The Supreme Court has denied the Republic's petition and affirmed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) declaring the marriage of Boots Rodel R. Aguirre and Alma T. Aguirre void ab initio — meaning void from the very beginning — for lack of a valid marriage license. The Court held that because the couple's Affidavit of Cohabitation was false, it had no legal effect and could not substitute for the required marriage license.
The Case
On May 24, 2006, Boots left for Israel to work and remained there until May 3, 2009, when he returned to the Philippines to marry Alma. To facilitate their marriage without a license, the couple executed an Affidavit of Cohabitation on May 6, 2009, attesting that they had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. On May 8, 2009, they were married at St. Joseph Cathedral in San Jose de Buenavista, Antique, officiated by Fr. Victor S. Baguna, who certified that the marriage was solemnized under Article 344 of the Family Code, exempting them from the license requirement. After the wedding, Boots and Alma lived together until June 2, 2009, when Boots returned to Israel. They communicated for about two months thereafter but eventually ceased contact.
On March 19, 2013, Boots filed a petition with the RTC for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Alma for lack of a marriage license, asserting that the Affidavit of Cohabitation was false since he had been abroad from May 2006 to June 2009. Alma, though served with summons and copies of the petition, did not file an Answer. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique investigated and confirmed there was no collusion between the parties.
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage void ab initio. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC ruling. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the couple's marriage was valid despite the falsity of their Affidavit of Cohabitation — specifically, whether Boots' absence while working in Israel from 2006 to 2009 was merely a temporary absence that did not negate the five-year continuous and exclusive cohabitation required under Article 34 of the Family Code to dispense with a marriage license.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. In its dispositive order, the Court stated: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated July 28, 2021, and the Resolution dated July 1, 2022, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 06914 are AFFIRMED."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 262653 — the Supreme Court case number
- May 24, 2006 — date Boots departed for Israel
- May 3, 2009 — date Boots returned to the Philippines
- May 6, 2009 — date the Affidavit of Cohabitation was executed
- May 8, 2009 — date of the marriage at St. Joseph Cathedral
- December 2003 — the start of cohabitation as stated in the affidavit
- June 2, 2009 — date Boots returned to Israel after the wedding
- March 19, 2013 — date Boots filed the petition for nullity
- February 5, 2016 — date of the RTC Judgment
- July 28, 2021 — date of the CA Decision being affirmed
The Court's Reasoning
The Court stressed that Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts couples from the marriage license requirement, is an exception to the general rule and must be strictly construed. It found that from 2005 to 2009, when Boots went to Israel and stayed there, returning to the Philippines only a few days before the marriage, "his absence was not merely temporary." The Court noted he "had no intention to return to the Philippines, even on occasion, to live with Alma" and that "there is absolutely no evidence showing that they deported themselves as husband and wife while Boots was abroad."
The Court found that the records showed "inadequate evidence proving that Alma and Boots continuously and exclusively cohabited as husband and wife for a period of five years immediately preceding the celebration of their marriage." It noted that the two "dated exclusively and sojourned in several places," but that "intermittently and occasionally stayed in the same place does not amount to cohabitation as husband and wife contemplated by Article 34 of the Family Code."
The Court also noted that Boots himself admitted signing the Affidavit of Cohabitation despite not meeting the statutory conditions, and applied the principle that "no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration was true," giving his admission probative weight. The Court concluded that the falsity of the affidavit rendered it ineffectual, that it did not confer exemption from the license requirement, and that "[t]he marriage, founded on this false declaration, is void."
The Court distinguished the case from Laguda v. Manguardia (G.R. No. 279718, January 29, 2026), where there was proof that the putative husband regularly returned home and stayed with his wife whenever possible — circumstances absent here.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 262653.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.