The Family Code states, “No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and (2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.” In addition, there are formal requisites also: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) A valid marriage license, unless exempt; and (3) A marriage ceremony.
THE “ABSENCE” OF ANY ESSENTIAL AND/OR FORMAL REQUISITE would render the marriage void. But a “defect” in any ESSENTIAL requisite renders the marriage voidable, not void. On the other hand, any “irregularity” in any FORMAL requisite would not adversely affect the marriage’s validity, but would subject the persons responsible for the irregularities to civil, criminal, and/or administrative liabilities.
Applying these laws in the recently announced “Republic v Aguirre” (Feb. 24, 2026, per J Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Third Division), the Supreme Court voided a couple’s marriage due to the falsity of their claimed five years of cohabitation that was used to be exempted from obtaining a marriage license. Since the marriage license was nonexistent—and thus “absent”—the marriage was deemed void.
For clarity’s sake, let us briefly discuss the facts. In 2006, Boots Aguirre left for Israel but returned in 2009 to marry Alma. They executed an affidavit of cohabitation in which they attested having lived together since 2003, or six years prior to their 2009 wedding. Under Article 34 of the Family Code, couples who cohabit for at least five years prior to the marriage celebration are exempted from obtaining a marriage license.
Unexpectedly, Boots filed a petition in 2013 to nullify his marriage and brazenly admitted that the affidavit was false because he was working abroad from 2006 to 2009.
FOR THE EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 34 TO APPLY, the following requisites must be met: (1) The couple must have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years; (2) They must have no legal impediment to marry each other; (3) An affidavit from the parties confirming these facts; and (4) A sworn statement from the solemnizing officer affirming that he/she verified the couple’s marital qualifications.
Affirming the trial and appellate courts’ nullification of the marriage, the Supreme Court—citing Niñal v Bayadog (March 14, 2000, per J Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, First Division)—emphasized that Article 34 of the Family Code requires the five-year period of cohabitation under the first requisite to be “exclusive, meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five-year period, and continuous, meaning the period must be unbroken…”
Boots plainly admitted that the couple had not lived together continuously and exclusively for five years, conclusively proving that their affidavit of cohabitation was false. “Such falsity renders the affidavit [of cohabitation] ineffectual” and therefore, “[t]he marriage, founded on this false declaration, is void.”
The Court nullified the marital bond in the present case due to the absence of a marriage license. May I add that marriages may also be voided (a) when bigamous or polygamous; (b) due to psychological incapacity; (c) when incestuous; (d) when there is a mistake as to the identity of one or both marital parties; and (e) when declared illegal by reason of public policy. Also, subsequent marriages are void if and when bad faith attended the claim that a prior spouse had allegedly been “absent,” or if a spouse remarries before partitioning conjugal property and delivering the children’s presumptive legitimes from a marriage that was annulled or voided.
Because void marriages are essentially legal phantoms, even spouses who perpetrated the falsehoods can invoke their nullity. However, as already said, such spouses may face criminal, civil, and/or administrative liabilities for perjury and other offenses.
INDEED, THOUGH THE COURT HAS DEMONSTRATED LIBERALITY in nullifying marriages, the Aguirre decision is a firm reminder that falsities open offenders to multiple penalties, especially because Boots admitted his fault in a judicial proceeding.
The decision tackles a broader societal truth about the propensity for convenience—a trend mirrored by the increasing number of Filipino couples opting for common-law or “live-in” arrangements. While the temptation to bypass tedious processes is a persistent human flaw, couples who resort to false documents to expedite their union ultimately undermine the very institution they seek to sanctify.
The state cannot allow its solemn processes to be weaponized through blatant misrepresentation. It is, after all, an active party to every marriage because the Constitution protects marriage as an “inviolable social institution.”
Indeed, this decision is a warning that the rule of law cannot be circumvented through falsehoods. It must, as I have consistently said, serve the ends of truth and fairness.
Therefore, couples should enter the blessing of matrimony with absolute candor and pure intentions. They must always be guided by the grace of the Almighty to protect our most cherished social and spiritual institution.
