AM MTJ 00 1329; (March, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329. March 8, 2001. HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano, the lawful wife of the late David Manzano since 1966, charged respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez with gross ignorance of the law. The charge stemmed from the judge’s solemnization of a marriage between David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao on March 22, 1993. Complainant averred that the marriage contract clearly indicated both contracting parties were “separated,” which should have alerted the judge to a possible legal impediment.
In his defense, respondent Judge claimed he was unaware of Manzano’s existing marriage at the time of the solemnization. He relied on the parties’ joint affidavit stating they had cohabited for seven years. Later, in a Manifestation, he submitted the parties’ separate affidavits, which expressly stated they were each married to other persons but had long been separated. He argued he solemnized the marriage under Article 34 of the Family Code, which allows marriage without a license for couples cohabiting for at least five years.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage despite knowledge of a prior subsisting marriage of one of the contracting parties.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court found that all requisites for applying Article 34 of the Family Code were not present. This provision exempts couples from a marriage license only if they have cohabited for at least five years and have “no legal impediment to marry each other.” The separate affidavits of Manzano and Payao, sworn to before the respondent Judge himself, explicitly revealed their existing marriages to other persons. A subsisting marriage is a diriment impediment that renders any subsequent marriage void and bigamous.
The judge’s knowledge of this impediment is incontrovertible, as the affidavits and the marriage contract stating “separated” were before him. The long period of de facto separation or cohabitation between Manzano and Payao does not dissolve the prior marital bonds. Legal separation, let alone mere de facto separation, does not capacitate a person to remarry. By proceeding with the solemnization despite clear knowledge of the impediment, respondent Judge demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of basic family law principles. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law excuses no one, especially judges, who must be exemplars of legal competence. For transgressing this simple and elementary law, he was found administratively liable. The Court modified the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation and imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000).