'm truly enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Great work!affordable probate help near me
ReplyDeletePost a Comment