G.R. No. 175581 - Republic vs. Dayot

On 24 November 1986, Jose A. Dayot (27 years old) and Felisa Tecson (37 years old) were married at the Pasay City Hall, solemnized by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza.
In lieu of a marriage license, they executed an affidavit under Article 76 of the Civil Code, swearing that (a) they had attained the age of majority, (b) being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, and (c) they desired to marry each other.

In February 1987, Jose discovered a copy of his marriage contract at Felisa’s home. He confronted her, but she feigned ignorance.
On 7 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in RTC, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna, alleging:

Felisa denied fraud, maintaining they had cohabited earlier but delayed marriage due to age difference. She further alleged that Jose married another woman, Rufina Pascual, on 31 August 1990, prompting her to file bigamy and administrative complaints against him.

RTC Decision (26 July 2000): Dismissed Jose’s complaint, finding the marriage valid. The court relied on:

Jose’s own subsequent acts (listing Felisa as wife in his assets statement and emergency contact).
Sister’s testimony affirming voluntary signature and belief in the marriage.
Prescription under Article 87 of the Civil Code (action filed beyond four years after discovery of alleged fraud).

CA Decision (11 August 2005): Affirmed RTC, holding no fraud and that the marriage qualified as an “exceptional character” marriage under Article 76 despite the false affidavit; solemnizing officer acted in good faith.
CA Amended Decision (7 November 2006) on Reconsideration: Reversed itself, declaring the marriage void ab initio for lack of a license and failure to meet the mandatory five-year cohabitation period, citing Niaal v. Bayadog.
CA Resolution (10 May 2007): Denied Felisa’s motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court Consolidation (1 August 2007): G.R. Nos. 175581 (Republic of the Philippines) and 179474 (Felisa Tecson-Dayot) consolidated and docketed for review under Rule 45.

Whether the falsity of the cohabitation affidavit under Article 76 of the Civil Code renders the marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage license.
Whether the presumption of validity of marriage, equity principles, or estoppel may cure the absence of a license or false statements in the affidavit.
Whether the action to declare a marriage void ab initio is subject to prescription or is imprescriptible.