Borja-Manzano v. Sanchez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano charged respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage between David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao, both of whom were allegedly bound by prior existing marriages. Complainant stated she was the lawful wife of David Manzano, married in 1966, and they had four children. On March 22, 1993, David Manzano contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. The marriage contract indicated both parties were "separated." Procedural History: The complainant filed a sworn Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator on May 12, 1999. Respondent Judge, in his Comment, claimed he did not know Manzano was legally married, only that they had lived together for seven years without marriage, as stated in their joint affidavit. He asserted he would have advised Manzano against remarrying had he known of the prior marriage. The Court Administrator recommended a fine of P2,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. The parties were required to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. Complainant agreed. Respondent Judge reiterated his plea for dismissal, attaching separate affidavits from Manzano and Payao stating they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, respectively, and had left their families due to constant quarrels, alleging this justified solemnizing the marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code. The Petition: The complainant charged respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage between parties who were allegedly bound by prior existing marriages.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law in solemnizing a marriage between parties who were allegedly bound by prior existing marriages. Whether the circumstances presented justified the solemnization of the marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code.
Ruling
The Court found merit in the complaint and held that respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law. The recommendation of the Court Administrator was adopted with modification, increasing the fine to P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law in solemnizing a marriage between parties who were allegedly bound by prior existing marriages: The Court held that respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law. Article 34 of the Family Code, which allows marriage without a license for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years without legal impediment, has specific requisites. Crucially, the parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other at the time of marriage. In this case, the separate affidavits executed by David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge himself on March 22, 1993, expressly stated the fact of their prior existing marriages. Furthermore, the marriage contract indicated both parties were "separated." A subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment that renders a subsequent marriage null and void. Respondent Judge knew or ought to have known of this impediment, as it was clearly stated in the affidavits subscribed and sworn to before him. His claim that he did not know of Manzano's prior marriage was contradicted by the very documents he notarized. The maxim "ignorance of the law excuses no one" applies with greater force to judges, who are expected to be conversant with the law and basic legal principles. Failure to know simple and elementary law constitutes gross ignorance. On whether the circumstances presented justified the solemnization of the marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code: The Court ruled that the circumstances did not justify the solemnization of the marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code. For Article 34 to apply, the parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other at the time of the marriage. The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses for a long time is immaterial, as legal separation or de facto separation does not dissolve the marriage tie and does not authorize remarriage. Similarly, the joint affidavit stating they had cohabited for seven years does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a long period between individuals with a legal impediment is not a justification for solemnizing a void marriage. Article 34 serves only as a ground for exemption from the marriage license requirement when parties are legally capacitated to marry, not as a means to circumvent existing marriage bonds.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when he solemnizes a marriage knowing or ought to know that one of the contracting parties is bound by a prior existing marriage, as this constitutes a legal impediment rendering the subsequent marriage void and bigamous. The provisions on legal separation or de facto separation, and cohabitation for at least five years, do not sever the marriage tie and do not authorize remarriage.