REP v Dayot- Marriage License

Issue: WON the false affidavit of affirming 5 years of cohabitation w/o a

marriage license render the marriage void?
Fact
Respondent, Jose allege that he married Felisa on Nov 24 1986 at Pasig
Hall on account of Felisa, his landlady, deceiving him into signing a
marriage certificate which he thought was a package from her brother.
Felisa instead claim that they where in a live in relationship since 1986.
In line of a marriage License he allege that the executed affidavit
attesting marriage for 5 years was not executed by him. Jose later
married Rufino on 1990 both employed in the National Statistic
Coordination Board. Felisa filed a complaint on Bigamy and Admin
complaint in the Ombudsman Office. RTC denied Joses petition for
declation of nullity of marriage stating that no person in right mind will
sign a blank page without thinking something is amiss. They further
states that the sister of Jose attest being a witness to the marriage and
the claim of fraud unlikely since he acknowledge Felisa as the wife
under duly notarized statement of asset and liabilities, and in his
company I.D. wrote her name as person to contact in case of
emergency. CA affirmed decision stating even if fraud was present
prescription for filing has already occurred given that he had only 5
years upon discovery of fraud according to Art 87 (4)(5) of Civil Code
which is Feb 1991 and he had filed on Feb 1993. Upon motion to
reconsider CA reversed the decision on account of lack of marriage
license the marriage is declared null and void.
Ruling: YES. Under art 53 No marriage shall be solemnized unless
requisites fulfilled and (4) states a marriage license except in
marriage of exceptional character. Under Art 76 spouses without
marriage license may marry provided they have lived together for 5
years. According to the petitioner and Felisa testimony, the live in
began June 1986, which was barely 5 months from the celebration of
marriage on November 1986. A fabrication in the affidavit does not
constitute a mere irregularity but is invalidating one of the formal
requisite of marriage which is marriage license and a fabricated
affidavit has no effect or as if the affidavit had not been made at all.
The statement that Jose is estoppel from announcing nullity of
marriage since it took him 7 years to file such declaration from the RTC
is erroneous since a declaration of nullity has no prescription.
To apply Art 76, live in must be computed together for 5 years from the
celebration of marriage and within 5 years no 3rd part was involved
continuous and unbroken. As such, It is clear that the declaration of

nullity making respondents marriage void is affirmed and petition is

denied.
Go-Bangyan v Bangyan
Facts: Respondent, Benjamin, married Azucena on Sept 10 1973 and
had 3 children and the latter left to US on 1981. Respondent then
became romantically involved with the petitioner, Sally, on 1979 and
started to live together on Feb 1982. To appease petitioners father,
they signed a marriage contract but did not have it registered on
March 1982. They had 2 children in their cohabitation. Eventually their
relationship fell apart and the petitioner filed a case for bigamy false
public documents providing the simulated contract of marriage as
evidence. Benjamin filed a declaration of nullity on account of a lack of
a marriage license. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner since the certificate
of the local civil registrar of pasig city attest that their attest number
does is not recorded in the registrar and the National Statistics Office
since subsisting marriage of Azucena still present. Ca affirmed decision
with modification on parties property. Petitioner adds that birth
certificate of their children states respondent as their informants and
that she was publicly announced as the public wife during their live in
together.
Issue: WON the certification on non issuance from civil registrar
sufficient to rule marriage void?
Ruling: YES. The marriage is void from the beginning since the time
that the parties entered into a marriage the respondents marriage with
Azucena was still subsisting. Being the informant of the children
according to the birth certificate does not prove marriage. According to
the Civil Registrar of Pasig, there was no valid marriage license issued
to the parties. Only marriage license #s 6648100 to 6648150 was
issued at the allege date of marriage (Feb 1982) as such License #
07568 was not issued. The certification, by Registration Officer of the
Local Civil Registrar of Pasig, of the civil registrar is enough to prove
non-issuance of marriage license since the certification has probative
value being issued by officer assigned by law to record data on
issuances of marriage license. The marriage license was also not
recorded in the NSO. The marriage was made only in jest and is a
simulated marriage or a fictitious marriage by reasons to cover
social humiliation coming from relatives, friends and the society
especially from her parents seen as Chinese conservatives.
Applying general rule of contracts under Art 1408 of Civil Code,
contracts that are simulated of fictitious are non-existent. As such

respondent not liable for bigamy. And declaration for nullity was
affirmed