Mere scrap of paper

A marriage contracted without a marriage license by a man and a woman of legal age is void except when they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years prior to getting married. For the exception to apply, the contracting parties shall state this fact in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. But what if the affidavit of co-habitation they executed is false because they have not actually lived together as husband and wife for at least five years? What is the effect of this falsity on their marriage? This is answered in this case of Jerry.

Jerry was a bachelor, 27 years old and working in a government agency when he met and was introduced to Mila, 37 years old. Mila got attracted to Jerry such that four months after they met, Mila convinced Jerry to move into her house and live with her. After five months of living together, Mila asked Jerry to go with her to a church minister apparently to get married. Since they didn’t have a marriage license, the couple executed an affidavit attesting to the fact that they were of marrying age and have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The solemnizing officer then took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and after doing so, solemnized the marriage, with Jerry’s sister Nita acting as one of the witnesses to the marriage and voluntarily signed the marriage certificate.

Thereafter, Jerry acknowledged Mila as his wife in several documents, particularly in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities and in his ID, where he named Mila as the person to be contracted in case of emergency. There was also a barangay certification attesting that Mila and Jerry had lived together as husband and wife in the said barangay.

But four years after the solemnization of this marriage, Jerry contracted another marriage with Tita, his co-employee at the government office who apparently became his sweetheart while he was already living with Mila. When Mila got wind of such marriage, she filed an action for bigamy against Jerry. Subsequently she also filed an administrative complaint against him before the ombudsman for disgraceful and immoral conduct.

To counter Mila’s moves, Jerry filed a complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial Court. He claimed that his marriage with Mila was a sham as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between them; that his consent was secured through fraud and that he did not execute the sworn statement stating that he and Mila lived together as husband and wife for at least five years.

During the trial, Jerry told the court that he came to live in Mila’s house as a boarder. Then, Mila requested him to accompany her to the City Hall to claim a package sent by her brother in Saudi Arabia. Then upon prearranged signal, a man approached them bringing three folded papers and asked Jerry to sign the papers so that the package could be released. Jerry said he reluctantly signed after Mila cajoled him and threatened that his refusal could get them both killed by her brother. It was only about three months later when he discovered that he signed a marriage contract.

In answer, Mila declared that they had maintained their relationship as husband and wife for about six years but deferred contracting marriage on account of their age difference. But during the trial, she admitted that Jerry commenced to live in her house only about five months before the celebration of their marriage.

The RTC dismissed Jerry’s suit for annulment or declaration of nullity of his marriage to Mila, citing it as incredible. It ruled that his marriage to Mila was valid because there was no fraud or trickery, which even if present was already barred by prescription. The RTC did not believe his story because any person in his right frame of mind would easily suspect and detect that something was amiss or unusual when he is asked to sign a blank sheet of paper. Besides, the court said that his consent could not have been obtained by fraud because even after he allegedly learned that he signed a marriage contract, he still acknowledged in several documents that Mila was his wife.

This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). But subsequently, it amended its decision and ruled that since the marriage between Jerry and Mila was without a marriage license, it could be valid only if they executed an affidavit that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years prior to the celebration of marriage (Article 76, Civil Code). In this case, however, the affidavit they executed was false because when they got married, they had lived only as husband and wife for more than five months. So their marriage was void from the beginning, said the CA. Was the CA correct?

Yes. The exception of a marriage license under Article 76 applies only to those who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and desire to marry each other. The Civil Code, in no ambiguous terms, places a minimum period requirement of five years of cohabitation. Article 76 also prescribes that the contracting parties shall state the requisite facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths; and that the official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.

Therefore, the falsity of the affidavit executed by Jerry and Mila to exempt them from the requirement of a marriage license is beyond question. This falsity 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. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all (Republic vs. Dayot, G.R. 175581, March 28, 2008).