Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 318 views

    Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    1. Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano filed a complaint against respondent Judge Roque Sanchez for solemnizing the marriage of her husband David Manzano to another woman Luzviminda Payao, despite both being bound by prior existing marriages. 2. The Judge claimed he was unaware of Manzano's prior marriage as their affidavits stated they were separated. However, the affidavits and marriage contract also stated they were bound by prior marriages. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the Judge was grossly negligent of the law by solemnizing the bigamous marriage, as the affidavits and contract clearly indicated prior marriages. Being separated does not nullify a prior marriage or allow parties to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    318 views1 page
    1. Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano filed a complaint against respondent Judge Roque Sanchez for solemnizing the marriage of her husband David Manzano to another woman Luzviminda Payao, despite both being bound by prior existing marriages. 2. The Judge claimed he was unaware of Manzano's prior marriage as their affidavits stated they were separated. However, the affidavits and marriage contract also stated they were bound by prior marriages. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the Judge was grossly negligent of the law by solemnizing the bigamous marriage, as the affidavits and contract clearly indicated prior marriages. Being separated does not nullify a prior marriage or allow parties to

    Original Description:

    W

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano filed a complaint against respondent Judge Roque Sanchez for solemnizing the marriage of her husband David Manzano to another woman Luzviminda Payao, despite both being bound by prior existing marriages. 2. The Judge claimed he was unaware of Manzano's prior marriage as their affidavits stated they were separated. However, the affidavits and marriage contract also stated they were bound by prior marriages. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the Judge was grossly negligent of the law by solemnizing the bigamous marriage, as the affidavits and contract clearly indicated prior marriages. Being separated does not nullify a prior marriage or allow parties to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    318 views1 page

    Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    1. Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano filed a complaint against respondent Judge Roque Sanchez for solemnizing the marriage of her husband David Manzano to another woman Luzviminda Payao, despite both being bound by prior existing marriages. 2. The Judge claimed he was unaware of Manzano's prior marriage as their affidavits stated they were separated. However, the affidavits and marriage contract also stated they were bound by prior marriages. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the Judge was grossly negligent of the law by solemnizing the bigamous marriage, as the affidavits and contract clearly indicated prior marriages. Being separated does not nullify a prior marriage or allow parties to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cavin Jhon M.

    Cabarlo
    Legal Research

    1-Wigmore

    Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez


    354 SCRA 1, March 8, 2001
    Statement of the Case:
    In a sworn Complaint Affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator on May 12,
    1999, complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano charges respondent Judge Roque
    Sanchez with gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing the marriage of the formers
    husband David Manzano and another woman named Luzviminda Payao, who were
    both bound by prior existing marriages.
    Facts of the Case:
    Complainant avers that she was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano with marriage
    contracted on May 21, 1966 in a church wedding in Caloocan City. However, on March
    22, 1993, her husband entered into another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before the
    respondent Judge of the Municipal Trial Court who claims no knowledge that Manzano
    is legally bound by a prior marriage. The Judge claimed that his knowledge is limited
    only to the cohabitation of Manzano and Payao for seven years which is manifested in
    their joint affidavits. However, the separate affidavits expressly stated that they were
    both bound by prior existing marriages. Further, the marriage contract presented to the
    respondent indicated that they were both separated. From which facts, respondent
    alleged that the subsequent marriage is legal by virtue of Article 34 of the Family Code
    thus asking for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of merit.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the complaint was valid asserting that respondent Judge demonstrated
    gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized the marriage
    Ruling:
    Yes. The Judge demonstrated a gross negligence of the law when he solemnized the
    bigamous marriage. He cannot deny knowledge of the previous marriage as the fact
    was stated in the separate affidavits subscribed and sworn by Manzano and Payao.
    Also, the marriage contract stated that both were separated. As for the Article 34 of the
    Family Code, the fact that both were cohabiting for seven years is immaterial and an
    impediment to the subsequent ones as legal separation does not sever the marital tie,
    much less authorize the parties to remarry. The separation of the previous couple is only
    a ground for exemption of the marriage license but not a justification of the Judge to
    solemnize the subsequent marriage. Thus, the maxim ignorance of the law excuses no
    one has special application to judges who should be the embodiment of competence,
    integrity and independence.
    Disposition:
    Accordingly, the recommendation of the Court Administrator was adopted with
    modification increasing the fine imposed upon respondent Judge from P2,000 to
    P20,000.

    You might also like