For powerpoint presentation: Cases for Article 34 1. Cohabitation for five (5) years; falsified.

De Castro vs Assidao-De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 162 The Supreme Court ruled the nullity of a marriage on the ground of absence of a valid marriage license upon evidence that there was in fact no cohabitation for five years contrary to the statements in the falsified affidavit executed by the parties. The falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered to be a mere irregularity considering that the five-year period is a substantial requirement of the law to be exempted from obtaining a marriage license. (see also Republic v Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 435)

2. No Legal Impediment to marry. Article 76 of the Civil Code vis-a-vis Article 34 of the Family Code Under Article 76: Nial vs Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000, 328 SCRA 122) The Supreme Court held that the cohabitation for five years under Article 34 should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage license. Since the husband had a subsisting marriage at the time he started cohabitating with the respondent, such cohabitation cannot be "husband and wife" and they were not, therefore, exempt from a marriage license when they got married.

Under Article 34: Manzano vs Sanchez, AM No. MTJ OO-1329, March 8, 2001 Under Article 34 of the Family Code, however, as long as there is no legal impediment at the time of the marriage ceremony, the parties can avail of the exception.

Other cases on no legal impediment to marry; failure of the solemnizing officer to investigate:

Cosca vs Palaypayon, 55 SCAD 759, 237 SCRA 249 Where a judge solemnize a marriage involving a party who was only 18 years of age without a marriage license on the basis of an affidavit where the parties indicated that they lived together as husband and wife for six years already, the Supreme Court held that the judge acted improperly because he should have conducted first an investigation as to the qualification of the parties. The judge should have alerted the fact that the child was 18 years old at the time of the marriage ceremony, which means that the parties started living together when the 18-year old was barely 13 years of age. There was a propbability that the affidavit was forged. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not state that the marriage was void because clearly at the time of the marriage ceremony, the parties had no legal impediment to marry.