Republic vs. Dayot

Facts:

Republic of the Philippines v. Jose A. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 and 179474, March 28, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. The petitions are consolidated challenges to the Court of Appeals' Amended Decision dated November 7, 2006, which declared the marriage between Jose A. Dayot (respondent) and Felisa Tecson‑Dayot void ab initio.

On November 24, 1986, Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall; the ceremony was solemnized by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza. In lieu of a marriage license the parties executed an affidavit, dated the same day, stating they had attained majority, were unmarried, and 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 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Biñan, Laguna (Branch 25), alleging the marriage was a sham: he claimed he never consented, was induced to sign papers at Pasay City Hall by deception and threats, and only discovered in February 1987 that a marriage contract existed.

Felisa denied Jose’s allegations, asserted a continuing conjugal relationship and resisted the annulment. She later filed a bigamy complaint against Jose after he allegedly married another woman in 1990; administrative proceedings against Jose produced disciplinary sanctions. In 2000 the RTC dismissed Jose’s complaint, finding the marriage valid, rejecting his fraud narrative as implausible, and holding that any action for annulment on the ground of fraud was prescribed under Article 87 of the Civil Code.

Jose appealed. In a decision dated August 11, 2005 the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, applying the Civil Code, ruling that (a) the circumstances of fraud under Article 86 were not present and (b) the action was filed beyond the four‑year prescriptive period. After Jose’s motion for reconsideration the Court of Appeals reversed itself and, in an Amended Decision dated November 7, 2006, declared the marriage void ab initio, relying on this Court’s decision in Ninal v. Bayadog and finding the Article 76 five‑year cohabitation requirement unmet. The CA ordered that a copy of its Amended Decision be furnished to the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City.

The Republic, through the Office o...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Does the falsity of the affidavit required by Article 76 of the Civil Code (i.e., that the parties lived together as husband and wife for at least five years) render a marriage solemnized without a marriage license void ab initio?
• Can the presumption favoring the validity of marriage or extrinsic proof of cohabitation and marital behavior salvage a marriage solemnized under a false Article 76 affidavit?
• May equitable doctrines—unclean hands or estoppel—prevent a party from obtaining relief to declare ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)