Borja-Manzano vs Sanchez, 354 SCRA 1, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001
HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, petitioner, v. JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, respondent.
Doctrine
Marriage; Marriage Licenses; Husband and Wife; Legal Ratification of Marital Cohabitation; Requisites.—For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur:
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.
Judges; Gross Ignorance of the Law; A judge ought to know that a subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment, which would make the subsequent marriage null and void.
Facts:
This is about the solemnization of a marriage between two contracting parties who were both bound by a prior existing marriage.
Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano avers that she was 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.
On 22 March 1993, however, her husband contracted another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before Judge Roque-Sanchez.
When respondent Judge solemnized said marriage, he knew that the same was void and bigamous, as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were “separated.”
However, the judge claims in his Comment that when he officiated the marriage between Manzano and Payao he did not know that Manzano was legally married.
What he knew was that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit. According to him, had he known that the late Manzano was married, he would have advised the latter not to marry again; otherwise, Manzano could be charged with bigamy. He then prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for being designed merely to harass him.
The Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
Issue
Is the reason of the respondent Judge in solemnizing the marriage valid?
Ruling
No. The supreme court held that In Article 34 of the Family Code provides
“No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.
For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur:
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 of these requirements are present in the case at bar. It is significant to note that in their separate affidavits executed on 22 March 1993 and sworn to before respondent Judge himself, David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao expressly stated the fact of their prior existing marriage.
Also, in their marriage contract, it was indicated that both were “separated.”
Thus, SC held that neither can respondent Judge take refuge on the Joint Affidavit of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been cohabiting as husband and wife for seven years. 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.
Read Full text
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/am_mtj-00-1329_2001.html
