Republic vs.

Dayot
GR No. 175581, March 28, 2008
FACTS:
On July 1993, Jose filed for annulment/declaration of absolute nullity of his marriage
with Dayot. In his complaint, he stated that after 3 weeks of being
acquainted, Felisa Dayot asked him to accompany her to Pasay City Hall to claim a
package sent by her brother. Upon their arrival, they were told that Jose needed to
sign 3 folded papers so that the package could be released. Jose was hesitant but
still signed, because Felisa told him that his refusal can get the both of them killed.
Jose contracted marriage with Rufina Pascual. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an

RTC ruled that Felisa and Joses marriage

is valid, stating that the latters action had prescribed because an
action for annulment of marriage must be commenced by the
injured party within four years after the discovery of the fraud.
action for bigamy against Jose.

ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in stating that Joses action for annulment prescribed,
declaring his marriage with Felisa, valid.

HELD: The appellate court ruled the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit
relating to the period of Jose and Felisas cohabitation, which would have qualified
their marriage as an exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot be
a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely
required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. Hence, Jose and
Felisas marriage is void ab initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity of
marriage is imprescriptible. The right to impugn marriage does not prescribe and
may be raised any time.