[PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS] Module 2 (#5)

Topic: Requisites of Marriage (Art. 1-34, Family Code)

Title: Republic v. Dayot G.R. 175581 and
Nos. 179474
Ponente: Date March 28, 2008
DOCTRIN -Article 80(3) of the Civil Code–marriages solemnized without a
E marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character, shall be void
/RIGHTS from the beginning;
APPLIED -Article 53 of the Civil Code–essential requisites; and
-Article76 of the Civil Code –explicit ratification of marital cohabitation
FACTS On 1993, Jose filed a complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage contending that their marriage was sham, as to no
ceremony was celebrated between them; that he did not execute the
sworn statement that he and Felisa had cohabited for at least five years;
and that his consent was secured through fraud. His sister, however,
testified as witness that Jose voluntarily gave his consent during their
marriage. The complaint was dismissed on Regional Trial Court stating
that Jose is deemed estopped from assailing the legality of his marriage
for lack of marriage license. It is claimed that Jose and Felisa had lived
together from 1986 to 1990, and that it took Jose seven years before he
sought the declaration of nullity; The RTC ruled that Jose’s action had
prescribe. It cited Art 87 of the New Civil Code which requires that the
action for annulment must be commenced by the injured party within
four years after the discovery of fraud. Jose appealed to the Court of
Appeals which rendered a decision declaring their marriage void ab
initio for absence of marriage license. Felisa sought a petition for
review praying that the Court of Appeal’s Amended decision be
reversed and set aside.
ISSUE/S 1. Whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the
parties have in truth fallen short of the minimum five-year
requirement., effectively renders the marriage voib an initio for lack of
marriage.
2. Whether or not the action for nullity prescribes as the case here
where Jose filed a complaint after seven years from contracting
marriage.
RULING 1. Yes. The intendment of law or fact leans towards the validity of
marriage, will not salvage the parties’ marriage, and extricate them from
the effect of a violation of the law. The Court protects the fabric of the
institution of marriage and at the same time wary of deceptive schemes
that violate the legal measures set forth in the law. The case cannot fall
under irregularity of the marriage license, what happens here is an absence
of marriage license which makes their marriage void for lack of one of the
essential requirement of a valid marriage.
2. SC held that an action for nullifying a marriage is imprescriptible. It may
be raised anytime. Jose and Felisa’s marriage was celebrated without a
[PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS] Module 2 (#1)

marriage license. No other conclusion can be reached except that it is void

ab initio.