Republic vs.

Dayot

GR No. 175581, March 28, 2008

FACTS:

Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on
November 24, 1986. In lieu of a marriage license, they executed a
sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5years. On
August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual.
They were both employees of the National Statistics and
Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an action for
bigamy against Jose and an administrative complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman. On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint on
July 1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of marriage
where he contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham and his
consent was secured through fraud.

ISSUE: Whether or not Joses marriage with Felisa is valid considering

that they executed a sworn affidavit in lieu of the marriage license
requirement.

HELD:

CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived

together for five years at the time they executed their sworn affidavit
and contracted marriage. Jose and Felisa started living together only
in June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration of their
marriage on November 1986. Findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear

violation of the law and invalidates a marriage. Furthermore, the
falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period
of Jose and Felisas cohabitation, which would have qualified their
marriage as an exception to the requirement for a marriage license,
cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that
the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the
parties under oath. Hence, Jose and Felisas marriage is void ab
initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity of marriage is
imprescriptible. The right to impugn marriage does not prescribe
and may be raised any time.