REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO, Petitioner, vs.

ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE
CASTRO, Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioner and respondent met and became sweethearts in 1991. They applied
for a marriage license with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig City in September
1994. hen the co!ple went bac" to the Office of the Civil Registrar# the marriage
license had already e$pired. Th!s# in order to p!sh thro!gh with the plan# in lie! of a
marriage license# they e$ec!ted a false affidavit dated 1% &arch 199' stating that they
had been living together as h!sband and wife for at least five years. The co!ple got
married on the same date# with (!dge (ose C. )ernabe# presiding *!dge of the
&etropolitan Trial Co!rt of Pasig City# administering the civil rites. +evertheless# after
the ceremony# petitioner and respondent went bac" to their respective homes and did not
live together as h!sband and wife.
On 1% +ovember 199'# respondent gave birth to a child named Reinna Tricia ,. -e
Castro. On 4 (!ne 199.# respondent filed a complaint for s!pport against petitioner before
the Regional Trial Co!rt of Pasig City. /n her complaint# respondent alleged that she is
married to petitioner and that the latter has 0reneged on his responsibility1obligation to
financially s!pport her 0as his wife and Reinna Tricia as his child.2 Petitioner denied that
he is married to respondent# claiming that their marriage is void ab initio since the
marriage was facilitated by a fa"e affidavit3 and that he was merely prevailed !pon by
respondent to sign the marriage contract to save her from embarrassment and possible
administrative prosec!tion d!e to her pregnant state3 and that he was not able to get
parental advice from his parents before he got married. 4e also averred that they never
lived together as h!sband and wife and that he has never seen nor ac"nowledged the
child.
The trial co!rt r!led that the marriage between petitioner and respondent is not valid
beca!se it was solemni5ed witho!t a marriage license. 4owever# it declared petitioner as
the nat!ral father of the child# and th!s obliged to give her s!pport. The Co!rt of
,ppeals denied the appeal. Prompted by the r!le that a marriage is pres!med to be
s!bsisting !ntil a *!dicial declaration of n!llity has been made# the appellate co!rt
declared that the child was born d!ring the s!bsistence and validity of the parties6
marriage. /n addition# the Co!rt of ,ppeals frowned !pon petitioner6s ref!sal to !ndergo
-+, testing to prove the paternity and filiation# as well as his ref!sal to state with
certainty the last time he had carnal "nowledge with respondent# saying that petitioner6s
0forgetf!lness sho!ld not be !sed as a vehicle to relieve him of his obligation and reward
him of his being irresponsible.2 &oreover# the Co!rt of ,ppeals noted the affidavit dated
7 ,pril 199. e$ec!ted by petitioner# wherein he vol!ntarily admitted that he is the
legitimate father of the child. The appellate co!rt also r!led that since this case is an
action for s!pport# it was improper for the trial co!rt to declare the marriage of petitioner
and respondent as n!ll and void in the very same case. There was no participation of the
State# thro!gh the prosec!ting attorney or fiscal# to see to it that there is no coll!sion
between the parties# as re8!ired by the 9amily Code in actions for declaration of n!llity
of a marriage. The b!rden of proof to show that the marriage is void rests !pon
petitioner# b!t it is a matter that can be raised in an action for declaration of n!llity# and
not in the instant proceedings.
ISSE: hether of not their marriage is valid.
HELD: :nder the 9amily Code# the absence of any of the essential or formal re8!isites
shall render the marriage void ab initio# whereas a defect in any of the essential re8!isites
shall render the marriage voidable. /n the instant case# it is clear from the evidence
presented that petitioner and respondent did not have a marriage license when they
contracted their marriage. /nstead# they presented an affidavit stating that they had been
living together for more than five years. 4owever# respondent herself in effect admitted
the falsity of the affidavit when she was as"ed d!ring cross;e$amination. The falsity of
the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irreg!larity in the formal re8!isites of
marriage. The law dispenses with the marriage license re8!irement for a man and a
woman who have lived together and e$cl!sively with each other as h!sband and wife for
a contin!o!s and !nbro"en period of at least five years before the marriage. The aim of
this provision is to avoid e$posing the parties to h!miliation# shame and embarrassment
concomitant with the scandalo!s cohabitation of persons o!tside a valid marriage d!e to
the p!blication of every applicant6s name for a marriage license. /n the instant case# there
was no 0scandalo!s cohabitation2 to protect3 in fact# there was no cohabitation at all. The
false affidavit which petitioner and respondent e$ec!ted so they co!ld p!sh thro!gh with
the marriage has no val!e whatsoever3 it is a mere scrap of paper. They were not e$empt
from the marriage license re8!irement. Their fail!re to obtain and present a marriage
license renders their marriage void ab initio.