Chapter II: On the Form of Celebration of Matrimony

— Law before the Code. Although, as the Tridentine synod warned, the Church always detested and prohibited clandestine marriages, nevertheless the same were contracted validly; and in the Council of Trent itself the clause introducing nullity was not admitted without difficulty and hesitation. The form of celebration thereafter was governed by c. Tametsi, Council of Trent, by which this form of celebration was prescribed, not for Catholics alone but for all the baptized, as substantial, namely that mutual consent be given before the Ordinary or pastor of the domicile or quasi-domicile of either spouse, or before one delegated by him or by the local Ordinary, and two witnesses. But only those places were subject to this decree in which, as a decree of the Holy See, it had been promulgated. Nevertheless little by little this interpretation of the decree prevailed, which recognized in it a force at once personal and local. Wherefore this form had to be observed under sanction of nullity: a) by spouses in whose domicile and quasi-domicile the decree had been promulgated, and this even in exempt places, unless in some excepted place either party had acquired quasi-domicile; b) by any spouses contracting in a subject place. But c) either excepted spouse communicated his exemption in an immune place with a subject spouse. Besides, there were certain regions, especially Holland, from the declaration of Benedict XIV, where marriages of non-Catholics between themselves or with a Catholic party were valid, although clandestine, or celebrated without a competent priest and witnesses.

The present discipline was introduced by the decree Ne temere, which Pius X promulgated through the Sacred Congregation of the Council on August 2, 1907: its prescriptions were reported almost entirely in the Code.

— I. Principle and general rule of valid celebration. For the very validity of matrimony, it is regularly required that it be contracted before the pastor or local Ordinary or a priest delegated by either, and at least two witnesses (c. 1091).

1. Under the name of pastor comes: a) the pastor strictly so called, to whom a canonically erected parish has been conferred as the title at least of office. He is commonly called pastor. To the territorial pastor is assimilated the personal pastor, constituted for persons of a certain rite, or of a certain class, indeed for a definite family; b) the quasi-pastor, or rector of a quasi-parish, i.e., of a determined territory, in places where parishes have not yet been canonically erected, e.g., in an apostolic vicariate or prefecture, which have distinct territorial parts with their own rector (cc. 216, §3, and 451, §2, 1°); c) the parochial vicar who with full power presides over a parish whose habitual care is in the hands of a college or chapter, or over a vacant parish, or who supplies for a pastor permanently unable. Such also is a substitute vicar who supplies for an absent pastor, provided he has been approved by the local Ordinary, or there is question of the vicar whom the pastor himself, suddenly and for a grave cause called away, is then permitted to substitute for himself without approval of the Ordinary, according to c. 465, §5 (cf. c. 474 and the response of the Commission of the Code, March 13, 1921, to II); d) a chaplain of soldiers, if the prescriptions of the Holy See so provide (c. 451).

2. Who the local Ordinary is has already been indicated in n. 455.

3. A priest delegated by either. This delegation, which is also called by the name license, because it does not communicate jurisdiction properly so called but the quality of an authorizable witness, must be expressly given; and, unless there is question of cooperating vicars for the parish to which they are assigned, it cannot validly be given except to a determined priest for a determined marriage. Any general delegations are excluded. Wherefore the one delegating cannot safely concede the faculty of subdelegating unless he himself indicates the priest whom the impeded delegate is permitted to substitute for himself; nor can he give it for marriages which will occur except to cooperating vicars, but the marriages themselves must already have been defined. And note that the competence of a particular delegate can give place to no common error.

Authors sufficiently agree that a determination left to the will of those about to marry, "I delegate whomever they shall choose," does not suffice. Whether a delegation given to a religious priest "whom the Superior is going to send tomorrow to act in my place on such a day" is valid, Linneborn, Grundriss des Eherechts, p. 321, admits, while Vlaming, op. cit., n. 572, excludes every choice left to some third person, although, n. 575, he seems to admit the validity of an expressly conceded faculty of subdelegating. Yet they are not accustomed distinctly to examine the case of a license which, for a determined marriage, the pastor has given to a definite priest, with the faculty added of subdelegating another priest whom only the delegate himself will indeed determine. And for the validity of that subdelegation it can be said that it seems consonant with the general principles of law (c. 199, §4), and that no determination is wanting. But if you compare c. 1095 with c. 1096, the determination of the assisting priest seems to have to be made by the delegator himself, and we have learned that this is the mind of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.

