Manzano vs Sanchez

Manzano vs. Sanchez

AM No. MTJ-001329, March 8, 2001

FACTS:

Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late David

Manzano having been married on May 21, 1966 in San Gabriel
Archangel Parish in Caloocan. They had four children. On March
22, 1993, her husband contracted another marriage with
Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. The marriage contract
clearly stated that both contracting parties were “separated” thus,
respondent Judge ought to know that the marriage was void and
bigamous. He claims that when he officiated the marriage of David
and Payao, he knew that the two had been living together as
husband and wife for seven years as manifested in their joint
affidavit that they both left their families and had never cohabit or
communicated with their spouses due to constant quarrels.

ISSUE: Whether the solemnization of a marriage between two

contracting parties who both have an existing marriage can
contract marriage if they have been cohabitating for 5 years under
Article 34 of Family Code.

HELD:

Among the requisites of Article 34 is that parties must have no legal

impediment to marry each other. Considering that both parties has
a subsisting marriage, as indicated in their marriage contract that
they are both “separated” is an impediment that would make their
subsequent marriage null and void. Just like separation, free and
voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least 5 years does
not severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly,
respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross ignorance of the law
when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage.
MANZANO VS SANCHEZ
March 8, 2001
Facts:
-

Herminia and David married on May 21, 1966 and had four children
-

Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano, the lawful wife of the late

David Manzano, charges respondent JudgeSanchez with gross
ignorance of the law. Facts
-

On 22 March 1993, David contracted another marriage with one

Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge whichhe solemnized
knowing that such is void and bigamous, as the marriage contract
clearly stated that both contracting
parties were “separated.”

The respondent claimed that he did not know that Manzano was
legally married, and had he known such facts, heshould have advised
David Manzano not to marry again. What he knew was that the two
had been living together ashusband and wife for seven years already
without the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit.
-

Respondent Judge filed a Manifestation reiterating his plea for the

dismissal of the complaint and setting aside hisearlier Comment. He
therein invites the attention of the Court to two separate affidavits of
the late Manzano and of Payao, which were allegedly unearthed by a
member of his staff upon his instruction. In those affidavits,
bothManzano and Payao expressly stated that they were married to
Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, and that sincetheir respective
marriages had been marked by constant quarrels, they had both left
their families and had nevercohabited or communicated with their
spouses anymore.
-
Respondent Judge alleged that he believed Manzano and Payao so he
solemnized marriage in accordance withArticle 34 of the FC which
states that no marriage license is necessary for two persons
cohabitating provided thatthey follow these following requisites*The
man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife
for at least five years before themarriage;*The parties must have no
legal impediment to marry each other;*The fact of absence of legal
impediment between the parties must be present at the time
of marriage;*The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they
have lived together for at least five years [and arewithout legal
impediment to marry each other]; and*The solemnizing officer must
execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the
qualifications of the partiesand that he had found no legal
impediment to their marriage.
Issue: W/N the respondent demonstrated gross ignorance of the law
when he solemnized the marriage.
Held:One of the requisites of Article 34 is that parties must have no
legal impediment to marry each other. Consideringthat both parties
have subsisting marriage
, as indicated in their marriage contract that they are both
“separated” is an
impediment that would make their subsequent marriage null and
void. Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitationwith
another person for at least 5 years does not severe the tie of a
subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, respondent JudgeSanchez
demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void
and bigamous marriage.