Ratification of Marital Cohabitation 1 of 5

1. Engrace Niñal, et. al v. Norma Bayadog 2. One of the instances where this rule does 8. Bonus: no judicial action is necessary to
not apply is when it involves a man and a declare marriage absolute nullity if the purpose
FACTS woman who have lived together and is other than for remarriage. Purpose should be
1. Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa exclusively with each other as husband and limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy,
Bellones. The former shot the latter and a wife for a continuous and unbroken period illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate,
year and 8 months later, he married Norma of at least five years before the marriage.
among others.
Badayog without marriage license and 3. This is to avoid exposing the couple to
instead executed an affidavit saying that he humiliation, shame, and embarrassment that
and Norma had lived together as husband may arise especially because marriage
and wife for at least five years, invoking the licenses are publicized. If this is the case,
marriage license exception.
then couples with the same situation will be
2. 9 years later, Pepito died in a car accident. discouraged from legitimizing their status.

In connection to the inheritance issues, his 4. In this case:

children to the first wife filed a petition for 1. Five-year period should be counted
declaration of nullity of the marriage of back from the date of marriage
Pepito to Norma citing the lack of a celebration;

marriage license, which should make said 2. Cohabitation characterized by

marriage void.
exclusivity (no third party within the five
3. However, the RTC dismissed the petition years)

ruling that, among other things, the Family 5. The civil laws, past or present, discourages
Code cannot resolve the issue of whether extramarital affairs such as bigamy and
or not the marriage of Pepito to Norma is concubinage.

null and void ab initio.

6. Only 20 months had elapsed from the time
Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved to the time
RULING:
of his second marriage. Even if he and his first
1. The governing law at the time of the wife had separated, the marriage would still be
marriage in question was the Civil Code subsisting during the supposed five-year
where it is stated that a valid marriage cohabitation of Norma and Pepito, therefore
license is a requisite of marriage (Art 53) and does not meet the criteria of what the law has
the absence of which renders the marriage contemplated about the five-year cohabitation.

void ab initio (Art 80 (3)). A license is also 7. THE SECOND MARRIAGE IN THIS CASE IS
publicized so that anyone who has NOT COVERED BY LICENSE EXCEPTION,
knowledge of any impediment to the union VOID AB INITIO.
of a couple shall make it known to the LCR.

Ratification of Marital Cohabitation 2 of 5

2. Borja-Manzano v. Sanchez 3. Even if Manzano and Payao were legally 5. CA: it was improper for RTC to declare
separated from their respective spouses, it marriage null and void since the
FACTS does not mean that their marriage bonds proceedings did not call for such declaration
1. Judge Roque Sanchez was held have been severed, therefore not authorizing and should have been limited to the
administratively liable for having solemnized them to remarry. In this case, their obligation issue. Marriage is valid and the
a bigamous marriage.
separation is merely de facto.
child is Reniel’s.

2. To his defense, the judge asserted that in 4. It was pertinent that at the time of marriage,
the separate affidavits presented to him by the contracting parties must have been ISSUE: Does a fake affidavit used to ratify a
Manzano and Payao, the two have expressly legally capacitated.
cohabitation render marriage void ab initio?
stated that they have each left their 5. Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of
respective spoused and had never the law.
RULING:
cohabited or communicated with them 1. No marriage license (a formal requisite)
anymore. That on the basis of these 3. De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro renders marriage void ab initio. But a
affidavits, the judge solemnized the marriage license is no longer required for
marriage in accordance with Article 34 of FACTS couples who have lived together for more
the Family Code which provides for the 1. Upon the expiration of their marriage than five years. Such cohabitation must be
legal ratification of marital cohabitation. license, Reniel and Annabelle executed an executed in writing through an affidavit.

affidavit stating that they had been living 2. In this case, the wife herself admitted the
ISSUE/TOPIC: Was the judge correct in together as husband and wife for at least falsity of the affidavit during cross-exam
solemnizing such marriage?
five years in order to get married.
when she said that she signed the affidavit
2. 3 years after their marriage, Annabelle filed a even though they had not lived 5 years
RULING: complaint for support against Reniel before together.