Approved authors, moreover, admit that several can be delegated at once by the delegator in this manner, for example: for assistance at such a marriage I delegate all the priests of such a monastery (although, if they are several, this is less consonant with the mind of the Code). But it is clear that the delegate can be designated not less by name than by quality.

The marriage must be determined in the same way. To someone other than a cooperating vicar, the faculty cannot be given for all marriages which will occur on these days, or for the marriage which will occur first; although it can be given for the marriage which, at such an hour, I have learned is to be celebrated.

Finally, license can be expressed not only by words or writings but also by deed, so that only presumed license or mere tolerance is excluded. But that all ambiguity may be removed, it is better to express the license by words or writings.

4. The pastor and local Ordinary validly assist, or concede license to another, only from the day of acquired canonical possession of the benefice or of office begun (c. 1095, §1, 1°).

Residential bishops take canonical possession of the diocese as soon as personally or by procurator they have shown the apostolic letters to the chapter of the cathedral church (or, this lacking, to the council by which the chapter is supplied), in the presence of the secretary of the chapter or the chancellor of the curia; but pastors, when mission or "installation" has been made "according to the manner prescribed by particular law or received by legitimate custom," or by dispensation from that manner expressly conceded in writing by the Ordinary (cc. 334, 1444).

5. The same persons can no longer validly assist at matrimony after they have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office by sentence, or declared such.

Yet this does not prevent the Church from supplying the defect, if common error concerning their ability has intervened. For what all say concerning a putative pastor must be said likewise concerning a true pastor but suspended by sentence: c. 209 falls upon each case.

But those who approach a non-Catholic minister as sacred commit forbidden communication in sacred things and are punished by an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary ipso facto (c. 1319).

6. They do not validly assist except within the limits of their territory; but there they assist validly at the marriage of all persons, although not always licitly.

7. The manner of assisting, necessary for validity, must be such that: a) constrained by no force or grave fear, b) they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

Therefore they must formally and freely ask for and receive the consent.

By this prescribed manner, marriages are effectively impeded which, beyond his expectation and will, would be celebrated before the pastor.

Passive assistance is insufficient for validity. Yet what if in some place assistance at a mixed marriage is tolerated, the cautions having been omitted? After the decree Ne temere, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, on June 21, 1912, willed that in that case no interrogation be made and that the priest assist in a merely passive manner. Prummer, q. 334, scholion, judges that decree still to have force, while several others think the same has been suppressed (cf. De Smet, n. 111, note 3). Wherefore we judged above, n. 767, that it is safer that, until the Holy See, if it should seem necessary, declares the matter, the interrogations be made. I say "if it should seem necessary," for I do not know whether in no place now assistance itself at such nuptials is permitted.

8. Two witnesses are required besides. All who are actually possessed of reason are fit (Cappello, III, 652; Vlaming, II, 576; c. 1757, §1). But it is not required that they be formally called or assumed, but it suffices that, even by chance, they be present, provided those about to marry, conscious of their presence, at least tacitly employ them in this way, and they themselves have observed the words or signs of mutual consent; and this together with the pastor, not only before or afterward. For then in reality the marriage is made before two witnesses. The same presence in the pastor would not suffice, not only because now he must interrogate the parties and receive their consent, but also because matrimony must be celebrated before him as pastor or competent priest. Wherefore if a civil marriage is made before the syndic and two witnesses, of whom one is the pastor, the marriage is not judged to have been celebrated before the pastor (cf. De Smet, I, p. 96, note 1 from Rev. du Clergé français, t. 54, p. 209 ff.). Concerning the required presence of the witnesses, cf. Gasparri, II, 1163-1166.

Where Catholics can be had, non-Catholics are illicitly assumed. Yet, on August 19, 1891, the Holy Office declared that this can be tolerated by the Ordinary for a grave cause, provided scandal is not had.

