False Affidavit of Cohabitation and Void Marriage Under Philippine Law: Republic v. Aguirre

False Affidavit of Cohabitation and Void Marriage Under Philippine Law: Republic v. Aguirre

Introduction

Philippine law generally requires a valid marriage license before a marriage may be solemnized. One limited exception applies when a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years immediately before the marriage, have no legal impediment to marry, and comply with the affidavit requirements under Article 34 of the Family Code.

Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026) confirms that a false affidavit of cohabitation does not cure the absence of a marriage license. When the parties did not satisfy the statutory requirements, the marriage is void from the beginning rather than merely irregular.

The ruling is significant for couples, solemnizing officers, civil registrars, lawyers, and courts because it emphasizes that the license exemption must be applied strictly. An affidavit cannot replace the required period of cohabitation or the absence of a legal impediment.

The General Rule: A Marriage License Is Required

Article 3(2) of the Family Code identifies a valid marriage license as one of the formal requisites of marriage, except in the cases exempted by law. Article 4 provides that the absence of an essential or formal requisite generally renders the marriage void from the beginning, subject to the specific exception stated in Article 35(2).

Article 35(3) expressly declares void from the beginning marriages solemnized without a license, except those covered by the chapter on marriages exempted from the license requirement. These provisions appear in the Family Code of the Philippines (1987) and are applied in Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026).

The requirement is not a mere administrative formality. The license is the State’s authorization, issued after the civil registrar has examined the parties’ legal capacity to marry. The Supreme Court explained this function in Republic of the Philippines v. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, 28 May 2008.

Article 34 of the Family Code: The License Exemption

Article 34 provides:

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.

The provision also requires the parties to state these facts in an affidavit before a person authorized to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer must separately state under oath that the officer ascertained the parties’ qualifications and found no legal impediment to the marriage.

The exemption therefore requires the concurrence of all of the following conditions:

• The parties are a man and a woman who desire to marry each other.
• They lived together as husband and wife for at least five years immediately before the marriage.
• The cohabitation was continuous and exclusive in the legally relevant sense.
• The parties had no legal impediment to marry each other during the relevant period and at the time of marriage.
• The parties executed the required affidavit.
• The solemnizing officer executed the required sworn statement after personally ascertaining their qualifications and the absence of a legal impediment.

The Supreme Court identified these cumulative requirements in Borja-Manzano v. Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-0-1329, 8 March 2001. Failure to satisfy any material requirement prevents reliance on Article 34.

Why the Five-Year Requirement Must Be Strictly Met

Article 34 is an exception to the general license requirement. For that reason, the Supreme Court has ruled that it must be strictly construed. The parties cannot rely on the exemption unless their circumstances clearly fall within the statutory language.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026), the Supreme Court considered the evidence that one party had left for Israel in 2006 and returned only a few days before the 2009 marriage. The Court treated the absence as inconsistent with the required continuous cohabitation as husband and wife, particularly because there was no evidence that the parties continued to live together as spouses while apart.

The relevant period is not simply five years of acquaintance, dating, intermittent stays, or a relationship maintained from separate residences. The statutory requirement concerns living together as husband and wife for at least five years immediately preceding the marriage.

A False Affidavit Cannot Substitute for a Marriage License

An affidavit of cohabitation is evidence of facts that must actually exist. It is not an independent source of authority to marry without a license. If the parties did not meet the five-year cohabitation requirement, a sworn statement falsely asserting that they did cannot validate the marriage.

Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026) adopted the rule that allowing a false affidavit to take the place of a marriage license would permit an improper circumvention of the law. The Supreme Court relied on the doctrine discussed in Republic of the Philippines v. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, 28 May 2008.

The same conclusion appears in De Castro v. Assidao-De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, 13 February 2008, where the Supreme Court recognized that the absence of a marriage license, coupled with a false affidavit claiming more than five years of cohabitation, resulted in a marriage void from the beginning.

Republic v. Aguirre: The Court’s Ruling

In Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, the trial court found that the affidavit of cohabitation was false and that the parties had not satisfied the five-year requirement. The trial court declared the marriage void for lack of a valid marriage license, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the declaration of nullity based on the falsity of the affidavit. The Court held that Article 34 did not apply because the parties failed to prove the required continuous and exclusive cohabitation as husband and wife for at least five years immediately before the marriage.

The Court further ruled that the false affidavit could not replace the missing license. The marriage was therefore void ab initio under Articles 3(2), 4, and 35(3) of the Family Code.

False Affidavit, Irregularity, or Void Marriage?

Absence of a Legal Impediment Is an Independent Requirement

The five-year cohabitation requirement is not sufficient by itself. The parties must also have no legal impediment to marry each other. This requirement must exist at the time of the marriage and must be truthfully stated in the parties’ affidavit.

In Borja-Manzano v. Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-0-1329, 8 March 2001, the Supreme Court emphasized that a prior subsisting marriage is a legal impediment. A solemnizing officer cannot treat the Article 34 exemption as available when the parties’ own documents disclose that either party remains married to another person.

