Validity and Nullification of Marriage Solemnized Without License Under Philippine Family Code

I. Introduction

The marriage license is one of the formal requisites of marriage under the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended). Its absence, when not excused by law, renders the marriage void ab initio. This principle is absolute and admits of no cure by prescription, subsequent cohabitation, birth of children, or execution of post-facto affidavits.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that a marriage celebrated without a valid marriage license (and outside the exempting circumstances provided by law) is a nullity that produces no civil effects except those arising from cohabitation under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.

II. Legal Framework: The Marriage License as Formal Requisite

Article 3, Family Code – Essential Requisites
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female;
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.

Article 4, Family Code – Formal Requisites
The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except as otherwise provided in Chapter 2 of this Title;
(3) A marriage ceremony with personal appearance and declaration of the parties before the solemnizing officer and at least two witnesses of legal age.

The second paragraph of Article 4 expressly states:

“The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).”

Article 35 (3), Family Code
The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(3) Those solemnized without a license, except those covered under Chapter 2 of this Title.

Thus, the general rule is: no valid license = void marriage, unless the marriage falls under the exemptions in Articles 27–34.

III. Cases Exempted from the Marriage License Requirement (Chapter 2, Title I, Family Code)

The law recognizes exceptional situations where public policy favors the celebration of marriage even without prior procurement of a license:

1. Article 27 – Marriage in articulo mortis (at the point of death)

   • Either or both parties are at the point of death.
   • The marriage remains valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives.

2. Article 28 – Marriage in remote places

   • No practicable means of transportation to the local civil registrar.
   • The solemnizing officer must certify the remoteness.

3. Article 29 – Marriage by ship captain or airplane chief (now largely obsolete due to modern communication)

4. Article 30 – Marriage by military commander (in specific military zones or units)

5. Article 31 – Marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members performed by ship captain or airplane chief

6. Article 32 – Marriages among Muslims or ethnic cultural communities performed according to their customs (provided registered within 30 days)

7. Article 33 – Ratification of marital cohabitation

   • Parties have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years;
   • No legal impediment existed at the time of cohabitation or at the time of marriage;
   • Executed under oath before the solemnizing officer.

8. Article 34 – The “five-year cohabitation” exemption

   • Identical requirements as Article 33.
   • The parties execute a sworn affidavit stating the five-year cohabitation and absence of legal impediment.
   • The affidavit takes the place of the license.

Important: The exemption under Articles 33 and 34 applies only when the five-year cohabitation and absence of impediment are true at the time of the marriage ceremony. False statements render the marriage void.

IV. Effect of Absence of License Outside Exempted Cases: Absolute Nullity

Supreme Court rulings are unanimous and categorical:

• Moreno v. Bernabe (1960) – Early jurisprudence already declared such marriages void.
• Republic v. Court of Appeals and Castro (2007)
• Republic v. Dayot (G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008) – The Court explicitly held that a marriage celebrated without a marriage license is void ab initio even if the parties executed an affidavit under Article 34 after the ceremony. The affidavit must be executed before or simultaneously with the marriage.
• Cosca v. Palaypayon (1994) – Solemnizing officers who knowingly perform marriages without license are administratively liable.
• Abbas v. Abbas (G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013) – Reaffirmed Dayot doctrine.
• Nollora v. People (G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011) – Criminal liability for bigamy may still attach even if the first marriage was void for lack of license, because the declaration of nullity must precede the second marriage.

Key principle from Dayot and subsequent cases:
“The validity of the marriage cannot be established by the subsequent execution of the affidavit under Article 34. The requirement of the license is not subject to stipulation or cure by the parties’ acts.”

V. Procedure for Judicial Declaration of Nullity

Although the marriage is void ab initio, a judicial declaration is required for certain purposes:

1. To remarry – A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) requires a final decree of nullity before contracting a subsequent marriage (Article 40, Family Code).

2. To establish status of children, property relations, succession rights, etc.

Venue: Family Court of the place where petitioner or respondent has resided for at least six months prior to filing.

Grounds: Include Article 35(3) – marriage solemnized without license.

Prescription: Imprescriptible. Any proper party may file even after the death of one or both spouses (Niñal v. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000).

Who may file:

• During lifetime of spouses: either spouse, or any person with legal interest.
• After death: heirs or any person adversely affected (e.g., in succession disputes).

Collateral attack is allowed in some instances (e.g., bigamy prosecution), but for remarriage or property settlement, judicial declaration is mandatory.

VI. Legal Effects of the Void Marriage

1. No legal effects as a valid marriage

   • No community or conjugal property regime.
   • No presumption of legitimacy of children (except when nullity is based on Article 36 – psychological incapacity).
   • Children conceived or born of such void marriage are illegitimate (Article 165, Family Code).

2. Property relations governed by rules on co-ownership

   • If both parties in good faith: Article 147 – co-ownership of properties acquired through joint work or industry.
   • If one or both in bad faith: Article 148 – only properties acquired by joint effort are co-owned; wages and salaries remain separate.

3. Children

   • Illegitimate status.
   • May be legitimated by subsequent valid marriage of parents (Article 177).
   • Entitled to support and successional rights as acknowledged natural or spurious children.

4. Successional rights

   • The “spouses” do not inherit from each other ab intestato.

5. Criminal liability

   • Solemnizing officer may be liable under Article 352, Revised Penal Code (performance of illegal marriage ceremony).
   • Parties may face criminal liability if they knowingly contracted a void marriage (e.g., bigamy).

VII. Common Misconceptions Corrected by Jurisprudence

1. “Long cohabitation cures the defect.” → Rejected in Dayot, Abbas, and numerous cases.

2. “Birth of children validates the marriage.” → No legal basis.

3. “Good faith of the parties makes the marriage voidable instead of void.” → No. Good faith affects only property regime under Articles 147–148.

4. “The marriage certificate stating that a license was issued is conclusive.” → No. The actual absence of a license in the records renders the marriage void even if the certificate falsely states otherwise (People v. Borromeo, 1984).

VIII. Conclusion

Under Philippine law, the marriage license is not a mere bureaucratic formality but a substantive formal requisite whose absence (outside statutory exemptions) strikes the marriage with absolute nullity. No length of cohabitation, no number of children, no social recognition, and no subsequent affidavit can cure the fatal defect.

Parties who discover that their marriage was celebrated without a valid license must file a petition for declaration of nullity under Article 35(3) if they wish to regularize their status or remarry. Until a final judicial decree is obtained, they remain legally incapable of contracting a new marriage.

The rule is strict, but it is rooted in the State’s policy of protecting the sanctity and stability of marriage by ensuring that only marriages compliant with all legal requisites produce full civil effects.