Scribd
Upload
298 views1 page

Republic Vs Jose Dayot

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the annulment of marriage between Jose and Felisa. The Supreme Court ruled the marriage was void from the beginning because they did not meet the legal requirements to be exempt from obtaining a marriage license. Specifically, Jose and Felisa only lived together for 5 months before getting married, but the law requires couples to live together for at least 5 years to be exempt from the license. Without meeting this requirement, their marriage violated the law and the sworn affidavit stating they lived as husband and wife was invalid.

Uploaded by

Ian Cabana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
298 views1 page

Republic Vs Jose Dayot

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the annulment of marriage between Jose and Felisa. The Supreme Court ruled the marriage was void from the beginning because they did not meet the legal requirements to be exempt from obtaining a marriage license. Specifically, Jose and Felisa only lived together for 5 months before getting married, but the law requires couples to live together for at least 5 years to be exempt from the license. Without meeting this requirement, their marriage violated the law and the sworn affidavit stating they lived as husband and wife was invalid.

Uploaded by

Ian Cabana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Cabana, Adrian C.

Case Title : Republic vs Jose Dayot


G.R No. 175581
March 28, 2008

Facts

Respondent – Jose filed a complaint for annulment / or declaration of nullity of marriage with
the RTC Binan Laguna. He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham as no marriage ceremony
was celebrated between them; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had
lived as husband and wife for at least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured
through fraud.

RTC dismissed the petition; Jose filed an appeal to the CA which the latter granted the petition.
Jose’s contention was that the requisites for the application of the exemption from a marriage license
were not full attendant and that the man and woman must have been living together as husband and
wife for at least five years before marriage

Issue

Whether or not the marriage between Jose and Felisa is void ab initio?

Ruling

Yes, The Supreme Court held that the marriage between Jose and Felisa is void ab initio. The
sworn affidavit executed by Felisa is merely a scrap of paper because they started living together five
months before the celebration of their marriage.

Aritcle 34 of the Family Code states that “No license shall be necessary for the marriage for man
and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal
impediment to marry each other”

The solemnization of a marriage withut prior license is a clear violation of the law and would
lead or could be used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties.

You might also like