Republic Vs Dayot

Republic of the Philippines vs Jose A. Dayot GR No. 175581 March 28, 2008 Fact of the Case: On 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 atleast five years when in fact they 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 atleast five 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 on Regional Trial Court 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 seven years before he sought the declaration of nullity; The RTC ruled that Jose’s action had prescribe. It cited Art 87 of the New Civil Code which requires that the action for annulment must be commenced by the injured party within four years after the discovery of fraud. Jose appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision declaring their marriage void ab initio for absence of marriage license. Felisa sought a petition for review praying that the Court of Appeal’s Amended decision be reversed and set aside. Issue: (1) Whether 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 voib an initio for lack of marriage. (2) Whether or not the action for nullity prescribes as the case here where Jose filed a complaint after seven years from contracting marriage. Held: (1)Yes. The intendment of law or fact 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 happens here is an absence of marriage license which makes their marriage void for lack of one of the essential requirement of a valid marriage. (2) No. An action for nullity is imprescriptible. Jose and Felisa’s marriage was celebrated san a marriage license. The right to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe.