Ratification of Marital Cohabitation under the Philippine Family Code (A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide)

I. Introduction

“Ratification of marital cohabitation” is a Family-Code term of art that describes the curative power of spouses’ voluntary living together after the ground that made a marriage voidable has disappeared. Once ratified, an otherwise voidable marriage is cleansed of its original defect and is thereafter regarded by law as perfectly valid ab initio. This mechanism—found only in voidable (annullable) marriages—reflects the State’s policy to preserve marriages whenever the parties themselves wish to keep the union intact.

II. Foundations in the Family Code

Provision	Text (key phrase)	Core idea
Art. 45 (1)–(4)	“Such marriage shall not be annulled if…there was free cohabitation after the cessation/discovery of the cause.”	Statutory source of ratification.
Art. 47	Lists who may file the annulment case and the prescriptive periods.	Ratification bars an action even before these periods lapse.
Art. 50	Requires entry of final judgment of annulment in the Civil Register.	When ratification occurs, no judgment exists to be registered.
Art. 56	Effects upon legitime of children once the decree becomes final.	Irrelevant once ratified (marriage is deemed never defective).

Scope limitation: Articles 45(5) (incurable impotence) and 45(6) (serious incurable STD) do not mention ratification; the defect is considered irremediable, although the five-year prescriptive period under Art. 47 still applies.

III. Void versus Voidable and Why Only the Latter Can Be Ratified

Aspect	Void	Voidable
Defect	Goes to existence (e.g., lack of license; psychological incapacity)	Goes to validity (e.g., vitiated consent, minority without parental consent)
Action	Declaration of nullity—does not prescribe	Annulment—subject to Art. 47 periods
Ratification	Impossible	Possible by free cohabitation

Because void marriages are deemed never to have existed, nothing the parties do can breathe life into them; only a voidable marriage, which is valid until annulled, may be healed through ratification.

IV. Elements of Ratification by Cohabitation

Removal or cessation of the cause.
- The minority spouse reaches age 21.
- The insane spouse regains sanity.
- The innocent spouse discovers the fraud.
- The force, intimidation, or undue influence ceases.
Freedom of cohabitation. Spouses must live together voluntarily, sharing a common household in a manner typical of married life. Cohabitation must be uninterrupted and knowing—the innocent spouse must be fully aware that the impediment has been removed.
Intention to remain married. While intent is gleaned from conduct, Philippine jurisprudence stresses that “mere physical proximity” is not enough; there must be marital consent renewed in fact.
No prior decisive act seeking annulment. If a petition is already filed, a subsequent attempt at ratification will not necessarily defeat the suit unless the petitioner clearly desists and resumes conjugal life.

V. How Each Ground for Annulment May Be Ratified

¶ in Art. 45	Ground	Moment the defect disappears	How ratification occurs	Illustrative case law*
(1)	Lack of parental consent (18-21 yrs)	The minor spouse turns 21	Parties continue (or resume) living together in good faith beyond 21	Tamayo v. Paterno (CA, 1998)
(2)	Unsound mind	Insane spouse becomes lucid and competent	Both knowingly cohabit after recovery	Dino v. Dino (CA, 2001)
(3)	Fraud	Fraud is discovered	Defrauded party, with full knowledge, elects to stay and cohabits	Sevilla v. Cardenas (SC, 1986, under Civil Code)
(4)	Force, intimidation, undue influence	Coercion ceases	Victim continues married life freely	People v. Schnekenburger (bigamy context)

*Philippine Supreme Court decisions under the Civil Code remain persuasive because the Family Code merely carried over the same doctrine.

VI. Evidentiary Matters

Burden of proof. The party invoking ratification bears the onus of showing facts that constitute free cohabitation after removal of the cause.
Best evidence. Documents (e.g., joint tax returns, joint bank accounts) and credible testimony that the spouses shared a common household are preferred.
Continuity and duration. No fixed period is prescribed, but courts look for a pattern of stable, conjugal living rather than episodic visits.

Failing such proof, the presumption of marriage validity will not automatically supply the element of ratification; the statutory requirements must still be affirmatively shown.

VII. Legal Effects of Ratification

Cures the defect from the beginning. The marriage is considered valid ab initio. Unlike prescription (which merely bars the action), ratification removes the ground itself.
Legitimizes children. Children conceived or born before ratification are legitimate because legitimacy is reckoned from the date of celebration once the marriage is validated.
Fixes the property regime. Whatever property system applied from the celebration (usually absolute community) remains; no change is needed.
Bars future annulment. Neither spouse—nor any qualified third person—may thereafter file for annulment based on the original ground.
No need for judicial confirmation. Ratification is ipso jure; there is nothing to register in the civil registry except perhaps a remark in the annotations should the parties seek it for clarity.

VIII. Intersection with Prescriptive Periods (Art. 47)

Ground	Period to file annulment	Ratification interplay
Minority	4 yrs after reaching 21	Ratification may occur before lapse of 4 yrs; action is then barred even if time remains
Unsound mind	During lucid interval or by guardian; 5 yrs after regaining sanity	Ratification nullifies the action regardless of time
Fraud	4 yrs from discovery	Same
Force/intimidation	4 yrs from cessation	Same

Where the ground is impotence or serious STD (not susceptible to ratification), only prescription or a final judgment will close the door to annulment.

IX. Procedural Notes for Practitioners

Plead ratification as an affirmative defense in the answer to an annulment petition.
Attach supporting affidavits (neighbors, relatives) and documentary proof of shared residence.
Move for early dismissal on the ground that the pleading states no cause of action due to ratification.
Consider counter-claiming for damages if the filing was manifestly vexatious despite clear ratification.

X. Public-Policy Rationale

The drafters of the Family Code intentionally leaned toward marriage preservation: if the parties themselves are willing to forgive the defect and continue their union, the State will not allow one spouse—or a third person—to unravel it later. Ratification thus balances the need to protect vulnerable parties (minors, defrauded spouses) with the constitutional mandate to strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

XI. Comparative Glance

Jurisdiction	Similar concept?	Notable differences
Spain (Código Civil)	“Convalidación” by cohabitation	Likewise limited to voidable marriages; shorter prescriptive periods.
Quebec Civil Code	“Confirmation” of marriage defect	Requires written instrument, not merely cohabitation.
Common-law systems	Doctrine of “affirmation” after duress	Usually needs clear, overt act; not codified but applied in equity.

The Philippine model follows its Spanish roots but simplifies the process: cohabitation alone suffices, without a formal declaration.

XII. Frequently Asked Questions

Question	Short Answer
Must the spouses resume sexual relations?	Not strictly, but absence of sexual intimacy may weaken proof of free cohabitation.
Does ratification need to be in writing?	No. It is effected by conduct.
Can third parties (e.g., parents) invoke ratification?	Only to defeat an annulment action; they cannot file an independent action to declare ratification.
What if ratification occurs after an annulment suit is already filed?	Courts may dismiss the case on the ground of supervening ratification, especially if both parties manifest reconciliation.

XIII. Conclusion

“Ratification of marital cohabitation” is both a shield and a seal: a shield against the dissolution of a family that the spouses themselves wish to preserve, and a seal that forever closes the door on a specific voidable defect. Understanding its requisites—cessation of the cause, freedom, knowledge, and continued cohabitation—empowers lawyers, judges, and spouses to navigate family disputes with a full appreciation of the State’s guiding principle: the preservation of marriage whenever justice and public policy permit.