Case Name Republic v Dayot

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 175581 | March 28, 2008

Topic Marriages exempt from license requirement
Doctrine Article 76 of the NCC, “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…”
Parties involved G.R. No. 175881 G.R. No. 179474

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. FELISA TECSON-DAYOT, petitioner, vs. JOSE A.
JOSE A. DAYOT, respondent DAYOT, respondent
Ponente CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
General Summary On November 24, 1986, five months after they first met, Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson-Dayot
got married without a marriage license. They signed a sworn statement on the same day
indicating that they had both reached adulthood, and that being unmarried, they had been
living as husband and wife for at least five years. Jose filed a complaint for
Annulment/Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on July 23, 1993. He claimed that because there
was no wedding ceremony between the two of them, his marriage to Felisa was a fraud. He
also claimed that he did not sign the sworn document attesting to the fact that he and Felisa
had been together for at least five years.

Felisa asserted that Jose only sought the annulment of their marriage after a criminal case for
bigamy and an administrative case had
been filed against him in order to avoid liability. The court ruled that Jose and Felisa's
marriage was null and void because, in contrast to their sworn affidavit, they did not meet the
NCC Article 76 condition of living together for five years prior to being married.

Facts
● On November 24, 1986, Felisa Tecson-Dayot and Jose Dayot were married and declared a sworn statement that
they were both of legal age to marry and that, while they were both single, they had been cohabitating for at
least five years. As a result, they were able to get married without a license
● On August 30, 1991, Jose contracted a marriage with Rufina Pascual
● On June 3, 1993, Felisa filed a case of bigamy against Jose
● On July 7, 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Biñan, Laguna
● Jose’s arguments:
o He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated
between the parties
o He claimed that he did not execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband
and wife for at least five years
o He contended that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud
● The RTC issued a decision dismissing the case on the grounds that, according to the testimony and evidence
offered, Jose and Felisa's marriage was valid.
● Jose appealed the previous RTC ruling to the Court of Appeals
● The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s decision as they did not accept Jose’s assertion that his marriage to Felisa
was void ab initio (void from the beginning) for lack of a marriage license
● Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the following arguments:
o He maintained that the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false
o His central opposition was that the requisites for the proper application of the exemption from a
marriage license under Article 76 of the New Civil Code were not fully attendant in the case at bar
Article 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. The contracting parties shall
 state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The official, priest or minister who
solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the
contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. (n)
o Maintaining his claim that the marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false, he argued that
the legal condition that the man and the woman must have been living together as husband and wife for
at least five years before the marriage (Article 76 of NCC) was not applicable

● The Court of Appeals RECALLED and SET ASIDE the first decision and ruled that the marriage was void ab initio

Summary of Rulings (from Pamana Case Digest):

o Ombudsman: Jose was found administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct and was
suspended from service for 1 year without emolument.
o RTC: Dismissed complaint. Ruled that the marriage was valid.
o Court of Appeals:
1) Affirmed RTC’s decision.
2) Upon Jose’s Motion for Reconsideration – Recalled and set aside the first decision – ruled that the
marriage was VOID AB INITIO.

● Hence, this petition was filed against Jose Dayot

Issue/s
● W/n the marriage between Jose and Felisa is void ab initio given that the affidavit of marital cohabitation is
falsified as the parties haven’t lived together for at least five years.

Ruling
Yes. it is void ab initio (void from the beginning) for lacking the requirements of a valid marriage in which the
sworn affidavit that Felisa executed is merely a scrap of paper because they started living together five months
before the celebration of their marriage. 

WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 7 November 2006 in
CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, declaring the marriage of Jose Dayot to Felisa Tecson-Dayot void ab initio, is AFFIRMED, without
prejudice to their criminal liability, if any. No costs.

Reasoning
● According to the five-year common-law cohabitation period under Article 76 of the NCC “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…” Hence, it means
that a five-year period is computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period of the
legal union had it not been for the absence of marriage. It covers the years immediately preceding the day of the
marriage, characterized by exclusivity, meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years, and
continuity that is unbroken.
● It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the time they executed
their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. The Republic admitted that Jose and Felisa started living together
only in June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration of their marriage.
● The falsity of the affidavit dated November 24, 1986, executed by Jose and Felisa to exempt them from the
requirement of a marriage license, is beyond question.

Separate Opinions (if any)

● N/a
Relevance to the topic
● Article 76 of the NCC is a crucial requirement for solemnizing the marriage. Hence, the solemnization of a
marriage without a prior license is an obvious legal breach and would result in or at the very least be used for
fraud against innocent and unaware individuals. Take this case, for example, should Felisa and Jose undergo the
rightful process of marriage without falsifying their affidavit of marital cohabitation, their marriage would be
considered valid.