HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, 

petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan, respondent.

Article 63(1) of the Family Code allows spouses who have obtained a
DOCTRINE:
decree of legal separation to live separately from each other, but in
such a case the marriage bonds are not severed.

FACTS:
Manzano, the complainant, claims to be the rightful wife of the late David Manzano,
whom she married on May 21, 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish, Araneta Avenue,
Caloocan City. Before respondent Judge, her spouse married another woman named
Luzviminda Payao. Respondent Judge knew or should have known that the marriage was void
and bigamous when he solemnized it, because the marriage contract plainly specified that
both contractual parties were "separated."

In his Comment, respondent Judge Sanchez states that he had no idea Manzano was
legally married when he officiated the marriage between him and Payao. What he did know
was that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years without the
benefit of marriage, as their joint affidavit demonstrated.

He then asked for the complaint to be dismissed on the grounds that it lacked validity
and was only intended to bother him. The Court Administrator recommended that respondent
Judge be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined P2,000, with a warning that
repeating the same or similar acts would result in harsher punishment.

Manzano responded affirmatively. Judge Sanchez filed a Manifestation in which he

reiterated his request for the complaint to be dismissed and set aside his earlier Comment.
Both David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao declared explicitly in their affidavits that they
were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, respectively. They had both left their
families and had never cohabited or corresponded with their husbands after their respective
marriages had been marred by incessant quarrels.

We find merit in the complaint. Not all of these requirements are present in the case
at bar. Also, in their marriage contract, it was indicated that both were "separated." Judge
Sanchez knew or ought to know that a subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment,
which would make the subsequent marriage null and void.

 diriment impediment - a factor which invalidates a marriage, such as the existence of a

prior marriage

The fact that ManzaManzano answered in the affirmative. Judge Sanchez filed a
Manifestation reiterating his plea for the dismissal of the complaint and setting aside his
earlier Comment. . In those affidavits, both David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao expressly
stated that they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, respectively. Their
respective marriages had been marked by constant quarrels, they had both left their families
and had never cohabited or communicated with their spouses anymore.
no and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses for a long time
already is immaterial. Elsewise stated, legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie,
much less authorize the parties to remarry.

Neither can respondent Judge take refuge on the Joint Affidavit of David Manzano
and Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been cohabiting as husband and wife for seven
years. 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.
Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous
marriage.

The Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge be found guilty of

gross ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge alleges that he agreed to solemnize the
marriage in question in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the marriage in question is void?

2. Whether or not respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he
solemnized the marriage in question?

HELD:

1. Yes,The marriage of Manzano and Payao is void and null. It makes no difference that
Manzano and Payao had been living separately from their respective spouses for a long time.
Article 63(1) of the Family Code permits spouses who have obtained a legal separation decree
to live separately from one another, although the marriage bonds remain intact. Legal
separation, on the other hand, does not sever the marriage bond, nor does it allow the parties
to remarry.
2. Yes, when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage, respondent Judge shown a
complete lack of legal knowledge. The adage "ignorance of the law excuses no one" applies
especially to judges, who, according to Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, should
exemplify competence, honesty, and independence. It is critical for judges to be well-versed
in the law and basic legal principles. And when the law broken is simple and basic, failure to
recognize it demonstrates willful ignorance of the law. Respondent Judge was aware of, or
should have been aware of, the fact that an existing previous marriage is a diriment obstacle,
rendering the following marriage null and void.