1. Legal ratification of marital cohabitation the RTC alleging that he has failed to 3. The falsity is not an irregularity. The aim of
requires that the parties who have been financially support her as his wife and their the exception is to protect the “scandalous
living together as husband and wife for at child.
cohabitation” but in this case, there was no
least five years before the marriage must 3. Reniel contended that their marriage is void cohabitation to protect at all.

have no legal impediment to marry each ab initio since the affidavit they presented 4. The false affidavit has no value and their
other and a solemnizing officer must was fake and they never lived together as failure to present a marriage license
ascertain that he had found no legal husband and wife and that he has never renders their marriage void ab initio.
impediment.
seen nor acknowledged the child.
5. Bonus: no judicial action is necessary to
2. The couples’ previous marriages were 4. RTC ruled that the marriage is not valid declare marriage absolute nullity if the
subsisting when the judge solemnized their because it was solemnized without a purpose is other than for remarriage.
union. And having read their affidavits, he license, but he is the natural father of the Purpose should be limited to determination
should not have agreed to solemnize.
child and obliged to support her.
of heirship, legitimacy, illegitimacy of a child,
settlement of estate, among others.
Ratification of Marital Cohabitation 3 of 5

4. Republic v. Dayot
6. RTC dismissed Jose’s complained, saying barely five months before the celebration of
that from the testimonies and evidence marriage.

FACTS presented, the marriage was valid.

4. Republic was also wrong in saying that a
1. Jose and Felisa were married without a 7. CA initially affirmed the RTC decision. Civil wrongfully obtained license does not
license. Instead, they executed a sworn Code, the governing law at the time of their invalidate a marriage so a fake affidavit
affidavit attesting that they are legally marriage, did not require a marriage license should also not render marriage void.

capacitated to marry and had lived together for couples who have cohabited as man and 5. SC: The former is merely an irregularity and
as husband and wife for at least five years.
wife for at least five years. Also, the fake not an absence of a formal requisite. The
2. Years later, Jose filed a complaint for affidavit did not affect the validity of their fake affidavit cannot be a mere irregularity
annulment of their marriage before the RTC, marriage, the solemnizing officer was as it disqualifies Jose’s and Felisa’s
contending that his marriage with Felisa was merely misled. But later upon motion for marriage from the license exception. The
a sham, no marriage ceremony, he did not reconsideration filed by Jose, they reversed fake affidavit therefore holds no force and
execute sworn affidavit, his consent was their decision.
effect as though there was no affidavit at all.

secured through fraud.

8. Through the OSG, the Republic said that 6. And since they did not secure a marriage
3. Jose said that what happened was that the falsity of the statements in the license, their marriage is void ab initio.
Felisa made him go to the city hall where a affidavit does not affect the validity of the
man made him sign three folded pieces of marriage, the same way that a marriage is
paper so he could release the package to not invalidated by a license that was
Felisa. Felisa told him that he needed to sign wrongfully obtained.

the papers or they could both get killed by

her brother who had learned about their ISSUE: Does a fake affidavit used to ratify a
relationship.
cohabitation render marriage void ab initio?

4. Eventually, he discovered that what he had

unknowingly signed was a marriage RULING:

contract.
1. The law is clear: no marriage license is
5. Felisa denied the accusations and said that required for couples who have lived together
they had lived together as man and wife for as man and wife for five years at the time of
more than five years before their marriage. marriage, and such requisite facts must be
She said that while their marriage was stated in a sworn affidavit.

subsisting, Jose contracted a subsequent 2. The falsity of the statements in the affidavit
marriage, which prompted her to file a then establishes that Jose and Felisa have
bigamy case against Jose, and then an not lived together for five years at the time
administrative complaint since Jose and the of their marriage.

second wife were employees of the National 3. The Republic even admitted that Jose and
Statistics and Coordinating board.
Felisa actually just started living together
Ratification of Marital Cohabitation 4 of 5

5. Tupal v. Judge Remegio v. Rojo RULING:

1. Affidavits of cohabitation are not connected
FACTS with the exercise of Judge Rojo’s exercise of
1. A complaint was filed against Judge Rojo, a his official functions and duties as
municipal trial court judge, for having solemnizing officer.

notarized 9 affidavits of cohabitation of 2. A judge should also see to it that the parties
parties whose marriages he also have complied with all the essential and
solemnized. He allegedly violated the Code formal requisites of marriage, including the
of Judicial Conduct and acted with gross marriage license.

ignorance of the law.

