Void Marriage: Falsifying Cohabitation to Bypass Marriage License Requirements

The Supreme Court has ruled that a marriage celebrated without a marriage license is void from the beginning if the parties relied on a false affidavit claiming they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The case of Republic v. Dayot (G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008) clarifies that the exemption from the marriage license requirement under Article 76 of the Civil Code is strict—parties cannot fabricate the cohabitation period to circumvent the law.

The Facts of the Case

Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson were married on 24 November 1986 at the Pasay City Hall. Instead of securing a marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit stating that, being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. This affidavit was used in lieu of the license under Article 76 of the Civil Code.

Jose later filed a complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of marriage. He claimed the marriage was a sham—that no real ceremony took place, that he did not voluntarily execute the affidavit, and that his consent was obtained through fraud. He alleged that Felisa tricked him into signing papers at the city hall under the pretense of claiming a package.

The trial court dismissed Jose's complaint, ruling the marriage valid. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed, but later reversed itself on reconsideration, declaring the marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. Both the Republic and Felisa appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: False Affidavit Under Article 76

The central question was whether the falsity of the affidavit of marital cohabitation—where the parties had not actually lived together for the required five years—renders the marriage void for lack of a marriage license.

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.

The Ruling: Strict Construction of Exceptions

The Court emphasized that Article 76 of the Civil Code is an exception to the general rule requiring a marriage license. As an exception, it must be strictly construed. The law is precise: the exemption applies only to couples who have attained the age of majority and, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years.

In this case, the evidence showed that Jose and Felisa began living together only in June 1986—barely five months before their marriage in November 1986. They fell far short of the five-year requirement. The Court found that the affidavit was false, and a false affidavit is "but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect." It was as if no affidavit existed at all.

Why the Marriage Was Void

The Court reasoned that since the marriage was celebrated without a marriage license and without valid compliance with the Article 76 exception, it fell under Article 80(3) of the Civil Code, which declares void marriages solemnized without a license, except those of exceptional character.

The Court also rejected arguments based on the presumption of marriage validity and estoppel. An action for nullity of a void marriage is imprescriptible—it can be raised at any time. The Court further noted that the five-year cohabitation period must be computed back from the date of marriage, must be exclusive (no third party involved), and must be continuous and unbroken. This standard was established in the earlier case of Niñal v. Bayadog (384 Phil. 661).

Practical Takeaways

• The five-year cohabitation rule is strict. To validly marry without a license under Article 76 of the Civil Code, the couple must have actually lived together as husband and wife for at least five continuous and exclusive years immediately before the marriage.
• A false affidavit cannot substitute for a marriage license. Falsifying the cohabitation period in the affidavit does not merely make the marriage irregular—it makes it void from the beginning.
• Void marriages can be challenged anytime. There is no prescriptive period to file an action for declaration of nullity of a void marriage, unlike annulment cases which have specific deadlines.
• The exemption is interpreted narrowly. Courts resolve doubts in favor of the general rule requiring a marriage license, not in favor of the exception.
• Criminal liability may still attach. A declaration of nullity does not automatically absolve parties from potential criminal liability for their actions in securing the marriage.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.