Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez

A judge who solemnizes a marriage between parties with prior existing marriages—despite clear indications in affidavits and the marriage contract of their subsisting previous marriages and "separated" status—is guilty of gross ignorance of the law; Article 34 of the Family Code (exemption from marriage license due to cohabitation) does not apply when there is a diriment impediment of prior existing marriage, as neither legal separation nor de facto separation dissolves the marriage tie or authorizes remarriage.

The case stems from the solemnization of a bigamous marriage involving David Manzano, who had been lawfully married to complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano since 1966, and Luzviminda Payao, who was also previously married to Domingo Relos. On March 22, 1993, respondent Judge officiated the second marriage between Manzano and Payao despite affidavits executed before him revealing the parties' prior existing marriages and their admission that they had merely separated from their respective spouses due to constant quarrels.

• Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano was lawfully married to David Manzano on May 21, 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish, Araneta Avenue, Caloocan City, and four children were born out of that marriage.
• On March 22, 1993, David Manzano contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez at the Municipal Trial Court of Infanta, Pangasinan.
• In separate affidavits executed on March 22, 1993 and sworn to before respondent Judge himself, both David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao expressly stated that they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, respectively, and that due to constant quarrels, they had left their families and never cohabited or communicated with their spouses anymore.
• The marriage contract indicated that both contracting parties were "separated."
• Respondent Judge claimed he did not know that Manzano was legally married and only knew that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years without benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit.
• Respondent Judge later submitted that had he known Manzano was married, he would have advised against the marriage and warned of possible bigamy charges.
• The Court Administrator initially recommended a fine of P2,000 with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• Complainant charges respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage between two contracting parties who were both bound by prior existing marriages.
• Complainant avers that respondent Judge knew or ought to have known that the marriage was void and bigamous, as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were "separated" and their separate affidavits revealed their prior marriages.
• Complainant argues that the judge failed to ascertain the legal impediment that existed at the time of the marriage, demonstrating incompetence and ignorance of elementary legal principles.

• Respondent Judge claims he did not know that Manzano was legally married at the time he officiated the marriage between Manzano and Payao.
• He asserts that what he knew was that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already without benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit.
• He contends that he agreed to solemnize the marriage in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code based on the affidavits stating the parties had been living together for seven years.
• He prays for dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit and for being designed merely to harass him.
• He argues that had he known Manzano was married, he would have discouraged him from contracting another marriage and warned him of bigamy charges.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the parties are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a void and bigamous marriage between David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao despite knowledge or constructive notice of their prior existing marriages.

• Procedural:
  • The Court noted that complainant answered in the affirmative when required to manifest willingness to submit the case for resolution on the basis of pleadings, while respondent Judge filed a Manifestation reiterating his plea for dismissal and submitting additional affidavits.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court held that Article 34 of the Family Code cannot apply because the parties had a legal impediment to marry each other—a prior existing marriage which is a diriment impediment that makes the subsequent marriage null and void.
  • The Court ruled that respondent Judge knew or ought to have known of the subsisting previous marriages as these were clearly stated in the separate affidavits subscribed and sworn to before him, and as indicated in the marriage contract showing both parties were "separated."
  • The Court emphasized that the fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses for a long time is immaterial, as Article 63(1) of the Family Code provides that legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie or authorize remarriage, and this holds true all the more when the separation is merely de facto.
  • The Court rejected the defense of reliance on Article 34, stating that marital cohabitation for a long period between two individuals who are legally capacitated to marry is merely a ground for exemption from marriage license, not a justification to solemnize a subsequent marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage.
  • The Court applied the maxim that "ignorance of the law excuses no one," which has special application to judges who should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  • The Court adopted the recommendation of the Court Administrator but modified the fine from P2,000 to P20,000.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law — Defined as failure to know simple and elementary legal principles by a judicial officer; when the law transgressed is simple and elementary, the failure to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law warranting administrative sanction.
• Ignorance of the Law Excuses No One (Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat) — Has special application to judges, who under the Code of Judicial Conduct should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; judges are expected to be conversant with basic legal principles.
• Diriment Impediment — A prior existing marriage constitutes a diriment impediment that makes a subsequent marriage null and void; this impediment exists regardless of separation or cohabitation with another person.
• Article 34 of the Family Code (Legal Ratification of Marital Cohabitation) — Provides exemption from marriage license for parties who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years without legal impediment; requires concurrence of five requisites including absence of legal impediment at the time of marriage.
• Effect of Legal Separation — Article 63(1) of the Family Code allows spouses who have obtained a decree of legal separation to live separately, but the marriage bonds are not severed; legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie or authorize the parties to remarry.
• De Facto Separation — Mere physical separation from a lawful spouse or cohabitation with another for any length of time does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage and does not capacitate the parties to enter into a valid subsequent marriage.

• "The maxim 'ignorance of the law excuses no one' has special application to judges, who, under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence."
• "Legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie, much less authorize the parties to remarry. This holds true all the more when the separation is merely de facto, as in the case at bar."
• "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."
• "When the law transgressed is simple and elementary, the failure to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law."
• "It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law and basic legal principles."

• Espiritu v. Jovellanos, 280 SCRA 579 (1997) — Cited for the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one, especially judges, who are expected to know the law.
• Vercide v. Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1265, April 6, 2000 — Cited in support of the application of the maxim regarding judicial knowledge of the law to administrative proceedings against judges.
• Macasasa v. Imbing, 312 SCRA 385 (1999) — Cited for the standard that judges must be conversant with the law and basic legal principles.
• Madredijo v. Loyao, 316 SCRA 544 (1999) — Cited for the definition of gross ignorance of the law regarding simple and elementary legal principles.
• Agunday v. Tresvalles, 319 SCRA 134 (1999) — Cited for the standard regarding gross ignorance of the law in administrative cases against judges.
• Villanueva v. Almazan, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1221, March 16, 2000 — Cited for the standard regarding gross ignorance of the law.

• Article 34, Family Code — Governs marriage without license for parties who have cohabited for at least five years without legal impediment; cited as the provision respondent Judge erroneously relied upon despite the existence of prior marriages.
• Article 41, Family Code — Cited regarding diriment impediments to marriage, specifically that prior existing marriages render subsequent marriages void.
• Article 63(1), Family Code — Governs effects of legal separation, specifically that marriage bonds are not severed; cited to emphasize that separation does not authorize remarriage.
• Rule 1.01, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; cited to emphasize the high standard of legal knowledge required of judges.

• Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. — Wrote the Resolution for the First Division.
• Associate Justice Puno — Concurred in the Resolution.
• Associate Justice Kapunan — Concurred in the Resolution.
• Associate Justice Pardo — Concurred in the Resolution.
• Associate Justice Ynares-Santiago — Concurred in the Resolution.