CASE: Herminia Borja-Manzano, petitioner v..

Judge Roque Sanchez, MTC, Infanta,

Pangasinan, respondent
DATE: March 8, 2001
FACTS: Complainant Herminia, the wife of late David Manzano, charged Judge Sanchez
with gross ignorance of the law, for solemnizing the marriage between her husband and
one Luzviminda Payao. The complaint was filed with the Office of Court Administration
on May 12, 1999. Herminia said that she was Manzanos lawful wife, having been
married to him on May 21, 1966 and having borne him four children.
She claimed that Judge Sanchez ought to have known that the marriage he officiated
was void and bigamous since their marriage contract already stated that both parties were
separated.
Judge Sanchez didnt know of Manzanos marriage and only knew that the two were
living together for seven years without the benefit of a marriage. He prayed for the
complaint to be dismissed.
The Office of Court Administration found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law
and was fined P2,000.
On October 25, 2000, upon resolution of this case in the SC, Judge Sanchez
submitted two affidavits of the late Manzano and Payao where they said that they were
both married, but had left their families. Judge said this was his basis in solemnizing their
marriage.
LAW: Article 34 of the Family Code
ISSUE: WON the marriage between Manzano and Payao, officiated by Judge Sanchez,
was legal, as per Art. 34 of the Family Code
RATIO: No. According to the law, the following requisites must be present for the legal
ratification of marital cohabitation:
1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for
at least five years before the marriage;
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present
at the time of marriage;
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for
at least five years [and are without legal impediment to marry each other];
and
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had
ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal
impediment to their marriage.
Not all were present in this case.
a.) A subsisting previous marriage is a legal impediment, which would make the
subsequent marriage null and void. Judge Sanchez cannot deny knowledge of

Manzano and Payaos previous marriage since it was stated in their separate
affidavits sworn and was also indicated in their marriage contract.
b.) The fact that Manzano and Payao were living apart from their spouses for a
long time is immaterial. Neither legal separation nor de facto separation, as in
this case, can sever marriage bonds.
c.) The same applies to free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for
at least five years. It cannot be used by the Judge as the basis for solemnizing a
subsequent marriage.
VERDICT: Recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby ADOPTED,
with the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine to be imposed upon
respondent Judge Roque Sanchez is increased to P20,000