A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329.

  March 8, 2001

HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO vs. JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant, Herminia Borja-Manzano charges respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez through sworn Complaint-Affidavit
filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on May 12, 1999, with gross ignorance of the law by solemnizing a
marriage between her husband and another woman, who were both bound to prior existing marriage.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Herminia Borja-Manzano affirms that she is the lawful wife of David Manzano, having been married to him on 21 May
1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish, Araneta Avenue, Caloocan City. Four children were born out of that marriage.
However, her husband contracted another marriage to Luzviminda Payao on March 22, 1993 before Judge Roque R.
Sanchez, who then knew or must know that such marriage is void or bigamous since both contracting parties were
separated as stated in their marriage contract.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty.

ANSWER

Yes. The Respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage.

REASON

Under Article 34 of Family Code, the requisites enumerated in the provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to
apply are not all present. It is clearly stated in the affidavits executed by both David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao the
fact of their prior existing marriage and both were “separated.” Marital cohabitation for a long period of time is a mere
exemption from marriage license. Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least five
years does not severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. The solemnizing officer knew and ought to know that a
subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment, which would make the subsequent marriage null and void.
Clearly, respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage. 

HOLDING

The Court Administrator recommended that respondent be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be ordered to
pay a fine of P2,000, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. The
recommendation of the Court Administrator is adopted with modification that the fine of P2,000 is increased to P20,000.