Overview

Article 34 of the Family Code creates a narrow exception to the marriage-license requirement. It allows a couple to validly marry without a license if, prior to the marriage, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years and had no legal impediment to marry each other at any time during that five-year period. The provision is often informally called the rule on “ratification of marital cohabitation.”

This article explains the requisites, procedure, documentary practices, roles of officials, and common pitfalls—plus practical checklists and templates.

Legal Foundation and Relationship to Other Requisites

A valid Philippine marriage requires:

Essential requisites (Family Code, Art. 2):
- Capacity: each party at least 18 years old and not disqualified by law;
- Consent: freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Formal requisites (Art. 3):
- Authority of the solemnizing officer;
- A marriage license (except when an Article 34 or other statutory exemption applies);
- A ceremony: personal appearance and exchange of marriage vows before the officer and at least two witnesses.

Article 34 modifies only the license element of the formal requisites. All other essential and formal requisites still apply.

The Four Core Requisites of Article 34

To invoke Article 34 validly, the couple must establish all of the following:

Five (5) years of cohabitation “as husband and wife.”
- The parties must have lived together in a manner characteristic of spouses—a shared home and a marital-type partnership—not merely casual intimacy or intermittent visits.
- The five years must be immediately prior to the marriage (i.e., completed before the ceremony).
- Continuity is required in substance, but temporary separations for work, study, medical treatment, or similar reasons typically do not break the cohabitation if the marital consortium continued.
No legal impediment at any point during the five-year period.
- The parties must have been free to marry each other for the entire five years.
- Any impediment—e.g., an existing marriage, minority (under 18), incestuous/prohibited degrees, adoption/affinity bars, or foreign divorce not yet recognized—defeats Article 34 if it existed at any time within the five-year span, even if later removed.
Sworn statement by the parties.
- The parties must jointly execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were without legal impediment during that time.
Ascertainment by the solemnizing officer and his/her sworn statement.
- The judge/minister/priest/imam/authorized official who solemnizes must personally ascertain the factual basis (cohabitation + no impediment) and execute a sworn statement that he/she has done so.

Key point: Article 34 is not a shortcut for couples who simply wish to skip the license. It is a fact-specific, narrow exception designed to regularize long-standing, license-less unions where the parties have always been free to marry each other.

What Article 34 Does Not Change

Age and consent rules remain. Both must be at least 18, capable, and must freely consent in a formal ceremony.
Authority and ceremony remain. The officer must be legally authorized, act within territorial limits where applicable, and conduct a proper ceremony with two witnesses.
Parental consent/advice. These are requirements for license issuance. Because Article 34 dispenses with the license, no parental consent/advice is required by the Code for an Article 34 marriage. (Prudentially, some officiants still counsel minors or very young adults, but this is not a statutory prerequisite once Article 34 applies.)

Practical Evidence of the Five-Year Cohabitation

While the Code requires affidavits, prudent practice is to corroborate cohabitation and freedom to marry through documentary and testimonial evidence. Common proofs include:

Joint documents showing a shared household: utility bills, lease or property papers, barangay certifications, IDs sharing the same address.
Community reputation: barangay captain/neighbor affidavits attesting the couple have long presented themselves as spouses.
Children’s records: PSA birth certificates listing both as parents (not conclusive, but supportive).
Civil status proofs: Certificates of No Marriage (CENOMAR) or civil registry documents evidencing freedom to marry (see note on practice below).

Practice note: Although not mandated by Article 34, many solemnizing officers require CENOMARs and supporting proofs as part of their due diligence before executing their own sworn statement.

