REPUBLIC VS DAYOT GR 175581 March 14, 2008

FACTS:
Jose and Felisa were married at Pasay city solemnized by Rev. Tomas V.
Atienza. In lieu of marriage license they executed a sworn affidavit that
they have attained the age of maturity,unmarried and they had lived
together as husband and wife for at least 5 yrs.
Jose filed a complaint for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage
on the Regional Trial Court of Binan Laguna on the grounds that marriage
with Felisa was a sham. No marriage ceremony was celebrated between
the parties. He did not even execute the sworn affidavit stating that Felisa
and he had lived as husband and wife for at least five years; and that his
consent to the marriage was secured through fraud.
Jose contended that he was introduced to Felisa in 1986 and lived with her
as a boarder in Felisas house, the latter as his land lady. He said that Felisa
requested him to accompany her in the City Hall so that she could claim a
package sent by her brother from Saudi Arabia. Felisa further stated that he
must sign a paper so that she would het the package and her brother would
kill them both if he refused. Thus they signed the paper and gave it to a
man who immediately left. It was February 1987 when he had discovered
that he already contracted marriage with Felisa, when he saw in the sala
table the copy of the marriage contract.
Felisa on the other hand defended the validity of their marriage and she
expounded that while her marriage with Jose is subsisting, Jose contracted
marriage with Rufina Pascual, hence Felisa filed a case of Bigamy against
him and also an administrative case in the office of the Ombudsman
because both of them are employees of the National Statistics and
Coordinating Board. The ombudsman found Jose administratively liable
for disgraceful and immoral conduct and he was suspended from service
for one year without emolument.
Regional Trial Court dismissed Joses version of the story and ruled that
the marriage between him and Felisa is valid on the grounds that any
person with the right frame of the mind wound suspect such fraud, it took
him more than three months to discover such, he wrote Felisa Tecson as his
wife in duly notarized statement of assets and liabilities and in his I.D. to

contact in case of emergency, and he did not apply for declaration of such
as early as possible it took him years to realized.
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC because the time for
filing the declaration has already ceased the lacy of marriage license were
exempted by execution of a sworn affidavit, and the solemnizing officer
found no legal impediment at that time.
But Court of Appeals reversed its decision when Jose file a motion for
reconsideration contending that the affidavit of marital cohabitation
executed by him and Felisa was false. The CA rdeclared its decision as
follows:
The five-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the
marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by first
exclusivity which means that no third party must be involved at any time
within the five years. And the second is continuity which means that it
must be unbroken
Issue:
Is Jose stopped from assailing the legality of his marriage for lack of
marriage license?
RULING:
No, the marriage is void ab intio , because it was celebrated without a valid
marriage license. The exception to this general rule which is a sworn
affidavit of cohabitation for at least five years cannot also apply because
they fall short in the five years cohabitating period. The cohabitation must
commenced five years before the wedding and not after.