— II. Concerning licit celebration. Licit celebration requires:

1. previous proof of free status, according to the norm of law. And those delegating are warned not to concede delegation except "after all things which the law establishes for proving freedom of status have been completed" (c. 1096, §2);

2. domicile, quasi-domicile, or at least a monthly stay of either contracting party in the place of celebration, or the license (not delegation) of the proper pastor by reason of domicile, quasi-domicile, or monthly stay. Vagi, however, have as proper pastor the pastor of the place where they are staying. But if they are actually itinerant, so that they have no seat of stay, any pastor is judged proper (c. 1097). You should observe that this license can be given by one who himself would not even validly assist at a marriage celebrated outside his territory. Besides, grave necessity excuses from seeking this license;

3. celebration in the place where the bride obtains a proper pastor. Yet any just cause excuses the choice of another place.

The marriages of Catholics of mixed rite, however, unless something else has been provided by particular law, must be celebrated in the rite of the man and before his pastor (c. 1097, §2);

The competent pastor who assists at a marriage without the license required by law does not make the stole fees his own, and must remit them to the proper pastor of the contracting parties (c. 1097, §3).

The decree Ne temere had substituted monthly stay in place of domicile or quasi-domicile, which c. 1097 joins to domicile or quasi-domicile for defining the ratio by which a pastor becomes proper and by which spouses are not judged vagi in relation to matrimony.

Monthly stay is a morally continuous stay of thirty days. You should observe that license can proceed from a pastor who is proper at least through monthly stay, but not from him where a vagus is merely actually staying. Wherefore an itinerant vagus is simply permitted to contract matrimony in the place where he is present, but the pastor ought not to assist at his marriage without license of the local Ordinary.⁽¹⁾ License is regularly to be sought from the pastor of the bride; but any just cause suffices that it be sought from the proper pastor of the bridegroom. A grave cause which excuses from seeking the license can be an urgent reason for celebrating the marriage or a grave reason for not revealing the matter to the proper pastor. Where there are several proper pastors, choice is allowed of the proper pastor from whom license is to be sought. Finally, the proper pastor of the man need not seek license from the pastor of the bride, since from c. 1097, §2, a just cause suffices. Wherefore, even if a just cause is lacking, he himself seems to escape the penalty of c. 1097, §3, since this is established only against non-proper pastors who assist at a marriage without the required license. But the fees are of themselves to be remitted to the pastor of the bride. If there are several proper pastors, they seem to be divided among them, or the one is to be preferred who would have celebrated the marriage, or the pastor of domicile. An authentic declaration is desired (cf. our De forma sponsalium, etc., n. 86).

⁽¹⁾ Indeed, license of the Ordinary is required even if the persons have a monthly stay, but lack a domicile or quasi-domicile, at least diocesan. Thus De Smet, I, n. 129, gathers well from c. 1032 referring to c. 91, against Wouters and [OCR appears to read: Schakman; possibly Standaert, since De Smet's older parallel discussion names Standaert with Wouters on this question].

Can the bishop or local Ordinary prescribe more strictly that marriages be made before the pastor of the bride, so that a just cause of acting otherwise does not suffice, but a grave cause is required, or formal license must be sought? De Smet, I, p. 105, note (1), relying upon the particular law of Bruges, thinks this can be done. But, unless a centenary custom is added, that derogation from common law does not seem to be within the power of the bishop. For a particular law derogates from the Code which by strict precept forbids what the Code permits for a just cause.

— Cases excepted by law. Whenever the pastor, or Ordinary, or delegated priest who would assist at marriage according to the form prescribed for validity, cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience:

1. in danger of death, a marriage contracted before witnesses alone is valid and licit; and 2. even outside danger of death, provided it is prudently foreseen that this condition of things will last for a month (c. 1098, 1°).

"In either case, if another priest is at hand who can be present, he must be called and, together with the witnesses, assist at the marriage, saving the validity of the marriage before witnesses alone."

Therefore matrimony is validly celebrated before only two witnesses: a) in danger of death of either spouse, when a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience; b) even outside such danger, if the difficulty is prudently foreseen to be going to last for a month. If, however, a non-competent priest can be called, he must be called for liceity and must assist with the witnesses. Therefore an obligation is imposed upon the contracting parties of calling such a priest, and upon the priest of assisting.

