Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio (a presumption always arises in favor of marriage) and the State has the duty to always protect marriage as a sacred institution.

However, to allow marriage to take place based on a false affidavit in lieu of the mandatory marriage license is an abject circumvention of the law.

“Courts cannot allow such blatant disregard of the law in the name of a presumption that has clearly been disputed,” the Court of Appeals (CA) declared in a decision promulgated last Aug. 28 in CA-G.R. CV No. 121542 and written by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.

The Manila Bulletin redacted the names of the parties involved in the case to protect their and their children’s privacy.

Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution declares marriage as an "inviolable social institution" that is the foundation of the family and therefore must be protected by the State.

The constitutional mandate is further highlighted by the Family Code, the 1987 Executive Order No. 209, which governs all aspects of marriage and family relations in the Philippines, including the essential requisites for a valid marriage, the grounds for annulment, conjugal property relations, parental authority, and adoption.

Under Article 34 of the Family Code, “no license shall be necessary for the marriage of a 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.”

It mandates that the man and the woman’s cohabitation for at least five years must be reduced in affidavit form and presented to any person authorized by law to administer oaths and the solemnizing officer must also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.

Case records showed that the woman filed on Dec. 7, 2020 a petition before the regional trial court (RTC) and sought the nullification of her March 30, 2012 marriage for lack of a valid marriage license.

She invoked the provisions of Articles 4 and 35 of the Family Code on marriage requirements.

The woman said that she and the man started living as husband and wife in December 2008 after the latter’s return from abroad as an Overseas Filipino Worker.

She told the court that to avoid the need to secure a marriage license, the solemnizing officer made it appear that the couple had been living together for at least five years at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.

She added that she and the man did not execute an affidavit of cohabitation because they started living together only for three years and three months from December 2008 until their marriage on March 30, 2012.

During the trial court’s hearing, the woman said she filed her petition because she could no longer accept the demands of the man to bring another woman home and have a “threesome” during their intimacies.

She said she tolerated that set-up for many years and she was affected and troubled. They separated in 2018. She added that initially she did not want to file a case for nullity of marriage for the sake of her children.

But, she also said, she started taking medication for anxiety and depression brought about by their relationship.

The trial court dismissed her petition. She elevated the case to the CA.

In granting the appeal, the CA said marriage license can be dispensed with if the woman and the man have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, have no impediment to marry each other, and an affidavit is duly executed.

“The aim of this provision was to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant's name for a marriage license,” it said.

In the woman’s appeal, the CA said her cohabitation with the man was less than five years from December 2008 until the time of their marriage on March 30, 2012.

It pointed out that even if an affidavit of cohabitation was included in the certification falsely attesting the man and the woman had lived together for five years, “said affidavit would hold no value and would be a mere scrap of paper that would not exempt them from the marriage license requirement.”

“After all, the falsity of the allegation relating to the period of the parties’ cohabitation is not a mere irregularity, as it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath,” it stressed.

It also pointed out that “if the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect, and it is as if there was no affidavit at all.”

Thus, the CA said that the exceptional case under Article 34 of the Family Code does not apply, the requirement of a valid marriage license is lacking and the marriage between the man and the woman in this case “is void ab initio (from the beginning).”