Borja-Manzano vs.

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

FACTS: The wife was married to his husband on May 21, 1966. They had four children. On
March 22, 1993, the husband contracted another marriage before a respondent Judge. The
respondent Judge solemnized the second marriage despite the clear indication in the marriage
certificate that both contracting parties were separated, hence, the subsequent marriage
should be void and bigamous. The wife charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law. The
judge claimed that he had no knowledge of the prior existing marriage, but only the
cohabitation of the two parties for seven years as manifested in their joint affidavit.

ISSUES: (1) Can the respondent judge be convicted of gross ignorance of the law for solemnizing
the second marriage of the husband despite knowledge on his prior existing marriage?

(2) Should not the second marriage be valid on the ground that both contracting parties
cohabited for 7 years and were already separated with previous marriages?

HELD: (1) Yes. Respondent judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized
a void and bigamous marriage. The maxim ignorance of the law excuses no one has special
application to judges, who, under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, should be the
embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

(2) No. The fact that both contracting parties had been living apart from their respective
spouses for a long time already is immaterial. Article 63(1) of the Family Code 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. This holds true all the more when the separation is
merely de facto, as in the case at bar. Likewise, although marital cohabitation for a long period
of time is a ground for exemption from marriage license, this only holds true to those who are
legally capacitated to marry each other and without impediment of a prior existing marriage.