Step-by-Step Procedure (Typical)

Pre-assessment with the chosen solemnizing officer.
- Confirm the officer’s authority and territorial competence for the intended place of marriage.
- Discuss evidence to substantiate five-year cohabitation and absence of impediment.
Preparation of the Parties’ Joint Affidavit.
- Contents should state: (a) names, ages, nationalities; (b) exact start date of cohabitation; (c) continuity and manner “as husband and wife”; (d) no impediment during the entire period; and (e) intent to marry without a license under Article 34.
Officer’s Verification and Sworn Statement.
- After review/interview, the officer executes a sworn statement that he/she ascertained compliance with Article 34.
Ceremony.
- Conducted before the officer with two witnesses of legal age.
- The Marriage Certificate (MC) must indicate Article 34 as the legal basis for no license.
Registration.
- The MC is filed with the Local Civil Registry (LCR) within the statutory period by the solemnizing officer (or by the parties where applicable).
- The LCR transmits to the PSA for national registration.
- Non-registration does not invalidate an otherwise valid marriage, but it complicates proof; prompt registration is strongly advised.

Scope of “Cohabitation as Husband and Wife”

Quality, not mere co-residence. The relationship must mirror the marital consortium: shared home, mutual support, and public reputation as spouses.
Continuity with reasonable interruptions. Short absences (e.g., overseas work) generally do not interrupt the five-year count if the marital union continued.
Exclusivity is implicit. Concurrent cohabitation with other partners is inconsistent with living “as husband and wife” with the intended spouse.
Counting the five years. Start from the date the couple began living together in that manner up to the day before the marriage. Parties should be ready to specify the approximate start date.

“No Legal Impediment” — What It Covers

A legal impediment exists if either party, at any time during the five years:

Was married to someone else (even if later separated, or later obtained a divorce abroad not yet judicially recognized in the Philippines);
Was under 18;
Stood within prohibited degrees of consanguinity/affinity or other statutory bars (including relationships by adoption);
Was otherwise incapacitated or disqualified by law to marry the other (e.g., subsisting annulment/nullity case with unresolved civil status in some scenarios, or a prior foreign divorce that lacked recognition in a Philippine court at the time).

If an impediment existed at any point in the five-year window, the Article 34 exemption cannot be invoked. The proper path is to secure a license once the impediment is fully and legally removed.

Due Diligence Duties of the Solemnizing Officer

Verification. The officer must actively ascertain the facts, not merely accept the parties’ say-so.
Sworn statement. Failure to prepare or keep the officer’s affidavit exposes the marriage to challenge for irregularity and the officer to administrative or criminal liability if bad faith is shown.
Territorial competence. Some officers (e.g., judges, mayors) are limited to marriages within their jurisdiction. Marriages outside territorial authority may be void for lack of authority.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

If the five-year/no-impediment requirement is untrue:
- The license exception does not apply → absence of a marriage license → marriage is generally void for non-compliance with a formal requisite (not cured by registration).
- Possible criminal liability (e.g., perjury, falsification of public documents), and, where a prior marriage exists, exposure to bigamy.
If only paperwork is irregular (e.g., defective wording of affidavits) but facts truly satisfy Article 34:
- Courts distinguish absence (void) from irregularity (does not necessarily void). Substantial compliance plus proof of the factual requisites can still sustain validity, but sloppy practice invites litigation.

Interaction with Other License-Exemption Provisions

The Family Code provides other license exemptions (e.g., marriages in articulo mortis under specified conditions, certain remote-place scenarios, among others). Do not conflate those with Article 34. Each exemption has distinct factual triggers and documentary requirements. If Article 34 does not fit, consider whether another statutory exemption applies—or simply obtain a license.

Practical Checklists

For Couples Invoking Article 34

□ We have lived together continuously as husband and wife for ≥ 5 years immediately before the wedding.
□ Neither of us had any impediment to marry the other at any time during those five years.
□ We can specify dates and produce corroboration (barangay certification, joint bills/lease, neighbors’ affidavits, children’s school or civil-registry records, etc.).
□ We will execute a joint sworn affidavit stating cohabitation and lack of impediment.
□ We have selected a properly authorized solemnizing officer (with territorial competence) who is willing to solemnize an Article 34 marriage.
□ We will ensure the officer’s sworn statement is prepared and kept in the marriage packet.
□ Our Marriage Certificate will clearly indicate Article 34 as basis for no license and will be registered with the LCR.

