In People v. Chan, where the accused was accused of Falsification of Public Document, for allegedly making it appear that he solemnized the wedding ceremony when in fact it was his son, the Vice-Mayor, who actually solemnized the couple, the Court had occasion to say what constitutes “solemnization of marriage” under the Family Code, and why the accused should not be held liable for the crime charged:
“Under Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a valid marriage requires the fulfillment of both essential and formal requisites. The formal requisites are as follows:
- The presence of the contracting parties;
- A valid marriage license, except in certain exceptional cases’ and,
- The marriage must be solemnized by an authorized solemnizing officer.
In turn, the solemnization of marriage entails the following specific acts by the solemnizing officer:
- The personal appearance of the parties before the solemnizing or the officiating officer;
- The personal declaration of consent from each party to take each other as husband or wife;
- The declaration by the solemnizing or the officiating officer that the parties are now husband and wife.
The requirements highlight the solemnizing officer’s critical function in validating the contracting parties’ marriage. Solemnization entails an acts performed by an officer with legal authority and responsibility, which cannot be transferred or substituted. The law emphasizes the role of the solemnizing officer in verifying the legality of the marriage, mainly through the process of obtaining the consent of the parties involved. Consent must be unequivocally expressed as the fundamental element of a valid marriage before an authorized official who solemnizes marriages.”
Delivering Homily or Offering Advice To Married Couple Not Part of Solemnization:
“Ordinary people incorrectly associate certain ceremonial aspects of the wedding, like delivering a homily or offering advice, with the act of solemnization itself. This misunderstanding stems from the cultural, religious, and sentimental importance placed o these elements, which often obscure the legal aspects of a marriage ceremony.
In particular, the moment when marriage advice is shared is frequently considered one of the most unforgettable parts of a wedding ceremony. This is specially true in religious or community-centered weddings, where the guidance or homily provided by the solemnizing officer is seen as a form of spiritual or moral support for the couple. For those unfamiliar with marriage as a legal process, this visible and audible offering of advice may seem to be the solemnizing officer’s main or even only role. This, in turn, results in the misconception that it constitutes the actual solemnization of the marriage.
However, although these elements encompass the ceremonial significance of marriage, they neither substitute for nor can they replace the requisites and legal procedures stated in the Family Code.
The prosecution argued that VM Chan was the actual solemnizing officer because he provided the homily advice to the contracting parties during the wedding ceremony. However, as previously mentioned, delivering the homily or offering advice to the contracting parties does not equate to the legal act of solemnization as defined by the Family Code. These “informal” ceremonial components are not mandated by law nor adequate to constitute a legitimate solemnization of marriage; they are supplementary or ancillary to the solemnization process. Also, the fact that the accused-appellant that accused-appellant admitted to sometimes officiating weddings in haste does not equate to falsification. There was no deliberate intent to deceive, especially as the ceremony had indeed taken place.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARTEMIO QUE CHAN, G.R. No. 264003, July 14, 2025