Scribd
Upload
23 views1 page

Jose Dayot's Marriage Void Ab Initio

Jose married Felisa in 1986 through an affidavit stating they lived together for 5 years, but they had only lived together for 5 months. Jose then married Rufina in 1990. Felisa filed a bigamy case against Jose in 1993. Jose argued his marriage to Felisa was void as they did not actually live together for 5 years as required. The Court of Appeals found the marriage between Jose and Felisa to be void from the beginning since they did not meet the 5-year cohabitation period required to waive the marriage license under Article 34 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

Uploaded by

Rich Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views1 page

Jose Dayot's Marriage Void Ab Initio

Jose married Felisa in 1986 through an affidavit stating they lived together for 5 years, but they had only lived together for 5 months. Jose then married Rufina in 1990. Felisa filed a bigamy case against Jose in 1993. Jose argued his marriage to Felisa was void as they did not actually live together for 5 years as required. The Court of Appeals found the marriage between Jose and Felisa to be void from the beginning since they did not meet the 5-year cohabitation period required to waive the marriage license under Article 34 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

Uploaded by

Rich Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

175581               March 28, 2008

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

FACTS:   On November 24, 1986, Jose and Felisa were married in Pasay City through the execution of a sworn
affidavit attesting that both of them had attained the age of maturity and that being unmarried, they had lived
together as husband and wife for at least five years. Then Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual on
August 31, 1990. On June 3, 1993 Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose.  Then 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. He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between
the parties; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife for
at least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud. The RTC rendered a Decision
dismissing the complaint for the ground that the testimonies and evidence presented, the marriage celebrated
between Jose and Felisa was valid. Jose filed an appeal from the foregoing RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals
the Court of Appeals did not accept Jose assertion that his marriage to Felisa was void ab initio for lack of a
marriage license.  Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. His central opposition was that the requisites for
the proper application of the exemption from a marriage license under Article 34 of the New Civil Code were not
fully attendant in the case at bar he cited 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. Essentially, he maintained that the affidavit
of marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Jose and Felisa is void ab initio?

RULING: Yes, it is void ab initio (void from the beginning) for lacking the requirements of 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. That according to the five-year common-law cohabitation period
under Article 34 “No license shall be necessary for the marriage for a man and a woman who have lived together
as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediments to marry each other… “ it means
that a five years period computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period of legal
union had it not been for the absence of a 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.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be
used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties. 

The Court of Appeals granted Joses Motion for Reconsideration and reversed itself. Accordingly, it rendered an
Amended Decision that the marriage between Jose A. Dayot and Felisa C. Tecson is void ab initio. 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.

You might also like