REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner,vs. JOSE A. DAYOT, Respondent.

Republic versus Dayot

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Republic of the Philippines, joined by Felisa Tecson-Dayot, against Jose Dayot, asking the Supreme Court to set aside the amended decision of the Court of Appeals that declared the marriage between Jose and Felisa void from the beginning. The case matters because it settles the effect of a false affidavit of marital cohabitation used in place of a marriage license, and it teaches how strictly the exceptional marriages under the Civil Code must be construed. Every Bar candidate must know when a marriage celebrated without a license is valid and when it is void.

Procedural History

Jose filed a complaint for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, Branch 25. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding the marriage valid and ruling that any action for annulment on the ground of fraud had already prescribed. Jose appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated 11 August 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the marriage was solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code as a marriage of exceptional character, and that the falsity of the affidavit did not affect its validity. Jose moved for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, recalled and set aside its earlier decision, and rendered an amended decision dated 7 November 2006 declaring the marriage void from the beginning. Felisa sought reconsideration, which the appellate court denied. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, and Felisa filed a separate petition for review. The Supreme Court consolidated the two petitions.

Facts

On 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall, solemnized by Reverend Tomas V. Atienza. In lieu of a marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit dated the same day, attesting that both had attained the age of maturity and that, being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years.

Jose later claimed that the marriage was a sham. He said he was introduced to Felisa in 1986 and became a boarder in her house. Some three weeks later, Felisa asked him to accompany her to the Pasay City Hall to claim a package from her brother. There, a man approached them with folded papers, and Jose was told to sign them so the package could be released. He initially refused, but Felisa cajoled him and warned that his refusal could get them killed by her brother. He signed. He claimed he discovered the marriage contract only in February 1987.

Felisa denied these allegations and defended the marriage. She testified that they had lived together as husband and wife even before the marriage. She also alleged that while their marriage subsisted, Jose contracted marriage with Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990. Felisa filed a bigamy case against Jose, and an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, which found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct and suspended him for one year without emolument.

Issues

• Whether or not the falsity of the affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties had not in truth lived together for at least five years, renders the marriage void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license.
• Whether or not the marriage between Jose and Felisa is valid despite the absence of a marriage license.

Applicable Provisions

Article 53 of the Civil Code provides:

No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (2) Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.

This provision establishes the marriage license as a formal requisite, subject only to the exception of marriages of exceptional character.

Article 76 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the exception invoked by Jose and Felisa, and the case turns on whether its requirements were truly met.

Article 80 of the Civil Code provides:

A marriage solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character, shall be void from the beginning.

This is the provision that makes the absence of a license fatal when the exception does not apply.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court answered in the affirmative. The falsity of the affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties had not lived together for at least five years, renders the marriage void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license. The Court held that marriages of exceptional character are exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of a marriage license, and under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions should be strictly but reasonably construed. They extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception. For the exception in Article 76 to apply, it is a necessary condition that the man and the woman must have attained the age of majority, and that, being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The Court stressed that the minimum period of five years of cohabitation is a mandatory requirement, not a directory one, and cannot be dispensed with.

The Court found it indubitably established that Jose and Felisa had not lived together for five years at the time they executed the affidavit and contracted marriage. The Republic itself admitted that they started living together only in June 1986, barely five months before the marriage. The Court also noted Felisa's testimony that Jose was introduced to her in February or March 1986, and that he began living in her house only in June 1986. Thus, the falsity of the affidavit was beyond question.

On the second issue, the Court held that the marriage is void. The Republic argued that the falsity of the statements in the affidavit did not affect the validity of the marriage because all essential and formal requisites were complied with, and that the solemnizing officer was not required to investigate the affidavit. The Court rejected this, holding that the marriage was celebrated without the formal requisite of a marriage license, and that Jose and Felisa did not meet the explicit legal requirement of five years of cohabitation. Since the marriage was not covered by the exception, it is void from the beginning because of the absence of a marriage license.

Doctrine

A marriage celebrated without a marriage license is void from the beginning, save marriages of exceptional character. The exception under Article 76 of the Civil Code requires, as a mandatory condition, that the man and the woman have attained the age of majority and, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. This five-year cohabitation period is counted immediately before the day of the marriage and must be characterized by exclusivity and continuity. If the parties falsely state in their affidavit that they have lived together for five years when in truth they have not, the exception does not apply, and the marriage is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license. Exceptions to the requirement of a marriage license are strictly but reasonably construed, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the general rule requiring a license.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petitions of the Republic of the Philippines and Felisa Tecson-Dayot, and affirmed the amended decision of the Court of Appeals declaring the marriage between Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson void from the beginning.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 76 of the Civil Code is mandatory, and a false affidavit cannot cure its absence, so the marriage is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license. Examiners like to use this case to test the strict construction of exceptional marriages and the effect of a false affidavit of marital cohabitation.