Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Republic V Dayot

    Uploaded by

    G S
    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging a decision declaring the marriage between Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson-Dayot void from the beginning. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead executing an affidavit stating they had lived together for 5 years. In 1993, Jose filed for annulment claiming the marriage was a sham. The trial court dismissed the case but the Court of Appeals later declared the marriage void from the beginning under the Civil Code since it was solemnized without a marriage license and did not fall under any exceptions. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, stating that a marriage without a license is void from the beginning and this can be challenged at any time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic V Dayot

    Uploaded by

    G S
    2K views1 page
    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging a decision declaring the marriage between Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson-Dayot void from the beginning. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead executing an affidavit stating they had lived together for 5 years. In 1993, Jose filed for annulment claiming the marriage was a sham. The trial court dismissed the case but the Court of Appeals later declared the marriage void from the beginning under the Civil Code since it was solemnized without a marriage license and did not fall under any exceptions. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, stating that a marriage without a license is void from the beginning and this can be challenged at any time.

    Original Description:

    Persons and family relations; digest

    Original Title

    Republic v Dayot

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging a decision declaring the marriage between Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson-Dayot void from the beginning. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead executing an affidavit stating they had lived together for 5 years. In 1993, Jose filed for annulment claiming the marriage was a sham. The trial court dismissed the case but the Court of Appeals later declared the marriage void from the beginning under the Civil Code since it was solemnized without a marriage license and did not fall under any exceptions. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, stating that a marriage without a license is void from the beginning and this can be challenged at any time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Republic V Dayot

    Uploaded by

    G S
    This case involves two consolidated petitions challenging a decision declaring the marriage between Jose Dayot and Felisa Tecson-Dayot void from the beginning. Jose and Felisa were married in 1986 without a marriage license, instead executing an affidavit stating they had lived together for 5 years. In 1993, Jose filed for annulment claiming the marriage was a sham. The trial court dismissed the case but the Court of Appeals later declared the marriage void from the beginning under the Civil Code since it was solemnized without a marriage license and did not fall under any exceptions. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, stating that a marriage without a license is void from the beginning and this can be challenged at any time.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JOSE A. DAYOT, G.R. No.

    175581, 28 March 2008


    FELISA TECSON-DAYOT vs. JOSE A. DAYOT, G.R. No. 179474

    Facts: These are 2 consolidated petitions for review challenging the decision which declared the
    marriage between Jose Dayot (Jose) and Felisa void ab initio.
    On 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall. The marriage was
    solemnized by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza. In lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn
    affidavit, also dated 24 November 1986, attesting that both of them had attained the age of maturity,
    and that being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years.
    On 7 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
    with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Biñan, Laguna, Branch 25. He contended that his marriage with
    Felisa was a sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties; 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.
    The RTC ruled that the marriage celebrated between Jose and Felisa was valid. It dismissed
    Jose’s version of the story as implausible, and rationalized that “[a]ny person in his right frame of mind
    would easily suspect any attempt to make him or her sign a blank sheet of paper. [Jose] could have
    already detected that something was amiss, unusual, as they were at Pasay City Hall to get a package for
    [Felisa] but it [was] he who was made to sign the pieces of paper for the release of the said package….
    and yet it took him, more or less, three months to "discover" that the pieces of paper that he signed was
    purportedly the marriage contract.” Moreover, on the matter of fraud, the RTC ruled that Jose’s action
    had prescribed. It cited Article 87 of the New Civil Code which requires that the action for annulment of
    marriage must be commenced by the injured party within four years after the discovery of the fraud.
    Jose, then, filed an appeal to the CA but was denied. However, his for motion for
    reconsideration but was the granted. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether the marriage between Jose and Felisa is void ab initio

    Ruling: Yes, the marriage contracted between Jose and Felisa is void ab initio. Article 80(3) of the Civil
    Code provides that a marriage solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional
    character, shall be void from the beginning. Inasmuch as the marriage between Jose and Felisa is not
    covered by the exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is, therefore, void ab initio because
    of the absence of a marriage license.
    Further, an action for nullity of marriage is imprescriptible. Jose and Felisa’s marriage were
    celebrated sans a marriage license. No other conclusion can be reached except that it is void ab initio. In
    this case, the right to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe, and may be raised any time.

    Fallo: WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 7
    November 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, declaring the marriage of Jose Dayot to Felisa Tecson-Dayot
    void ab initio, is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to their criminal liability, if any. No costs.

    You might also like