For Article 27 of the Family Code: Republic of the Philippines v. Jose A. Dayot, Felisa Tecson-Dayot v. Jose A. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, 28 March 2008
Facts:
On 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married in the Pasay City Hall, officiated by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza. Instead of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit, dated also 24 November 1986, attesting that they were both of age of maturity, and the being unmarried, they lived together as husband as wife.
On 07 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial Court, Biñan, Laguna, Branch 25. He alleged that his marriage to Felisa was sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit that indicated he and Felisa were living as husband and wife for at least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud (‘pikot’).
In his Compliant, he became a boarder at Felisa’s hourse in 1986. Some three weeks later, Felisa asked him to accompany her to Pasay City Hall, to claim a package from her brother, who is based in Saudi Arabia. At Pasay City Hall, a man approach them with 3 pieces of folded paper and were told that Jose need to sign the papers so that the package can be released to Felisa. Initially Jose refused to do so, but was convinced by Felisa that if he did not sign the papers they will be both killed by her brother after knowing their relationship. Reluctantly, he signed the papers and the man immediately left. It was only in February 1987 when Jose found out he contracted marriage with Felisa. When he confronted Felisa, the latter feigned ignorance.
In her counter affidavit, Felisa denied Jose’s allegations and defended the validity of their marriage. She declared that she and Jose had maintained their relationship as husband and wife since 1980 without the legality of the marriage due to their age difference. While they were living as a couple, Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990. On 03 June 1993, Felisa filed a case of bigamy against Jose. She then filed a case against Jose at the Office of the Ombudsman, since Jose and Rufina were government employees. The Ombudsman found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct, and was meted a one-year suspension without pay.
On 26 Jully 2000, the court dismissed Jose’s complaint. Based on the testimonies and evidences presented, the marriage between Jose and Felisa on 24 November 1986 was valid. Jose’s version of events to his marriage to Felisa was implausible.
Jose appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. On 11 August 2005, the court found the appeal to be without merit. The Court of Appeals applied the Civil Code to the marriage between Jose and Felisa as it was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The appellate court observed that the circumstances constituting fraud as a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 [14] of the Civil Code did not exist in the marriage between the parties. Further, it ruled that the action for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud was filed beyond the prescriptive period provided by law (four years).
Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration citing that the proper application of the exemption from a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil Code was not considered during the hearing. Jose’s contention that the legal condition that the man and the woman must have been living together for at least five years before the marriage was not met, citing that the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false.
On 07 November 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed its decision and declared that the marriage of Jose and Felisa void ab initio.
Felisa sought reconsideration of the Amended Decision but was denied on 10 May 2007.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Review of the CA’s Amended Decision before the Supreme Court to reverse the CA’s decision for lack of merit and that Jose’s marriage to Felisa is still valid. Felisa also filed a separate Petition for Review.
Issue:
Is the marriage of Jose and Felisa valid?
Held:
No, the marriage of Jose and Felisa was invalid ab initio. Upon review of testimonies and evidences, it was found that Jose and Felisa only met right after the Edsa Revolution, in February 1986. They cohabited in Felisa’s house on June 1986 – this is short of the five-year prescripted period of living together without a marriage license as stated in Article 76 of the Civil Code. The Supreme further clarified that the five-year prescripted period covers the years immediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity - meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years - and continuity that is unbroken.
On 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married in the Pasay City Hall, officiated by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza. Instead of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit, dated also 24 November 1986, attesting that they were both of age of maturity, and the being unmarried, they lived together as husband as wife.
On 07 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial Court, Biñan, Laguna, Branch 25. He alleged that his marriage to Felisa was sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit that indicated he and Felisa were living as husband and wife for at least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud (‘pikot’).
In his Compliant, he became a boarder at Felisa’s hourse in 1986. Some three weeks later, Felisa asked him to accompany her to Pasay City Hall, to claim a package from her brother, who is based in Saudi Arabia. At Pasay City Hall, a man approach them with 3 pieces of folded paper and were told that Jose need to sign the papers so that the package can be released to Felisa. Initially Jose refused to do so, but was convinced by Felisa that if he did not sign the papers they will be both killed by her brother after knowing their relationship. Reluctantly, he signed the papers and the man immediately left. It was only in February 1987 when Jose found out he contracted marriage with Felisa. When he confronted Felisa, the latter feigned ignorance.
In her counter affidavit, Felisa denied Jose’s allegations and defended the validity of their marriage. She declared that she and Jose had maintained their relationship as husband and wife since 1980 without the legality of the marriage due to their age difference. While they were living as a couple, Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990. On 03 June 1993, Felisa filed a case of bigamy against Jose. She then filed a case against Jose at the Office of the Ombudsman, since Jose and Rufina were government employees. The Ombudsman found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct, and was meted a one-year suspension without pay.
On 26 Jully 2000, the court dismissed Jose’s complaint. Based on the testimonies and evidences presented, the marriage between Jose and Felisa on 24 November 1986 was valid. Jose’s version of events to his marriage to Felisa was implausible.
Jose appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. On 11 August 2005, the court found the appeal to be without merit. The Court of Appeals applied the Civil Code to the marriage between Jose and Felisa as it was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The appellate court observed that the circumstances constituting fraud as a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 [14] of the Civil Code did not exist in the marriage between the parties. Further, it ruled that the action for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud was filed beyond the prescriptive period provided by law (four years).
Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration citing that the proper application of the exemption from a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil Code was not considered during the hearing. Jose’s contention that the legal condition that the man and the woman must have been living together for at least five years before the marriage was not met, citing that the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false.
On 07 November 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed its decision and declared that the marriage of Jose and Felisa void ab initio.
Felisa sought reconsideration of the Amended Decision but was denied on 10 May 2007.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Review of the CA’s Amended Decision before the Supreme Court to reverse the CA’s decision for lack of merit and that Jose’s marriage to Felisa is still valid. Felisa also filed a separate Petition for Review.
Issue:
Is the marriage of Jose and Felisa valid?
Held:
No, the marriage of Jose and Felisa was invalid ab initio. Upon review of testimonies and evidences, it was found that Jose and Felisa only met right after the Edsa Revolution, in February 1986. They cohabited in Felisa’s house on June 1986 – this is short of the five-year prescripted period of living together without a marriage license as stated in Article 76 of the Civil Code. The Supreme further clarified that the five-year prescripted period covers the years immediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity - meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years - and continuity that is unbroken.
Comments
Post a Comment