Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Republic v. Dayot

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette Racadio
    This document summarizes a court case from the Republic vs. Dayot (2008) regarding the validity of a marriage license. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead submitting a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5 years. However, it was established that they had only lived together for 5 months prior to marriage. The court ruled that the falsity of claiming to have lived together for 5 years in the affidavit rendered the marriage void from the beginning due to the lack of a valid marriage license. As the minimum 5 year cohabitation requirement was not met, their marriage did not qualify for the exception to the marriage license requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic v. Dayot

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette Racadio
    69 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from the Republic vs. Dayot (2008) regarding the validity of a marriage license. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead submitting a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5 years. However, it was established that they had only lived together for 5 months prior to marriage. The court ruled that the falsity of claiming to have lived together for 5 years in the affidavit rendered the marriage void from the beginning due to the lack of a valid marriage license. As the minimum 5 year cohabitation requirement was not met, their marriage did not qualify for the exception to the marriage license requirement.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from the Republic vs. Dayot (2008) regarding the validity of a marriage license. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead submitting a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5 years. However, it was established that they had only lived together for 5 months prior to marriage. The court ruled that the falsity of claiming to have lived together for 5 years in the affidavit rendered the marriage void from the beginning due to the lack of a valid marriage license. As the minimum 5 year cohabitation requirement was not met, their marriage did not qualify for the exception to the marriage license requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views1 page

    Republic v. Dayot

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette Racadio
    This document summarizes a court case from the Republic vs. Dayot (2008) regarding the validity of a marriage license. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead submitting a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5 years. However, it was established that they had only lived together for 5 months prior to marriage. The court ruled that the falsity of claiming to have lived together for 5 years in the affidavit rendered the marriage void from the beginning due to the lack of a valid marriage license. As the minimum 5 year cohabitation requirement was not met, their marriage did not qualify for the exception to the marriage license requirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    NAME: Racadio, Marie Bernadette M.

    I. SHORT TITLE: REPUBLIC v. DAYOT (2008)

    II. TOPIC: Marriage License

    III. DOCTRINE: The falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties
    have in truth fallen short of the minimum five-year requirement, effectively renders the
    marriage void ab initio for lack of marriage license.

    IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS: In 1986, Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall. In
    lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit, attesting that both of
    them had attained the age of maturity, and that being unmarried, they had lived together as
    husband and wife for at least five years. In 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment
    and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a
    sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties; that he did not
    execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife for at
    least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud.

    V. ISSUE: Whether or not the falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the
    parties have actually fallen short of minimum 5-year requirement, renders marriage void
    ab initio.

    VI. RULING: Yes. Marriages of exceptional character are, doubtless, the exceptions to the
    rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage license. For the exception
    in Article 76 to apply, it is a sine qua non thereto that the man and the woman must have
    attained the age of majority, and that, being unmarried, they have lived together as
    husband and wife for at least five years.

    It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the
    time they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. The Republic admitted
    that Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely five months before
    the celebration of their marriage.

    The falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen
    short of the minimum five-year requirement, effectively renders the marriage void ab initio
    for lack of marriage license. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit
    relating to the period of Jose and Felisa’s 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 Felisa’s 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.

    You might also like