Scribd
Upload
150 views1 page

55 Herminia Borja Manzano VS Judge Roque R. Sanchez

The respondent judge solemnized the marriage of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao, who were both still legally married to other partners. The petitioner, Herminia Borja-Manzano, claims she was still legally married to David Manzano. The Supreme Court ruled the marriage solemnized by the respondent judge was void and bigamous, as not all the requirements of Article 34 were met, notably the requirement that there be no legal impediment to marry. Specifically, being still legally married constituted a legal impediment. The court found the respondent judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law by solemnizing a marriage when the parties stated they were still separated but not divorced from previous partners.

Uploaded by

AJ Cresmundo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
150 views1 page

55 Herminia Borja Manzano VS Judge Roque R. Sanchez

The respondent judge solemnized the marriage of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao, who were both still legally married to other partners. The petitioner, Herminia Borja-Manzano, claims she was still legally married to David Manzano. The Supreme Court ruled the marriage solemnized by the respondent judge was void and bigamous, as not all the requirements of Article 34 were met, notably the requirement that there be no legal impediment to marry. Specifically, being still legally married constituted a legal impediment. The court found the respondent judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law by solemnizing a marriage when the parties stated they were still separated but not divorced from previous partners.

Uploaded by

AJ Cresmundo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, Petitioner VS JUDGE ROQUE R.

SANCHEZ, Respondent
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001
FACTS:

Herminia Borja Manzano married the late David Manzano on May 21, 1966 and claims that she was the lawful
wife and four children were born out of that marriage. Their marriage did not work out and resulted them to be
separated. However on March 22, 1993, David Manzano contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao,
also married and separated, before respondent judge, Judge Roque R. Sanchez. When respondent judge
solemnized the marriage, he knew or ought to know that the marriage was void and bigamous, as the marriage
contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were separated.

On the comment of the respondent judge, he claims that when he officiated the marriage, he did not know
Luzviminda Payao was legally married and that he only knew that both parties have been living together as
husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of marriage as stated in their joint affidavit.

Respondent judge alleges that he agreed to solemnized the marriage in question in accordance to Article
34 of the Family Code on the basis of the joint affidavit of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao, stating that
both left their families and had never cohabitated or communicated with their spouses anymore, and that both
parties has been separated and been living with each other for seven years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Article 34 of the Family Code can be a basis for the solemnization of the marriage.

HELD:

NO. In order that Art. 34 of the Family Code regarding legal ratification of cohabitation may 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 (not
during the 5-year cohabitation).
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years.
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 met in the case at bar. It is significant to note that on the joint affidavit, both
expressly stated the fact of their existing marriage and separated, which a legal impediment and thus making the
marriage contracted void and null.

It is important to know that legal separation, to live separately from each other 1, does not sever the marriage bond.
Meaning, legal separation does not dissolve the marriage previously contracted much less authorize the parties to
remarry.

Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not sever the
tie of a subsisting previous marriage.

The judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law, decision in favor of the petitioner and court administrator.

CASE DOCTRINE:
Article 34 of the Family Code (Marital Cohabitation) states that no license of marriage shall be necessary
for the marriage of a man and woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years without
any legal impediment to marry each other. In the case at bar, both had explicitly stated that they are both separated
from their previous spouses. Marital cohabitation for a long period of time between two individuals who are
LEGALLY CAPACITATED to marry each other id merely a ground for exemption from MARRIAGE LICENSE,
not of authority to marry.

1
Art 63 (1) of Family Code

You might also like