de Castro Vs Assidao-De Castro

G.R. No.
160172 February 13, 2008 embarrassment and possible

administrative prosecution due to her
REINEL ANTHONY B. DE pregnant state; and that he was not
CASTRO, petitioner, able to get parental advice from his
vs. parents before he got married. He also
ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE averred that they never lived together
CASTRO, respondent. as husband and wife and that he has
never seen nor acknowledged the
TINGA, J.: child.
8. The trial court ruled that the marriage
between petitioner and respondent is
FACTS:
not valid because it was solemnized
without a marriage license. However, it
1. Petitioner and respondent met and declared petitioner as the natural father
became sweethearts in 1991 and of the child, and thus obliged to give her
planned to get married, thus they support.
applied for a marriage license with the 9. Petitioner elevated the case to the
Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig Court of Appeals.
City in 1994. 10. The Court of Appeals denied the
2. After, they had their first sexual relation appeal. The appellate court also ruled
and had regularly engaged in sex that since this case is an action for
thereafter. support, it was improper for the trial
3. When the couple went back to the court to declare the marriage of
Office of the Civil Registrar, the petitioner and respondent as null and
marriage license had already expired. void in the very same case. There was
4. They then executed an affidavit stating no participation of the State, through
that they had been living together as the prosecuting attorney or fiscal, to
husband and wife for at least five years. see to it that there is no collusion
The couple got married on the same between the parties, as required by the
date, with Judge Jose C. Bernabe, Family Code in actions for declaration
administering the civil rites. of nullity of a marriage. The burden of
Nevertheless, after the ceremony, proof to show that the marriage is void
petitioner and respondent went back to rests upon petitioner, but it is a matter
their respective homes and did not live that can be raised in an action for
together as husband and wife. declaration of nullity, and not in the
5. In 1995, respondent gave birth to a instant proceedings.
child and has been the one supporting 11. The OSG avers that the Court of
her out of her income as a government Appeals erred in holding that it was
dentist and from her private practice. improper for the trial court to declare
6. In 1998, respondent filed a complaint null and void the marriage of petitioner
for support against petitioner before the and respondent in the action for
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, support. The proceedings in the trial
alleging that she is married to petitioner court showed that the marriage
and that the latter has "reneged on his between petitioner and respondent
responsibility/obligation to financially was solemnized without a marriage
support her "as his wife and Reinna license, and that their affidavit was
Tricia as his child." false. Thus, it concludes the trial court
7. Petitioner denied that he is married to correctly held that the marriage
respondent, claiming that their between petitioner and respondent is
marriage is void ab initio since the not valid.
marriage was facilitated by a fake
affidavit; and that he was merely
ISSUE:
prevailed upon by respondent to sign
the marriage contract to save her from
WON the trial court had the jurisdiction to there was no cohabitation at all. The false
determine the validity of the marriage between affidavit which petitioner and respondent
petitioner and respondent in an action for executed so they could push through with the
support marriage has no value whatsoever; it is a mere
scrap of paper. They were not exempt from the
RULING: marriage license requirement. Their failure to
obtain and present a marriage license renders
YES. The Court holds that the trial court had their marriage void ab initio.
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the
marriage between petitioner and respondent.
The validity of a void marriage may be
collaterally attacked.
Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage

even in a suit not directly instituted to question
the validity of said marriage, so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case.
However, evidence must be adduced,
testimonial or documentary, to prove the
existence of grounds rendering such a
marriage an absolute nullity.
Under the Family Code, the absence of any of

the essential or formal requisites shall render
the marriage void ab initio, whereas a defect in
any of the essential requisites shall render the
marriage voidable. In the instant case, it is
clear from the evidence presented that
petitioner and respondent did not have a
marriage license when they contracted their
marriage. Instead, they presented an affidavit
stating that they had been living together for
more than five years. However, respondent
herself in effect admitted the falsity of the
affidavit when she was asked during cross-
examination.
The falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered

as a mere irregularity in the formal requisites of
marriage. The law dispenses with the marriage
license requirement for a man and a woman
who have lived together and exclusively with
each other as husband and wife for a
continuous and unbroken period of at least five
years before the marriage. The aim of this
provision is 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. In the instant case, there was
no "scandalous cohabitation" to protect; in fact,

de Castro Vs Assidao-De Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Castro Vs Assidao-De Castro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Castro Vs Assidao-De Castro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

160172 February 13, 2008 embarrassment and possible

Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage

Under the Family Code, the absence of any of

The falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered

You might also like