NINAL VS.

BAYADOG

FACTS:

Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa on September 26, 1974. On April 24, 1985 he shot and killed her.
After 20 months he remarried Norma Badayog, the respondent herewith. After Pepito died, his heirs by
his first marriage filed a petition for declaration of nullity on the marriage of their father with Norma
Badayog on the ground of lack of marriage license. Norma Badayog contends that the ground have no
legal basis for her marriage to Pepito according to Article 34 of the Family Code no marriage license is
necessary for person who have cohabited for atleast five years. The respondent also contends that
petitioners are not among those allowed by the law to file a suit for declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Pepito. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent on the ground that indeed the Family
Code is silent as to situation. The Petition should have been filed before the death of Pepito and not
after his death.

ISSUE: WON the respondent is is right to contend that their marriage valid since marriage license was
not necessary for Pepito and her who have cohabited for at least five years?

HELD:

Pepito and Norma could not have possibly be legally cohabited for atleast five years since Pepito was
still married to Teodulfa counting backwards from the time he and Norma celebrated their marriage. A
period of cohabitation is characterized by exclusivity and continuity. There should be no legal
impediment on either party to marry. Pepitos previous marriage to Teodulfa is a legal impediment
disqualifying him to the exception of a marriage license. Thus, his second marriage should have a
marriage license to be valid. In this case, the marriage of Pepito and Norma lacking the formal requisite
of a marriage licese is therefore void.















BORJA-MANZANO VS. SANCHEZ

FACTS:

Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano having been married on May
21, 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish in Caloocan. They had four children. On March 22, 1993, her
husband contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. The marriage
contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were separated thus, respondent Judge ought to
know that the marriage was void and bigamous. He claims that when he officiated the marriage of
David and Payao, he knew that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years as
manifested in their joint affidavit that they both left their families and had never cohabit or
communicated with their spouses due to constant quarrels.

ISSUE: WON the marriage of the parties is valid?

HELD:

No. For legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
parties who have living together as husband and wife for atleast 5 yrs before the marriage; (2) the
parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other; (3) the absence of impediment must be
present at the time of marriage; (4) parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived
together for atleast 5 yrs and are without legal impediment to marry each other; and (5) the solemnizing
officer must execute statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had
found no legal impediment to their marriage.

The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses for a long time
already is immaterial. Free and voluntary cohabitation for seven years does not severe the tie of
subsisting previous marriage therefore the parties are not legally capacitated to marry each other and
not their cohabitation is not exempt from marriage license. Marital cohabitation for a long period of
time between 2 individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each other is merely a ground for
exemption from marriage license.













REPUBLIC VS. DAYOT

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. 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: WON the marriage of the parties is valid considering that they executed a fraud sworn affidavit to
be exempt from 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.















DE CASTRO VS. DE CASTRO

FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent met and became sweethearts in 1991. They applied for a marriage to get
married. They had their first sexual relation sometime in October 1994, and had regularly engaged in sex
thereafter. When the couple went back to the Office of the Civil Registrar, the marriage license had
already expired. In order to get married without a marriage license, they executed an affidavit dated 13
March 1995 stating that they had been living together as husband and wife for at least five years. The
couple got married on the same date in the Pasig MTC. Nevertheless, after the ceremony, petitioner and
respondent went back to their respective homes and did not live together as husband and wife.

ISSUE: WON the marriage of the parties is valid considering that they executed a fraud sworn affidavit to
be exempt from the marriage license requirement?

HELD:
No. The parties did not have a marriage license when they contracted their marriage. Instead, they
presented an affidavit stating that they had been living together for more than five years. However,
respondent herself in effect admitted the falsity of the affidavit when she was asked during cross-
examination. The falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irregularity in the formal
requisites of marriage. The law dispenses with the marriage license requirement for a man and a
woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous
and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage. The aim of this provision is to avoid
exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous
cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicants name for a
marriage license. In the instant case, there was no "scandalous cohabitation" to protect; in fact, there
was no cohabitation at all. The false affidavit which parties executed so they could get married is a mere
scrap of paper. They were not exempt from the marriage license requirement. Their failure to obtain
and present a marriage license renders their marriage void ab initio.