You are on page 1of 1

Republic of the Philippines vs Jose A.

Dayot
GR No. 175581 March 8! ""8
#act of the $ase%
On November 24, 1986 Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City
all! "n lie# o$ a marria%e li&ense, they e'e&#ted a sworn a$$idavit attestin% that both o$
them are le%ally &a(a&itated and that they &ohabited $or atleast $ive years when in $a&t
they only barely )nown ea&h other sin&e Febr#ary 1986! On 199*, Jose $iled a &om(laint
$or +nn#lment and,or De&laration o$ N#llity o$ -arria%e &ontendin% that their marria%e
was sham, as to no &eremony was &elebrated between them. that he did not e'e&#te the
sworn statement that he and Felisa had &ohabited $or atleast $ive years. and that his
&onsent was se&#red thro#%h $ra#d! is sister, however, testi$ied as witness that Jose
vol#ntarily %ave his &onsent d#rin% their marria%e! /he &om(laint was dismissed on
0e%ional /rial Co#rt statin% that Jose is deemed esto((ed $rom assailin% the le%ality o$
his marria%e $or la&) o$ marria%e li&ense! "t is &laimed that Jose and Felisa had lived
to%ether $rom 1986 to 1991, and that it too) Jose seven years be$ore he so#%ht the
de&laration o$ n#llity. /he 0/C r#led that Jose2s a&tion had (res&ribe! "t &ited +rt 83 o$
the New Civil Code whi&h re4#ires that the a&tion $or ann#lment m#st be &ommen&ed by
the in5#red (arty within $o#r years a$ter the dis&overy o$ $ra#d! Jose a((ealed to the Co#rt
o$ +((eals whi&h rendered a de&ision de&larin% their marria%e void ab initio $or absen&e
o$ marria%e li&ense! Felisa so#%ht a (etition $or review (rayin% that the Co#rt o$ +((eal2s
+mended de&ision be reversed and set aside!
&ssue%
617 8hether the $alsity o$ an a$$idavit o$ marital &ohabitation, where the (arties
have in tr#th $allen short o$ the minim#m $ive9year re4#irement!, e$$e&tively
renders the marria%e voib an initio $or la&) o$ marria%e!
627 8hether or not the a&tion $or n#llity (res&ribes as the &ase here where Jose
$iled a &om(laint a$ter seven years $rom &ontra&tin% marria%e!
'el(%
617:es! /he intendment o$ law or $a&t leans towards the validity o$ marria%e, will
not salva%e the (arties2 marria%e, and e'tri&ate them $rom the e$$e&t o$ a violation o$ the
law! /he Co#rt (rote&ts the $abri& o$ the instit#tion o$ marria%e and at the same time wary
o$ de&e(tive s&hemes that violate the le%al meas#res set $orth in the law! /he &ase &annot
$all #nder irre%#larity o$ the marria%e li&ense, what ha((ens here is an absen&e o$
marria%e li&ense whi&h ma)es their marria%e void $or la&) o$ one o$ the essential
re4#irement o$ a valid marria%e!
627 No! +n a&tion $or n#llity is im(res&ri(tible! Jose and Felisa2s marria%e was
&elebrated san a marria%e li&ense! /he ri%ht to im(#%n a void marria%e does not
(res&ribe!