For Solemnizing Officers

□ Interview both parties; examine IDs, age, civil status, and proofs of cohabitation.
□ Require prudent corroboration (e.g., CENOMARs, barangay certification, affidavits of disinterested persons).
□ Confirm territorial authority for the place of marriage.
□ Prepare and retain the Officer’s Sworn Statement (ascertainment under Article 34).
□ Ensure the ceremony meets formalities; have two witnesses of legal age.
□ File the Marriage Certificate timely with the LCR, indicating Article 34 exemption.

Frequently Asked Issues

1) We lived together for five years, but for two of those years one of us was still married to someone else (later annulled/voided/divorced abroad). Can we use Article 34? No. The couple must have been free to marry each other for the entire five-year period. An impediment at any point disqualifies the exemption. Get a marriage license instead (after the impediment is fully and legally removed/recognized).

2) We separated temporarily due to overseas employment. Does that break the five years? Not necessarily. What matters is that the marital consortium continued (shared intent, support, and public reputation), and that the separation was temporary and consistent with married-life cohabitation.

3) Is parental consent required if one party is 18–21? The Family Code’s parental consent/advice rules attach to license issuance. Because Article 34 dispenses with the license, those do not apply as statutory prerequisites. (Officers may still provide counseling as a matter of prudence.)

4) Must we still attend pre-marriage counseling/seminar? Pre-marriage counseling requirements generally tie to local civil registry/health office processes associated with licenses. Under Article 34, practice varies by locality and by officer; many still encourage or require counseling as part of due diligence. Clarify with your chosen officer and the LCR for registration needs.

5) What if the officer didn’t write an affidavit? Failure of the officer to document ascertainment is a serious irregularity and may expose the officer to liability. If the facts truly met Article 34, courts may still uphold the marriage; however, the omission makes the marriage easier to challenge. Best practice is strict compliance.

6) Can Article 34 “cure” an otherwise void prior union? No. Article 34 does not validate void marriages. It simply dispenses with the license for a new marriage if its requisites are satisfied.

Model Affidavit Templates (Illustrative)

A. Parties’ Joint Affidavit (Article 34)

JOINT AFFIDAVIT We, [Name], of legal age, [citizenship], residing at [address], and [Name], of legal age, [citizenship], residing at [address], after having been duly sworn, depose and state:

That we have lived together as husband and wife since [date] at [address/es], and such cohabitation has continued without interruption up to the present;

That during the entire five (5) years immediately prior to our intended marriage, no legal impediment existed for either of us to marry the other;

That we seek to marry without a license pursuant to Article 34 of the Family Code; and

That we execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing. [Signatures] SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] at [place]. [Jurats/Notarial details]

B. Officer’s Sworn Statement (Ascertainment)

SWORN STATEMENT OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER I, [Name/Title], a duly authorized solemnizing officer, after due inquiry and examination of [Names of parties], and their documentary proofs, ascertained that: (a) They have cohabited as husband and wife for at least five (5) years immediately prior to their marriage; and (b) They were under no legal impediment to marry each other during said period. I thus solemnized their marriage on [date] at [place] under Article 34 of the Family Code. [Signature/Office/Seal]

(Adapt language to local notarial and agency requirements.)

Litigation and Risk Management Tips

Date specificity matters. Vague timelines invite challenges. Include specific dates and corroboration.
Mind territorial authority. Marriages officiated outside an officer’s jurisdiction can be void irrespective of Article 34.
Keep the packet. Retain copies of: parties’ IDs, proofs of residence, CENOMARs (if obtained), barangay certifications, affidavits, the officer’s sworn statement, and the LCR-stamped MC.
When in doubt, get a license. If any factual uncertainty exists (e.g., lingering foreign divorce recognition questions), the license route is safer and avoids Article 34 disputes.

Bottom Line

Article 34 is a precision tool—not a shortcut. It validly dispenses with a marriage license only where the couple can truthfully and convincingly show five continuous years of marital-type cohabitation and complete freedom to marry each other during that entire period, and where both the parties’ affidavit and the officer’s ascertainment and sworn statement are in order. Diligent documentation and careful compliance protect the couple, the officer, and the resulting marriage from avoidable challenges.