Republic vs.

Dayot
FACTS:
Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on November 24, 1986. In
lieu of a marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit that they had lived
together for at least 5years. On August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with a
certain Rufina Pascual. They were both employees of the National Statistics and
Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an action for bigamy against Jose
and an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. On the other
hand, Jose filed a complaint on July 1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity
of marriage where he contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham and his
consent was secured through fraud.
ISSUE: Whether or not Joses marriage with Felisa is valid considering that they
executed a sworn affidavit in lieu of the marriage license requirement.
HELD:
CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years
at the time they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. Jose and
Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely five months before the
celebration of their marriage on November 1986. Findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.
The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law
and invalidates a marriage. Furthermore, 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.