De Castro vs De Castro G.R. No. 160172
Validity of Marriage - - Lack or absence of the formal requisites of marriage
Facts:
Petitioner
and respondent met and became sweethearts in 1991. They planned to get
married, thus they applied for a marriage license with the Office of the
Civil Registrar of Pasig City in September 1994. 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. Thus, in order to
push through with the plan, in lieu of 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, with Judge Jose C. Bernabe, presiding judge of
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, administering the civil
rites. Nevertheless, after the ceremony, petitioner and respondent went
back to their respective homes and did not live together as husband and
wife.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and respondent is valid.
Held:
Under the Family Code, the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
whereas a defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the
marriage voidable. In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence
presented that petitioner and respondent 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
applicant’s 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 petitioner and respondent
executed so they could push through with the marriage has no value
whatsoever; it 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.