[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329. March 8, 2001.] HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, petitioner, vs.

JUDGE ROQUE R SANCHEZ, MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan, respondent. DAVIDE, JR., C .J p: FACTS: Petitioner Herminia Borja-Manzano filed a complaint against respondent Judge respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez, Municipal Trial Court, Infanta, Pangasinan charging Sanchez with gross ignorance of the law. BorjaManzano assails that she was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano. The couple married on 21 May 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish, Araneta Avenue, Caloocan City. They later had 4 children out of that marriage. However on 1933 David Manzano contracted another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before Judge Sanchez. Borja-Manzano's contention is that the respondent judge upon solemnizing the said marriage should know and should have known that the same was void and bigamous as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were "separated." On the other hand judge Sanchez stated that he did not know that Manzano was legally married when he officiated

the marriage between Manzano and Payao. He further contended that he only knew that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of marriage, as stated 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, he (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 and he only conducted the solemnization of marriage pursuant to art. 34 of the family code. ISSUE: WON Judge Roque Sanchez commited gross ignorance of the law WON the marriage between David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao is valid HELD: Article 34 of the Family Code requires that: 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. (isummarize nyo nalang in one paragraph hehe :)) Not all of the these requirements are present in the case at bar. In the affidavit it is stated that Manzano and Payao had a prior existing marriage indicating in their marriage contract that they were both "separated." An existing previous marriage is a legal impediment which would make the subsequent marriage null and void. Art. 63 (1) of the family code further states that legal separation does not dissolve the marriage ties, much less authorize the parties to remarry. Moreover, the fact that Manzano and Payao lived together for 7 years is immaterial. Marital cohabitation between a man and a woman without the benefit of the marriage could not serve as justification for the respondent judge's solemnization of marriage. This only shows respondent

judge's gross ignorance of the law for authorizing a void and bigamous marriage - failure to know constitutes gross ignorance of the law.