A fake affidavit of cohabitation renders the marriage void from the very beginning

A fake affidavit of cohabitation executed by both parties intending to marry each other, in order to exempt them from the requirement of a marriage license, without complying with the 5-year period of cohabitation required by law, renders the marriage void from the very beginning. 

Facts: Annabelle and Reinel applied for a marriage license. When they went back to the Office of the City Civil Registrar, they discovered that their marriage license was already expired, so in order to get married as soon as possible, they executed an Affidavit to show that they had been living together as husband and wife for the last five years, hence, exempt from the marriage license requirement. (Article 34 of the Family Code). They were married on the same day before a judge. After their marriage, they never lived together as husband and wife. After several months, Annabelle gave birth to Reianna Tricia. In 1998, Annabelle filed a petition for support against Reinel, claiming he had not given support to her and their child.  Reinel in his answer alleged that their marriage is not valid, the Affidavit they executed in lieu of a marriage license being a falsity as they never cohabited with each other five years before their marriage, hence they were not exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. What is the effect of the fake affidavit of cohabitation Annabelle and Reinel executed?

Held: 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. [De Castro vs De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008]

The validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked

The court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case.

Facts: Annabelle and Reinel were married. Annabelle filed a petition for support against Reinel, claiming he had not given support to her and their child.  In his answer, Reinel alleged that their marriage is not valid, the Affidavit they executed in lieu of a marriage license being a falsity as they never cohabited with each other five years before their marriage, hence they were not exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. He also denied parentage of the child. The trial court ruled that the marriage between Reinel and Annabelle is void for lack of a marriage license. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that since the case is for support, the court cannot attack collaterally the marriage, so that a proper judicial declaration should be resorted to in order to declare the marriage of Reinel and Annabelle as void for lack of a marriage license. 

Issue: May the trial court declare the marriage between Reinel and Annabelle even though the case before it is for support? In other words, may the marriage be attacked collaterally?

Held: The trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent. The validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked. Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, we held:

However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause “on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.”

Likewise, in Nicdao Cario v. Yee Cario, the Court ruled that it is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of two marriages despite the main case being a claim for death benefits. Reiterating Nial, we held that the Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. However, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity. [De Castro vs De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008]