Alcantara vs.

Alcantara
DOCTRINE:
Issuance of a marriage license in a place where neither of the parties is a resident is a
mere irregularity of the formal requisites of marriage and does not render a marriage void ab
initio.
FACTS:
On December 8, 1982 Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Alcantara got married without
securing a marriage license. They met a person who, for a fee, arranged their wedding before a
certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel. They went
through another marriage ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila, on 26
March 1983. The marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage
license. Their alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage
contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona
to apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said place. In 1988, they parted ways,
later on, petitioner Restituto M. Alcantara filed a petition for annulment of marriage against
respondent Rosita A. Alcantara, claiming that their marriage is a sham. Rosita on the other hand,
asserts the validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued as
evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the issuance of a marriage license in Carmona, Cavite, where neither of
the parties is a resident , will render their marriage void due to lack of a valid marriage license,
which is a formal requisite of marriage.
RULING:
No. Issuance of a marriage license, despite the fact that neither of the parties is a resident
of the city or municipality which issued the same, is a mere irregularity that does not affect the
validity of the marriage. An irregularity in any of the formal requisites of marriage does not
affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly, criminally
and administratively liable. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage, the absence of
which renders the marriage void ab initio. To be considered void on the ground of absence of a
marriage license, the law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on
the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil
registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties. In this case, the marriage
contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification
to this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite.

Nial vs. Bayadog

DOCTRINE:
Marriage without license is invalid if parties did not satisfy the requirement of
cohabitation as husband and wife for at leas five years.
FACTS:
On September 26, 1974, Pepito Nial and Teodulfa Bellones got married. Herein petitioners
were born out of their marriage. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito on April 24, 1985 which caused her
death. On December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadog got married without any
marriage license. Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 expressing
that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years, claiming therefore that
they are exempted from providing a marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February
19, 1997. Thereafter, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of
Pepito and Norma claiming that the said marriage is void for lack of a marriage license.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Pepito Nial and Norma Bayadogs marriage without marriage license is valid.

RULING:
No. The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for lack of marriage license. Even though
they instituted an affidavit claiming that they cohabitated for at least five years, they cannot be
exempted from securing a marriage license.
Article 76 of the Civil Code provides the counting of a five-year period to exempt the
future spouses from securing marriage license. This 5-year period should be the years
immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation
characterized by exclusivity, meaning there is no third party involved at any time within five
years and continuity that is unbroken.
From the time the first marriage of Pepito was dissolved to the time of his marriage to
respondent Bayadog, only about 20 months had elapsed, which is therefore contrary to the
number of years that the law requires. Therefore, their marriage without license is void.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Dayot

DOCTRINE:
Marriage without license is invalid if parties did not satisfy the requirement of
cohabitation as husband and wife for at leas five years

FACTS:
On November 24, 1986 Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson were married at the Pasay City
Hall. In lieu of a marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit that they had lived together
for at least 5years. On August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual.
They were both employees of the National Statistics and Coordinating Board. On June 1993
Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose and an administrative complaint with the Office of
the Ombudsman. Jose, on the other hand, filed a complaint on July 1993 for annulment and/or
declaration of nullity of marriage where he contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham
and his consent was secured through fraud.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecsons marriage without marriage license is
valid.
RULING:
No. Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely five months
before the celebration of their marriage on November 1986. The Court of Appeals
unquestionably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the time
they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. Findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.
Without prior license, the solemnization of a marriage is a clear violation of the law and
invalidates a marriage. In addition, the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to
the period of Jose and Felisas cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an
exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to
a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties
under oath. Thus, Jose and Felisas marriage is void ab initio. The court also ruled that he right
to impugn marriage does not prescribe and may be raised any time because an action for nullity
of void marriage is imprescriptible.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Orbecido III

DOCTRINE:
A Filipino citizen whose Filipino husband or wife became naturalized as a foreign citizen
and subsequently obtained a valid divorce decree can be allowed to reamarry.

FACTS:
Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City
on May 24, 1981 and later had a son and a daughter. Lady Myros left for the United States in
1986 bringing along their son. A few years later she had been naturalized as an American citizen.
She later obtained a decree of divorce in the United States and then married an American citizen.
Cipriano then filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking
paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. The trial court granted the petition. The Republic
of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General raised the case to the Supreme
Court on a pure question of law after the trial court denied its motion for reconsideration. The
Office of the Solicitor General argued that paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is only
applicable to mix marriages or marriage between a Filipino and an alien, hence Orbecido III
cannot remarry.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Orbecido III can remarry under paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code.
RULING:
Orbecido, who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent evidence showing his
allegations that his naturalized American wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.
The Supreme Court ruled that paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code does not
only apply to marriages between a Filipino and an alien. It should be construed and interpreted to
include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of their marriage were Filipino
citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and subsequently
obtained a valid divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should also be allowed to remarry as if the
other party was a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of their marriage.