Similarly, Office of the Court Administrator v. De Vera, A.M. No. P-19-4017, 28 September 2021 illustrates the importance of examining the parties’ marital history. A person cannot truthfully claim the required cohabitation as husband and wife during a period when a prior marriage created a legal impediment.

Duties of the Solemnizing Officer

The solemnizing officer must not merely accept the parties’ affidavit without examination. The officer must personally ascertain the parties’ qualifications and the absence of a legal impediment, and must execute the required sworn statement.

Judges who solemnize marriages have additional administrative duties. They must personally interview the parties, examine the submitted documents, and determine whether the statutory requirements have been met.

In Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, 3 September 2014, the Supreme Court explained that a judge must personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation and must comply with the rules governing the solemnization of marriages.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that a judge should not notarize the parties’ affidavit of cohabitation when the judge will solemnize their marriage, because the document is not connected with the judge’s official functions as a judge. This principle appears in Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, 3 September 2014.

Proof in an Action for Declaration of Nullity

A party seeking to establish that a marriage is void for lack of a license must present evidence addressing the marriage record, the existence or nonexistence of a license, and the claimed basis for the exemption.

Under the doctrine discussed in Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026), the absence of a license may be apparent from the marriage contract or supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no license was issued. When the marriage record invokes an exceptional character but the evidence shows that the statutory conditions were not met, the exemption fails.

Evidence may include civil registry records, travel and immigration records, residence documents, employment records, medical records, testimony of relatives or neighbors, and admissions made by the parties. The court must determine whether the evidence proves the statutory cohabitation requirement rather than merely showing a romantic relationship or occasional residence together.

False Statements May Have Other Legal Consequences

The declaration that a marriage is void is separate from possible liability arising from the false affidavit. In Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026), the Supreme Court noted that the ruling was without prejudice to any criminal liability arising from the execution of a false affidavit.

Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes false testimony in other cases and perjury in a solemn affirmation when a person knowingly makes an untruthful statement under oath on a material matter before a person authorized to administer an oath. The possible application of this provision depends on the evidence and the elements of the offense in the particular case.

Administrative liability may also arise when a court employee or public officer makes a false statement in an official document. The Supreme Court discussed this principle in Office of the Court Administrator v. De Vera, A.M. No. P-19-4017, 28 September 2021.

Common Situations

Five years of continuous cohabitation with no legal impediment. If the parties actually lived together as husband and wife for at least five years immediately before the wedding, had no legal impediment, executed the required affidavit, and the solemnizing officer completed the required sworn statement, the Article 34 exemption may apply.

Five years of dating but separate residences. Dating, engagement, or a long-term relationship does not by itself satisfy Article 34. The statutory language requires living together as husband and wife.

One party worked abroad for several years. Overseas employment does not automatically resolve the issue. The court must examine whether the parties continued to live together as husband and wife in the legally required sense and whether the evidence establishes continuity immediately before the marriage.

The parties signed the affidavit because the solemnizing officer advised them to do so. Advice from the officer does not make an untrue affidavit valid. The parties remain responsible for the truth of their sworn statements, and the officer has an independent duty to examine the legal requirements.

The parties later lived together for five years. Cohabitation after the marriage cannot retroactively satisfy the requirement that the parties must have lived together for at least five years immediately before the marriage.

Relationship with Earlier Marriage Laws

The governing rule for marriages celebrated under the Family Code is Article 34 of Executive Order No. 209, as amended. Earlier provisions of the Civil Code and the Marriage Law may be relevant to marriages celebrated during their periods of effect, but they should not be used to determine the validity of a marriage governed by the Family Code.

For historical context, the Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines v. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, 28 May 2008 distinguished the former Marriage Law from the Civil Code regime. The Court explained that the Civil Code made the license requirement compulsory, subject to narrowly defined exceptions.

Guidance for Parties and Practitioners

• Obtain a marriage license unless the parties can prove every requirement of Article 34.
• Verify the parties’ civil status and confirm that no prior subsisting marriage creates a legal impediment.
• Prepare the affidavit only after confirming the actual dates, nature, continuity, and exclusivity of the cohabitation.
• Preserve documentary evidence supporting the claimed period of cohabitation.
• Ensure that the solemnizing officer personally examines the parties and executes the required sworn statement.
• Do not treat a standard affidavit form as proof that the statutory requirements have been met.
• For a suspected void marriage, obtain the marriage record and local civil registrar certification, then evaluate the proper judicial remedy.

Conclusion

The rule under Philippine law is direct: a false affidavit of cohabitation cannot replace a marriage license. Article 34 applies only when the parties actually lived together as husband and wife for at least five years immediately before the marriage, had no legal impediment, executed the required affidavit, and satisfied the solemnizing officer’s sworn-statement requirement.

Republic of the Philippines v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653 (2026) confirms that failure to meet these conditions results in a marriage void from the beginning under Articles 3(2), 4, and 35(3) of the Family Code. Parties should therefore use the license exemption only after careful verification of the facts, while solemnizing officers must independently examine and document compliance with every statutory condition.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. It is located at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com .