TOPIC: MARRIAGE LICENSE; WHEN NOT REQUIRED

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE DAYOT

G.R No. 179474

FACTS:

Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson married each other in November 1986. Their marriage was without
a marriage license because they executed a Joint Affidavit of Cohabitation whereby they declared
that prior to their intended marriage, they have been cohabiting as husband and wife for at least 5
years (as required by law). In July 1993 however, Jose Dayot filed a Complaint for Annulment of
Marriage and/or declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Felisa on the ground that in February
1987, he found out that he was defrauded by Felisa into signing a marriage contract and other
documents which pertain to their marriage. He claimed that no marriage ceremony happened and
that when he signed the marriage documents, he thought he was signing documents for the
delivery of certain packages to Felisa.

The Regional Trial Court denied Dayot’s complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
RTC as it ruled that Dayot’s action was already barred by prescription. The CA ratiocinated that an
action for annulment based on fraud must be raised within four years from the date of discovery as
per the Civil Code.

Dayot filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the exemption from obtaining a
marriage license – that they had cohabited for at least five years as husband and wife prior to the
marriage – was not really complied with. Dayot asserted the falsity of the Affidavit of Cohabitation
as in fact, they only began cohabiting in June 1986 or about five months before their marriage in
November 1986. This time, the CA ruled in favor of Dayot.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between Dayot and Felisa is Void Ab Initio.

RULING:

YES. It was established that indeed, Dayot and Felisa only began cohabiting in June 1986. Hence,
when they married in November 1986, they had not cohabited for at least five years to warrant
their exemption from obtaining a marriage license. Since the content of their affidavit of
cohabitation is a falsity, they were not exempt from obtaining a marriage license before marrying
each other. Their marriage is thus void ab initio. An action to annul a void ab initio marriage does
not prescribe, thus, Dayot was not estopped from questioning the validity of the marriage even if
he filed the complaint only in 1993.