Persons and Family Relations:
Digests by: John Glenn Lambayon
Dayot v. Dayot
Promulgated a month after De Castro.
Case:
Consolidated petition challenging the Court of Appeals decision
declaring the marriage between JOSE and FELISA void ab initio.
Facts:
 The marriage was solemnized under the Civil Code. The
applicable provision is Art. 76 on exceptional marriages, where
a marriage license is dispensed with by executing an affidavit of
cohabitation.
 In lieu of a marriage license, JOSE and FELISA executed an
affidavit attesting that both had attained the age of maturity, and
that being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and
wife for at least 5 years.
 JOSE filed for a complaint for annulment and/or declaration of
the nullity of marriage claiming the following things:
 No marriage ceremony was celebrated.
 His consent was secured through fraud.
 He did not execute the affidavit of cohabitation (stating that
JOSE and FELISA had lived as husband and wife for at least
5 years)
 FELISA opposed the complaint and defended the validity of the
marriage:
 Both FELISA and JOSE had maintained a relationship as man
and wife, without marriage, in the early part of 1980. The
marriage was only deferred on account of their age difference.
 While the marriage was subsisting, JOSE contracted a
marriage with RUFINA in August 1990.
 FELISA filed an action for bigamy against JOSE in June
1993.
Lower Courts Rulings:
 RTC ruled in favor of FELISA, stating that the marriage was
VALID.
 RTC said that JOSE should have been more prudent in
examining the documents he was made to sign. The fact that it
took him at least 3 months to ascertain the contents of the
documents was implausible.
 JOSE wrote FELISA as his wife in his SALN
 JOSE’s sister testified that she signed her name voluntarily as
a witness to the marriage. This kills/destroys JOSE’s claim
that his consent was secured through fraud.
  Being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and
 The Court of Appeals originally affirmed RTC’s decision but
later reversed it in favor of JOSE declaring the marriage was
VOID ab initio.
 JOSE’s central opposition was that the requisites for the
proper application of the exemption from a marriage license
under Art. 76 of the Civil Code was not attendant to the case
at bar.
 Specifically, Art. 76 provides for the “legal condition that the
man and woman must have been living together as husband
and wife for at least 5 years before the marriage.”
 JOSE basically says that the affidavit of cohabitation was
falsified.
 The Court of Appeals cited Ninal v. Badayog, stating that:
1. The 5-year period of cohabitation should be the years
immediately before that day of the marriage and it
should be a period of cohabitation characterized by
exclusivity… that it is unbroken.
 The Court of Appeals said that since the marriage was
solemnized without the requisite marriage license, it is
therefore void ab initio.
Issue:
Simply, whether the marriage between JOSE and FELISA is void ab
initio for being solemnized without a marriage license.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, like in De Castro, the Court answers
what is the impact of the falsification of the affidavit of marital
cohabitation on the validity of exceptional marriages (i.e. whether it
is a mere irregularity or a total failure to comply with the marriage
requisites).
Ruling:
The marriage is VOID AB INITIO for the falsification of the
affidavit of marital cohabitation.
The Court anchors its decision under Article 76 and 80 of the
Civil Code.
 There is no disputing the fact that the marriage was
celebrated under the Civil Code, which requires a marriage
license, except for marriages of exceptional character, for
the solemnization of marriages. Under Article 80 of the Civil
Code, a marriage performed without the corresponding
marriage license is void, this being nothing more than the
legitimate consequence flowing from the fact that the license
is the essence of a marriage contract.
 Exceptional marriages include the ratification of marital
cohabitation. This is provided under Art. 76:
 Art. 76, no marriage license shall be necessary when a man
and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who,
being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years, desire to marry each other….
Marriages of exceptional character, as the name suggests, are
exceptions to the rule on the dispensability of the formal
requisite of a marriage license. As a general rule, they should be
strictly but reasonably construed.
 The marriage between JOSE and FELISA is considered
exceptional in character because they availed of the exception
under Art. 76. In lieu of a marriage license, JOSE and FELISA
executed an affidavit of marital cohabitation.
 For Art. 76 of the Civil Code to apply, the following conditions
must be present:
 That the man and the woman must have attained the age of
majority; and
wife for at least 5 years.
 The Court said there is no other recourse but to read the law as it
is plainly written:
 The exception only applies to those who have lived together
as husband and wife for at least five years and desire to marry
each other.
 No other reading of the law can be had because the language
of Art. 76 is precise.
 The requisite 5-year cohabitation period is an indispensability
carved in the language of the law. It is embodied in the law
not as a directory requirement, but as one that partakes of a
mandatory character.
 IN THIS CASE, it is indubitable that JOSE and FELISA have
not lived together for five years at the time they executed their
sworn affidavit and contracted marriage
 In fact, JOSE and FELISA started living together only in June
1986 barely 5 months before the celebration of the marriage.
 Persons and Family Relations:
Digests by: John Glenn Lambayon
 The falsity of the affidavit executed is without question.
 THEREFORE, for the failure of the parties to comply with the
required period of cohabitation under Art. 76, the marriage was
effectively celebrated without a marriage license and thus VOID
AB INITIO.
 Persons and Family Relations:
Digests by: John Glenn Lambayon
The following are the points raised in the petition and the ruling
of the Court:
 According the Republic, the falsity of the statements in the
affidavit will not affect the validity of the marriage, since all the
essential and formal requisites were complied with.
 The Court said that this is WRONG. There is no disputing
that the marriage was celebrated license (in fact, they
executed an affidavit IN LIEU OF the marriage license).
However, both JOSE and FELISA failed to comply with the
EXPLICIT requirement under Article 76.

 According to FELISA and the Republic, the Court must hold the
presumption of marriage.
 The Court said that this is NOT APPLICABLE. Persons
dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the
absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the
case, to be in fact married. The present case does not
involve an apparent marriage to which the presumption
still needs to be applied.
 The marriage between JOSE and FELISA was entered into
without the requisite marriage license or compliance with the
stringent requirements of a marriage under exceptional
circumstance.

 According to the Republic, if a marriage under a license is not

invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained,
why must a marriage not be invalidated by a fabricated affidavit
of cohabitation?
 The Court said that when a license is wrongfully obtained,
this only refers to an IRREGULARITY of the marriage
license. In this case, there is NO marriage license at all.
 In fact the Court has said, the falsity of the allegation in the
sworn affidavit relating to the period of JOSE and FELISA’s
cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an
exception to the requirement of 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.
 Similar to De Castro, if the essential matter in the sworn
affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper
without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no
affidavit at all.