3. The judge must personally examine an
2. The petitioner, Rex Tupal said that municipal affidavit of cohabitation to see to it that the
trial courts are not allowed to notarize parties are qualified to marry without
affidavits of cohabitation, that he also failed license, that they have indeed lived together
to require the parties to present competent as husband and wife for at least five years,
pieces of evidence of identity as required by and that they have no legal impediment to
law, constituting gross ignorance of the law.
marry each other.

3. The judge did not deny notarizing the 4. A sworn statement must be executed by the
affidavits and also said that the Guidelines judge ascertaining parties’ qualifications to
on the Solemnization of Marriage by the marry.

Members of the Judiciary does not prohibit 5. Therefore, a judge cannot objectively
him from doing so.
examine a document he himself notarized.

4. Judge also did not ask the parties to present 6. Judge Rojo contends that municipal trial
competent pieces of evidence of identity court judges are only prohibited from
since he had already interviewed them as to notarizing private documents. But an
the contents of their affidavits.
affidavit of cohabitation remains a private
5. However, the Office of the Court document until notarized.

Administrator: the guidelines compel judges 7. He also notarized the affidavits without even
to only examine allegations in the affidavits verifying the identities of the signatories. He
before performing ceremony and not cannot argue good faith especially when
notarize them.
had done it 9 times.

8. SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE 6 MONTHS,

ISSUE/TOPIC: Can a judge notarize affidavits NO SALARY.
of cohabitation of parties whose marriages he
also solemnized?
Ratification of Marital Cohabitation 5 of 5

6. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge married without a license, in exchange of a 6. To be qualified for the exception, it was
Anatalio S. Necessario fee usually contained in an envelope.
pertinent that the judges ascertain the
7. One couple said that they had their marriage parties’ legal capacity to marry each other
FACTS solemnized even without a license under DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD and not only
1. An administrative complaint was filed this scheme for Php 1,500, and that their at the time of the marriage. In this case,
against 4 judges: Judges Necessario, marriage certificate indicated that their the judges failed to do so.

Acosta, Tormis, and Rosales for having been marriage was solemnized under Art 34 of 7. Those responsible for any irregularities,
involved in a “fixer” scheme for instant the Family Code even though the exception defects, or absence of the requisites of
marriages.
rule did not apply to their situation.
marriage shall be held civilly, criminally, and
2. The judicial audit team went undercover in 8. In other branches, couples would be told to administratively liable.

one of the branches being investigated to buy a pro-forma affidavit of joint 8. And because of their active participation in
verify the alleged scheme. It turns out that cohabitation for Php 10.
the scheme, the judges clearly treated the
for a fee, people can have their marriages solemnization of marriage as a business,
solemnized immediately, forgoing the usual RULING: not as a duty.

process, but the marriage certificate would 1. Among other things, the judges displayed 9. Because of their actions, the SC found the
only be dated the day the marriage license gross ignorance of the law when they judges guilty of gross inefficiency or
becomes available.
solemnized marriages under Article 34 of the neglect of duty and of gross ignorance of
3. OCA found some unusual findings in the Family Code without the required the law. They are also dismissed from the
four branches they investigated: some qualifications and with the existence of legal service, and are disqualified from
marriages were solemnized with licenses impediments including minority of one of the reinstatement or appointment to any public
obtained the following day. Logbooks parties.
office.

indicate a higher number of solemnized 2. Judges cannot argue that they only relied on
marriages than the number of certificates in the presumption of regularity regarding the
the courts’ custody. And there were licenses documents presented to them by the
obtained from LCR Barili and Liloan which contracting parties.

were outside Cebu City.

3. SC: Presenting pro forma affidavits alone is
4. Many of these recorded marriages were not enough to solemnize the marriage. In
solemnized under Article 34 of the Family fact, affidavits of cohabitation should also
Code.
not be issued and accepted pro forma.
5. Based on the audit team’s interviews with 4. They cannot rely on presumption as they
court personnel, the judges actively may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
participated in this scheme.
irregularity or failure to perform a duty.

6. One of the judges, Acosta would produce a 5. In this case, the evidence against them are
joint affidavit of cohabitation form to strong.

accommodate couples who wish to get