REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSE A.

DAYOT,

G.R. No. 175581 March 28, 2008

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FELISA TECSON-DAYOT, vs. JOSE A. DAYOT,

G.R. No. 179474

FACTS:

In November 24, 1986 Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall. In lieu of a
marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit attesting that both of them are legally
capacitated and that they cohabited for at least 5 years when in fact they have only barely known
each other since February 1986. On 1993, Jose filed a complaint for Annulment and/or
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage contending that their marriage was sham, as to no ceremony
was celebrated between them; that he did not execute the sworn statement that he and Felisa had
cohabited for at least 5 years; and that his consent was secured through fraud. His sister,
however, testified as witness that Jose voluntarily gave his consent during their marriage. The
complaint was dismissed by the RTC stating that Jose is deemed estopped from assailing the
legality of his marriage for lack of marriage license. It is claimed that Jose and Felisa had lived
together from 1986 to 1990, and that it took Jose 7 years before he sought the declaration of
nullity; The RTC ruled that Joses action had prescribed. It cited Art. 87 of the New Civil Code
which requires that the action for annulment must be commenced by the injured party within 4
years after the discovery of fraud. Jose appealed to the CA which rendered a decision declaring
their marriage void ab initio for absence of marriage license. Felisa sought a petition for review
praying that the CAs Amended decision be reversed and set aside.

ISSUE:

1) WON the falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen
short of the minimum 5-year requirement effectively renders the marriage void ab initio for lack
of marriage license.

2) WON the action for nullity prescribes as the case here where Jose filed a complaint 7 seven
years from contracting marriage.
HELD:

1) YES. The intendment of law or fact which leans towards the validity of marriage will not
salvage the parties marriage and extricate them from the effect of a violation of the law. The
Court protects the fabric of the institution of marriage and at the same time wary of deceptive
schemes that violate the legal measures set forth in the law. The case cannot fall under
irregularity of the marriage license. What happened here is an absence of marriage license which
makes their marriage void for lack of one of the essential requirements of a valid marriage.

2) NO. An action for nullity is imprescriptible. Jose and Felisas marriage was celebrated sans a
marriage license. The right to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe.