Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 198 views

    Republic V Dayot

    Uploaded by

    Don Salamidaa
    The document discusses the legal requirements for marriage in the Philippines according to the Civil Code. It summarizes that Jose and Felisa's marriage in 1986 is governed by the Civil Code, which requires a marriage license except in exceptional circumstances. However, Jose later admitted the affidavit claiming they lived together for 5 years to exempt the license requirement was false. As such, their marriage is void under the Civil Code for lacking a required marriage license.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic V Dayot

    Uploaded by

    Don Salamidaa
    198 views1 page
    The document discusses the legal requirements for marriage in the Philippines according to the Civil Code. It summarizes that Jose and Felisa's marriage in 1986 is governed by the Civil Code, which requires a marriage license except in exceptional circumstances. However, Jose later admitted the affidavit claiming they lived together for 5 years to exempt the license requirement was false. As such, their marriage is void under the Civil Code for lacking a required marriage license.

    Original Title

    5. 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?

    The document discusses the legal requirements for marriage in the Philippines according to the Civil Code. It summarizes that Jose and Felisa's marriage in 1986 is governed by the Civil Code, which requires a marriage license except in exceptional circumstances. However, Jose later admitted the affidavit claiming they lived together for 5 years to exempt the license requirement was false. As such, their marriage is void under the Civil Code for lacking a required marriage license.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic V Dayot

    Uploaded by

    Don Salamidaa
    The document discusses the legal requirements for marriage in the Philippines according to the Civil Code. It summarizes that Jose and Felisa's marriage in 1986 is governed by the Civil Code, which requires a marriage license except in exceptional circumstances. However, Jose later admitted the affidavit claiming they lived together for 5 years to exempt the license requirement was false. As such, their marriage is void under the Civil Code for lacking a required marriage license.

    Copyright:

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

    Keyword: Marriage License Principles:

    Legal Basis
    Republic v. Dayot The marriage of Jose and Felisa was celebrated on 24
    November 1986, prior to the effectivity of the Family
    G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008 Code. The Civil Code governs their union and Article 53
    state “no marriage shall be solemnized unless all these
    Chico-Nazario, J: requisites are complied with:…(4) A marriage license,
    except in a marriage of exceptional character.
    Topic:
    Furthermore, Article 58 makes explicit that no marriage
    Marriage License shall be solemnized without license first being issued by
    the local civil registrar of the municipality where either
    Facts: contracting party habitually resides, save marriages of
    an exceptional character authorized by the Civil Code,
    Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) file a petition for
    but not those under Article 75. Article 80 (3) makes it
    review, praying that the Court of Appeals’ Decision
    clear the absence of a marriage license makes the
    dated 7 November 2006 be reversed for lack of merit,
    marriage void.
    and that the marriage between Jose Dayot and Felisa
    Tecson-Dayot be declared valid and subsisting, with Therefore the falsity of an affidavit of marital
    Felisa who filed a separate petition for review. cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen
    short of the minimum five-year requirement, effectively
    Jose Dayot cited in his Motion for Reconsideration to
    renders the marriage void ab initio for lack of a
    the Court of Appeals first decision, denying that Jose
    marriage license.
    and Felisa’s marriage was void ab initio, the legal
    condition that the man and woman must have been
    living together as husband and wife for at least five
    years before marriage, which according to Article 76 of
    the Civil Code exempts the marriage from the
    requirement of a marriage license. Jose maintained that
    the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed by him
    and Felisa was false.

    The Republic opines that the marriage must not be


    invalidated by the fact that the parties incorporated a
    fabricated statement in their affidavit that they
    cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years.
    Furthermore, the Republic adduces that Jose stated
    Felisa as his wife in other documents. Felisa also
    claimed that Jose only sought the annulment of their
    marriage after a criminal case for bigamy, subsequent
    marriage with Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990.

    Issues:
    Whether or not the marriage of Jose and Felisa Dayot
    should be held valid without a marriage license.

    Resolution:
    No

    You might also like