In danger of death, the case can be had if from a delegation requested from the pastor or Ordinary, a suspicion of sin sacramentally accused could arise with the one delegating. Suppose a sick man who enjoys intact reputation although he exercises a secret concubinage with a maidservant. If, because of the permanent occasion of sin, it is expedient that they be legitimately joined, the penitent will not have to give permission for seeking delegation. It will then be sufficient that before the priest, as a simple witness, and another person, those about to marry express their consent (cf. Cappello, III, 691).

Outside danger of death, the case certainly occurs where the absence of every competent minister or other circumstances physically impede his assistance. But what where an impediment of another kind stands in the way, especially where it proceeds from a law which punishes with penalties the pastor or delegate who assists at marriage before the civil ceremony has been completed?

Some deny that then there is place for c. 1098. For in a region where priests are in great number, they cannot be said not to be able to be had or approached without inconvenience, although perhaps they themselves do not assist at marriages without inconvenience. And the same are confirmed in their opinion by the danger of abuses and inconveniences which can arise from many marriages deprived of civil protection.

Others, with attention to the general words of the canon, judge that one must respond more benignly.

And we are persuaded, both by the text itself and by the historical adjuncts, that the case of moral difficulty is included, even that which is created by civil law.

By the text itself. The canon has been written in such a way that it seems to have foreseen the obstacle of civil law and to have included it in its disposition. It uses general words. Nor does it demand that the pastor cannot be at hand absolutely or simply, but without grave inconvenience. The pastor or the spouses can be impeded by grave inconvenience. The pastor is impeded when he cannot be had, but the spouses, when he cannot be approached. But by what law do you understand inconvenience restrictively of physical inconvenience? Is not a civil penalty to be feared a grave inconvenience? But why mention another priest who himself can be at hand, unless because laws are accustomed to punish the competent minister, but not the priest who is neither proper nor delegated? Does it not seem that, on account of this difficulty of civil law, provision was made that another priest should assist?

We are confirmed by the historical adjuncts themselves. For, expressly asked concerning the case, the Holy See did not wish in express words to admit it in a general way; which, as is easily seen, it could not prudently do; but it did not openly exclude the case, which it could have done without inconvenience. But in responses of March 12-13, 1910 (Periodica, V, p. 115 ff.), with mention of the region omitted,⁽¹⁾ the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments declared that marriage is validly and licitly contracted before witnesses alone "whenever ... a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience." Finally, in the year 1916 the same Sacred Congregation ordered that in particular cases recourse be had to it.

But now, after these responses, the Code restored the more general form proposed in the response of 1910, and adds the caution in n. 2°, by which provision is made for a more prudent and more religious celebration of matrimony. Wherefore, not only theoretically but also practically, the opinion is at least more probable which says that the celebration of matrimony before two witnesses and a priest is valid and licit when, on account of civil prohibition, the pastor or delegated priest cannot be at hand without grave inconvenience. This is not to be doubted if the case cannot be proposed to the Holy See in due time.

But here one must act prudently. Nor are nuptials to be contracted rashly without the solemnity of the present pastor and civil ceremonies when their happy outcome is not morally certain. For nuptials which are contracted without the protection of civil law, at least outside danger of death, are dangerous. Wherefore the Ordinary also can by general law forbid (not, however, under sanction of nullity) that, without recourse to himself or to the Holy See, marriages prohibited by civil law be celebrated before two witnesses and a non-delegated priest (cf. De Smet, I, 135-138).

Nor can the case where civil law forbids a marriage permitted by the Church be confused with the case where legitimate celebration merely removes certain undue profits. Thus it happens that "annual pensions" are conceded to widows who remain unmarried. This is a most just condition. That they may elude it, the spouses cannot appeal to the present canon so that they contract before witnesses alone, because the pastor is unwilling to assist at a religious marriage, the civil solemnities having been omitted.

The witnesses or the non-delegated priest himself before whom the marriage is made have no interrogation to make, but it is enough that they can testify to the consent mutually given.

But when the civil solemnities are omitted for a grave cause, R. D. De Smet, n. 138, prudently warns that these things are to be procured: 1. that they be supplied as soon as possible, and that the spouses promise that they will do this; 2. that the fact of marriage be accurately inscribed; 3. that the scandal of supposed concubinage be avoided.

Under the decree Ne temere a similar exception was admitted, but regard was had to the past, while it was required that the state of things impeding celebration before the pastor or delegate had lasted for a month.

The Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, practically, follows the opinion which requires common difficulty, and therefore, in particular cases, it responded: "In individual cases let recourse be had" (this before the Code); or it even sanated marriages celebrated without a competent priest. Yet no authentic interpretation has been given, nor is there any general order urging the stricter opinion, which very many authors oppose. Wherefore, with Cappello (III, 694), we shall say: "While the controversy stands, a doubt of law is had, and therefore the prescription of c. 15 is to be applied (which in a doubt of law does not urge nullities or inabilities). Practically, unless grave necessity urges, for liceity it is to be urged that 'recourse be had in individual cases' to the Holy See; but, once marriage has been celebrated, 'one must stand altogether for its validity.'"

⁽¹⁾ In c. 8 of the decree Ne temere it had been said: "If it happens that in some region the pastor ... cannot be had."

— Those bound to the solemn form. The form explained just now must be observed by:

1. "all those baptized in the Catholic Church and those converted to it from heresy or schism, even if either the former or the latter afterward defected from the same, whenever they enter marriage between themselves";

2. the same persons contracting with baptized or non-baptized non-Catholics, even with a dispensation obtained;

3. Orientals contracting with Latins bound to this form.

Therefore, contrary to the situation under Tridentine law, not the immunity but the obligation of one party is shared by the other party.

The decree Ne temere tempered this rule thus (art. XI, 2): "unless for some particular place or region it has been otherwise established by the Holy See." By these words was indicated the exception made by the Constitution Provida, January 18, 1896, for Germans born in Germany and contracting there between themselves; which was extended by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, February 27, 1909, to Hungarians born in Hungary and contracting there between themselves. The exception was understood so strictly that it was not permitted to be applied even to a Hungarian contracting with a German, or conversely. Now every exception has been removed, and the Holy See has declared that the Constitution Provida has been revoked.

— Immune from this form to be observed are: 1. non-Catholics, whether baptized (and never converted to the Catholic Church) or non-baptized, contracting between themselves;

2. "those born of non-Catholics, even if baptized in the Catholic Church, who from infancy grew up in heresy, or schism, or infidelity, or without any religion, whenever they contract with a non-Catholic party" (c. 1099, §2). Before, recourse had to be made to Rome for the marriages of these persons each time (response of the Holy Office, March 31, 1911).

— Concerning accidental forms or rites to be observed. - 1. "Outside a case of necessity, in the celebration of matrimony, the rites prescribed in ritual books approved by the Church, or received by laudable customs, are to be observed" (c. 1100). The Council of Trent itself, sess. XXIV, c. 1, De ref. matr., had permitted diocesan rituals to be observed. This rite is performed before Mass and is accustomed to comprise: a) the interrogation concerning mutual consent, and the response of mutual consent, sometimes according to a definite formula; b) a certain formula of joining, e.g., "I join you in matrimony"; c) the blessing of the bride's ring. Today both are accustomed to present a ring to be blessed, but there is no formula except for the bride. But nothing stands in the way of the bridegroom's ring being endowed with priestly blessing and sprinkled with blessed water; d) prayers over those joined.

2. The solemn blessing is given in the Mass itself, according to the Missal itself, nor can it be separated from it. To be given, it is reserved to the priest who can validly and licitly assist at matrimony. Not rarely one is delegated to the marriage, another to celebrate the Mass with the blessing. In ferial time, i.e., from the first Sunday of Advent up to and including the day of the Nativity of the Lord, and from Ash Wednesday up to and including Easter, the solemn blessing is forbidden to be given. But afterward, even long afterward, it can be supplied. For a just cause Ordinaries of places can concede that, even in ferial time, it be joined with matrimony; but they cannot permit it separated from matrimony in ferial time. It is never given to a widow who has already received the blessing (c. 1113), nor can it be given in mixed nuptials.

The pastor must take care that the spouses receive the solemn blessing; but it is not established concerning a precept made to spouses of receiving the same.

The blessing coheres with the Mass in such a way that the votive Mass for spouses cannot be said when the blessing must be omitted.

