Today we are gathered in this historical cathedral to unite our thoughts and feelings in the

celebration of love that Liza and Mark Errol have to ratify before God, Supreme Being and
Lover of us all and before our very eyes in this sacrament of Matrimony.
This couple is very powerful, because today they have gathered not only people whose religious
credence is beyond question, but also people who are considered learned in the matters of law
and jurisprudence. I see honourable members of the bench, our Judges, your Honors, fellow
members of the Philippine Bar, and our law graduates and barristers from our beloved MU
College of Law, for which Liza, this dazzling beautiful bride is a member.
And so allow me to deliver this homily not only in an ecclesio-canonical way being a priest, but
in legal and jurisprudential way as a lawyer, in order that this sermon may qualify as practice of
law as defined in Cayetano v. Monsod case.
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable social institution, thus says of Art. 1 E.O. 209, known as the Family
Code of the Philippines. The Code of Canon Law, says: in Can. 1055 1. The matrimonial
covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole
of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and
education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between
the baptized.
Mind you, of all the seven sacraments, it is only the sacrament of marriage where the minister is
not the priest, as he has no credibility to do that, but it is the couple themselves. The priests,
together with the people of God, are mere witnesses.
One author says you want to leave a historical legacy in this world, get married. Because
marriage is only found here, it is nowhere to be found in the next life, or else, there will be a
continuance of population growth in heaven or hell.
Being a special contract of permanent union, you have bound yourselves, Errol and Liza to
accept each other as husband and wife. One legal term for that, consent. And after you consented
with each other to live as husband and wife for life, the obligation follows as stated in Art. 68 of
the same Family Code, The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. Wow, it is only here that the Code
mentioned about love. It never mentioned about love prior to ones act of consent.
The laws then, both Canon and Civil contemplate that a marriage can happen validly even
without love so long as there is consent. Because consent is the act of reason, of our mind. But
the reality slaps us into accepting the fact that nobody marries just because he is ready to consent
to take the other as spouse. There must be first love. #LOVE. Love.
So when the Law is reluctant in dealing about love, jurisprudence, the Supreme Court, once in a
while, steps out from the chamber of pure legal tones, and vividly paints its picture of love and
relationship.
In Chua-Qua vs. Clave, G.R. No. L-49549, 30 August 1990, it says that, if the two (persons)
eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends
substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.
Mark Errol is a maritime man, Liza is an expert in maritime law. And how old are you? Do not
answer that. But why are you here? Because your heart has reasons of its own which reason does
not know. You love each other. Errol is not concerned of measuring the navigable zonal value of
that love. Liza is not concerned of measuring the real estate value of that love being a registered
estate broker, nor of arriving at the validity of that love and its legal consequences and
computing of damages in case of fraud, negligence or fortuitous event. You just simply love.
That is why in Patricia Figueroa vs. Simeon Barranco, Jr., GR No. 97369, 31 July 1997, is says,
we cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and
perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason. Not for
any other reason, but because of love. Not for allotment. Not for gratification of the flesh. But for
love. When there is authentic love, there is feasible management of financial allotment. when
there is authentic love, that private sacred coital act is best expressed and done in conjugal bliss.
Why do we love? Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738 says that People love in order
to be secure that one will share his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone.
Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die.
So Errol and Liza, your mutual challenge and calling is to live your vows of love, consent and
fidelity not only through your lips, but throughout your life. In People of the Philippines vs.
Ruben Takbobo, GR No. 102984, 30 June 1993, it says, The nuptial vows which solemnly
intone the matrimonial promise of love for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in
sickness and in health, till death do us part, are sometimes easier said than done, for many a
marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of matrimonial shoals.
Paghigugmaanay. Pagsinabtanay. Pag-inunongay. Kini ra ba dawng mga asawa, ingon pa ni
panyera Atty Louieli, kung naa ang bana, awayon.kung wala, pangitaon. Char kaayo mo bes.
Unya Errol ug Liza, sangpit kanunay sa Dios. Malipayong pas-anon ninyo ang inyong mga Krus.
(insert joke) Kay sa ulahing adlaw, kaluwasan ang iganti kaninyo sa Dios.
Lastly, Errol and Liza, bear in mind what is decided in Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and
Gina Lao- Tsoi, GR No. 119190, 16 January 1997. Marital union is a two-way process. An
expressive interest in each others feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way
in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two
consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and
a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.