Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Herminia Borja-Manzano v. Judge Roque R. Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
    The complainant's late husband contracted another marriage before the respondent judge despite being legally married to the complainant. The judge claims he did not know of the prior marriage. However, the court ruled that long cohabitation does not sever a prior marriage and the judge should not have solemnized the bigamous marriage, even if the couple claimed to have cohabited for 7 years. The judge was not exempt from knowing about the prior legal impediment.

    Copyright:

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

    Herminia Borja-Manzano v. Judge Roque R. Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
    26 views1 page
    The complainant's late husband contracted another marriage before the respondent judge despite being legally married to the complainant. The judge claims he did not know of the prior marriage. However, the court ruled that long cohabitation does not sever a prior marriage and the judge should not have solemnized the bigamous marriage, even if the couple claimed to have cohabited for 7 years. The judge was not exempt from knowing about the prior legal impediment.

    Original Description:

    civil law review

    Original Title

    70. Herminia Borja-manzano v. Judge Roque r. 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?

    The complainant's late husband contracted another marriage before the respondent judge despite being legally married to the complainant. The judge claims he did not know of the prior marriage. However, the court ruled that long cohabitation does not sever a prior marriage and the judge should not have solemnized the bigamous marriage, even if the couple claimed to have cohabited for 7 years. The judge was not exempt from knowing about the prior legal impediment.

    Copyright:

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

    Herminia Borja-Manzano v. Judge Roque R. Sanchez

    Uploaded by

    Francise Mae Montilla Mordeno
    The complainant's late husband contracted another marriage before the respondent judge despite being legally married to the complainant. The judge claims he did not know of the prior marriage. However, the court ruled that long cohabitation does not sever a prior marriage and the judge should not have solemnized the bigamous marriage, even if the couple claimed to have cohabited for 7 years. The judge was not exempt from knowing about the prior legal impediment.

    Copyright:

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

    70. HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v.

    JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, respondent.


    A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329. March 8, 2001 Ruling:

    Topic: Marriages exempt from marriage license No. In Article 34 of the Family Code provides
    “No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man
    Facts: and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife
    for at least five years and without any legal impediment to
    Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano avers that she was marry each other.
    the lawful wife of the late David Manzano, having been
    married to him on 21 May 1966. Respondent Judge cannot take refuge on the
    Joint Affidavit of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao
    On 22 March 1993, however, her husband contracted stating that they had been cohabiting as husband and wife
    another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before for seven years.
    respondent Judge.
    Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with
    When respondent Judge solemnized said marriage, he another person for at least five years does not severe the
    knew or ought to know that the same was void and tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
    bigamous, as the marriage contract clearly stated that both
    contracting parties were “separated.” Marital cohabitation for a long period of time between two
    individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each
    Respondent Judge, on the other hand, claims in his other is merely a ground for exemption from
    Comment that when he officiated the marriage between marriage license. It could not serve as a justification for
    Manzano and Payao he did not know that Manzano was respondent Judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage
    legally married. vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage

    What he knew was that the two had been living together
    as husband and wife for seven years already without the
    benefit of marriage, as manifested 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, 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.

    Respondent Judge alleges that he agreed to solemnize the


    marriage in question in accordance with Article 34 of the
    Family Code.

    Issue:

    Is the reason of the respondent Judge in solemnizing the


    marriage valid?

    You might also like