Now, however, to several bishops, e.g., of America, a quinquennial faculty is conceded of giving the nuptial blessing outside Mass according to a formula recently approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

3. Mixed marriages are of themselves to be celebrated outside the church, in a decent place, such as the sacristy, the pastor's house, and without sacred rites, but with the usual interrogations concerning consent. But, for avoiding graver evils, the Ordinary can permit some sacred ceremony, but not the celebration of Mass (c. 1102).

Understand the Mass for spouses, which would be part of the sacred ceremony. For since today Mass can be said for all, nothing stands in the way of the priest, after the completed ceremony, privately applying the Mass to the intention of the spouses, and the spouses themselves assisting at the sacred rite, as generally it is tolerated that non-Catholics be present during Mass. But care must be taken lest that Mass appear joined with the marriage. Much more is it licit for the spouses, after the marriage has been celebrated, to be present at some Mass.

— Inscription of marriage. 1. The pastor himself or the one who takes his place, although another delegated person assisted at the marriage, must record the celebrated marriage in prescribed and accustomed form in the book of marriages.

Yet it happens not rarely that the delegate writes and signs everything by his own hand, and then the pastor, with his name appended, virtually testifies to the same.

The marriage must also be recorded in the book of the baptized. Wherefore, if a spouse was baptized elsewhere, the pastor of the marriage, either personally or through the diocesan curia, must transmit notice of the marriage to the pastor of baptism.

But whenever a marriage has been celebrated before witnesses alone, the priest (not delegated), if he assisted, otherwise the witnesses are held in solidum with the contracting parties by the obligation of taking care that the marriage be noted as soon as possible in the prescribed books (c. 1103).

— I. Form required of itself for validity. Matrimony, for validity, must be contracted: 1. before the pastor or local Ordinary. Pastor is understood as strictly such, or the rector of a quasi-parish, a parochial vicar who with full power presides over the parish, as also the substitute vicar himself and, if the prescriptions of the Holy See so provide, a chaplain of soldiers;

2. or before a priest delegated by either. Express delegation is required, and, unless there is question of a cooperating vicar for the parish to which he is assigned, it cannot be given except to a determined priest for a determined marriage. The pastor and local Ordinary validly assist or delegate from the moment of office canonically begun, and as long as they have not been condemned by sentence or declared excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended.

They are competent for all within the limits of their territory.

3. It is necessary for validity that, constrained by no force or grave fear, they ask for and receive the consent of the contracting parties.

4. Besides, two witnesses are required: any persons possessed of themselves, who have observed the signs of mutual consent and have at least tacitly been admitted by those about to marry.

II. Liceity demands: 1. previous proof of free status;

2. domicile, quasi-domicile, or monthly stay in the place of celebration, or the license of the pastor or Ordinary thus proper;

3. unless a just cause stands in the way, celebration before the pastor of the bride. The pastor who, without license of the proper pastor, has unduly intervened, must remit the fees to the proper pastor.

III. Excepted cases. Provided a competent priest cannot be had or approached without grave inconvenience: in danger of death, or if the difficulty is foreseen as going to last for a month, two witnesses suffice. If, however, another priest can assist, he must be called for liceity.

Is there place for this exception when the penalties of civil law impede the presence of the competent minister? This is disputed.

IV. Immune from the solemn form are: non-baptized non-Catholics, or also baptized persons who never belonged to the Church, if they contract between themselves; those born of non-Catholics, even if baptized in the Catholic Church, who from infancy grew up in heresy, schism, infidelity, or without any religion, whenever they contract with a non-Catholic party.

V. The rite is to be observed; it can be diocesan. In Mass the solemn blessing is given, which, unless the local Ordinary dispenses, is forbidden to be given in ferial time, i.e., from the first Sunday of Advent to the Nativity of the Lord inclusive, and from Ash Wednesday up to Easter inclusive. It is not established concerning a precept of receiving the solemn blessing.

Mixed marriages are of themselves to be celebrated outside the Church with only the interrogations concerning consent. Some sacred ceremony, but not the celebration of Mass, can be permitted by the local Ordinary for avoiding greater evils.

VI. Notation. By the pastor himself or the one taking his place the marriage must be recorded in the book of marriages and of baptisms. Whenever it was contracted before witnesses alone (and perhaps a non-competent priest), the priest, or the witnesses and contracting parties in solidum, are obliged to take care of the inscription.