Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Borja-Manzano V Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    apbuera
    This case discusses the requirements for a valid marriage without a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code. It also examines whether a second marriage contracted by David Manzano was valid given that he was already legally married. The court ruled the second marriage was invalid and fined the judge who officiated it P20,000 because all requisites for an exemption from a marriage license under Article 34 were not present, and the parties expressly stated a prior existing marriage at the time of the second marriage.

    Copyright:

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

    Borja-Manzano V Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    apbuera
    56 views3 pages
    This case discusses the requirements for a valid marriage without a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code. It also examines whether a second marriage contracted by David Manzano was valid given that he was already legally married. The court ruled the second marriage was invalid and fined the judge who officiated it P20,000 because all requisites for an exemption from a marriage license under Article 34 were not present, and the parties expressly stated a prior existing marriage at the time of the second marriage.

    Original Description:

    Persons and Family Relations Case Digest

    Original Title

    Borja-Manzano v Sanchez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the requirements for a valid marriage without a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code. It also examines whether a second marriage contracted by David Manzano was valid given that he was already legally married. The court ruled the second marriage was invalid and fined the judge who officiated it P20,000 because all requisites for an exemption from a marriage license under Article 34 were not present, and the parties expressly stated a prior existing marriage at the time of the second marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views3 pages

    Borja-Manzano V Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    apbuera
    This case discusses the requirements for a valid marriage without a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code. It also examines whether a second marriage contracted by David Manzano was valid given that he was already legally married. The court ruled the second marriage was invalid and fined the judge who officiated it P20,000 because all requisites for an exemption from a marriage license under Article 34 were not present, and the parties expressly stated a prior existing marriage at the time of the second marriage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    A.M. No.

    MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001


    Borja- Manzano v. Sanchez
    Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., C.J
    Topic: Marriage License
    Nature: Administrative Matter
    Doctrine:
    The following requisites must concur for a valid marriage without marriage license
    based on co-habitation under Art. 34 of the FC:
    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.
    This is only an exemption from absence of a marriage license, which is one of the
    formal requisites of marriage.
    Article 63(1) of the FC allows spouses who have obtained a decree of legal
    separation to live separately from each other, but in such a case the marriage
    bonds are not severed. It does not dissolve the marriage tie, much less authorize
    the parties to remarry.
    Facts:

    Borja-Manzano (P) claimed that she was the lawful wife of the late David

    Manzano, having been married to him on 21 May 1966 in Caloocan City.


    On 22 March 1993, however, Ps husband contracted another marriage with
    one

    Luzviminda

    Payao

    before

    Judge Sanchez (R) of MTC-Infanta,

    Pangasinan.
    R argued that when he officiated the marriage between them because he did not
    know that David was legally married. What he knew was that the two had been
    living together as husband and wife for 7 years already without the benefit of
    marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit. R knew that the late Manzano was
    married, he would have advised the latter not to marry again; otherwise, he could

    be charged with bigamy.


    P filed against R before the court for gross ignorance of the law.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the marriage license by R issued for the 2 nd marriage is valid.
    Ruling:
    No. Not all the requisites for a valid marriage under Art. 34 of the FC are present.
    -

    The 2nd marriage was contracted under the subsistence of the FC.
    The parties of the 2nd marriage expressly stated the fact of their prior existing
    marriage. Also, in their marriage contract, it was indicated that both were
    separated. R should have known about this detriment as a decree of legal

    separation does not sever marriage bond.


    Marital cohabitation for a long period of time between two individuals who are
    legally capacitated to marry each other is merely a ground for exemption from
    marriage license. It could not serve as a justification for R to solemnize a
    subsequent marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage.

    Dispositive:
    ACCORDINGLY, the recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby ADOPTED,
    with the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine to be imposed upon respondent Judge
    Roque Sanchez is increased to P20,000.

    You might also like