REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BOOTS RODEL AGUIRRE AND ALMA T. AGUIRRE, RESPONDENTS.

Republic versus Aguirre

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against Boots Rodel Aguirre and Alma Aguirre. The Republic asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the trial court's declaration that the marriage of Boots and Alma is void from the beginning because it was celebrated without a marriage license. The case matters because it tests the exact boundaries of the only exception to the marriage license requirement — the five-year cohabitation exemption — and because it settles whether a false affidavit of cohabitation can ever take the place of a license. It is a case about the formal requisites of marriage, the strict construction of exceptions, and the State's stake in the inviolability of marriage.

Procedural History

Boots filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Antique, Branch 11, seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Alma for lack of a marriage license. Summons and copies of the petition were served on Alma, but she did not file an Answer. Acting on the trial court's directive, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique investigated whether there was collusion between the parties and reported that there was none.

In its Judgment, the trial court found the Affidavit of Cohabitation false and held that the parties did not meet the five-year cohabitation requirement. It declared the marriage void from the beginning for lack of a formal requisite, a valid marriage license, and ordered the cancellation of the Certificate of Marriage. The trial court denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court. The appellate court held that the parties did not qualify for the exemption because there was no proof of continuous and exclusive cohabitation for five years immediately preceding the marriage, and it characterized the false affidavit as a mere scrap of paper. It also rejected the argument that Boots was estopped from questioning the affidavit, noting that actions for nullity of marriage are imprescriptible. The Court of Appeals denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration. Hence, the Republic filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

Boots left for Israel on May 24, 2006, to work, and remained there until May 3, 2009, when he returned to the Philippines to marry Alma. To facilitate their marriage without a license, they executed an Affidavit of Cohabitation on May 6, 2009, attesting that they had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. On May 8, 2009, they were married at Saint Joseph Cathedral in San Jose de Buenavista, Antique, and the solemnizing priest certified that the marriage was solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code, exempting them from the license requirement.

After the wedding, Boots and Alma lived together until June 2, 2009, when Boots returned to Israel. They communicated for about two months and then ceased contact. On March 19, 2013, Boots filed a petition to declare the marriage void for lack of a marriage license, asserting that the Affidavit of Cohabitation was false because he had been abroad from May 2006 to June 2009.

The evidence showed that from 2001 to 2004, before his departure, Boots and Alma were dating exclusively but lived separately. At most, they temporarily stayed together in a boarding house in Jaro, Iloilo City, sharing the same room with his brother, his cousins, and her cousins. They did not conduct themselves as husband and wife, and they were not residents of the place stated in their Affidavit of Cohabitation. From 2005 to 2009, Boots was in Israel and had no intention of returning to live with Alma.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the nullification of the marriage upon the finding that the Affidavit of Cohabitation was false and could not serve as basis for the exemption from the marriage license requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code.
• Whether or not the period during which Boots was abroad for work should be counted in the five-year cohabitation period required by Article 34 of the Family Code.
• Whether or not Boots is estopped from questioning the truthfulness of the Affidavit of Cohabitation that he himself executed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 3 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

This provision establishes that a valid marriage license is a formal requisite, so that its absence renders the marriage void unless an exception applies.

Article 34 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment 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 solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.

This is the exception invoked by the parties, and the case turns on whether they truly lived together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage.

Article 35 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians; (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; (3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter; (4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41; (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and (6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

This provision supplies the consequence: a marriage solemnized without a license, and not covered by the exception, is void from the beginning.

Ruling

The Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that the marriage was void because it was celebrated without a marriage license and the parties did not fall within the Article 34 exception. The Court explained that the exception must be strictly construed, and that a false affidavit of cohabitation renders the marriage void, because to permit a false affidavit to take the place of a marriage license is an abject circumvention of the law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the five-year cohabitation period must be exclusive and continuous, reckoned from the date immediately preceding the celebration of the marriage. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity — that is unbroken.

The Court acknowledged that temporary absence does not interrupt continuity where the separation is by mutual consent or for convenience, health, or business, and there is no intention to abandon. But here, Boots' absence was not merely temporary: he had no intention to return to the Philippines to live with Alma, and there was no evidence that they deported themselves as husband and wife while he was abroad. Their living arrangement while dating was separate, and their occasional stays together were shared with relatives. The Court also relied on Boots' admissions against his interest, which could expose him to liability for perjury, and held that these statements may be given probative weight.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the claim of estoppel. Actions for nullity of marriage are imprescriptible, and the falsity of the affidavit cannot be cured by the fact that Boots executed it. The Court distinguished this case from Laguda versus Manguardia, where the petitioner gave inconsistent accounts and there was proof that the putative husband regularly returned home to his wife.

Doctrine

A valid marriage license is a formal requisite of marriage, and a marriage celebrated without one is void from the beginning under Article 35 of the Family Code, except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of the same Title. The exception in Article 34 requires that the man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. That five-year period is reckoned from the date immediately preceding the celebration of the marriage and must be exclusive, meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years, and continuous, meaning the period is unbroken. Temporary absence or physical separation does not interrupt continuity only if the separation was by mutual consent or for convenience, health, or business, and there is no intention to abandon or desert the other. The exception is strictly construed, and a false affidavit of cohabitation is a mere scrap of paper that cannot substitute for a marriage license; a marriage founded on such a false declaration is void. Finally, an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage is imprescriptible, and a party is not estopped from questioning the falsity of an affidavit of cohabitation that he himself executed.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution were affirmed; the marriage of Boots and Alma was declared void from the beginning for lack of a valid marriage license.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Article 34 exemption requires five years of exclusive and unbroken cohabitation immediately before the marriage, and a false affidavit of cohabitation is a mere scrap of paper that cannot replace a marriage license. Examiners like to use this case in questions on the formal requisites of marriage, the strict construction of exceptions, and whether a party may be estopped from attacking his own affidavit of cohabitation.