The law on marriage license

By Atty. Vanni Melgar

MAY a person marry someone even without a marriage license?

As a rule, no. But there are exceptions. The latest case on the matter of Engrace and Minors Babyline, Ingrid, Archie and Pepito, Jr. against Norma will give us the application of the rule and the exception.

Pepito, Sr. was married to Teodulfa on September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born Engrace, Ingrid, Archie and Pepito, Jr. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 11, 1986, Pepito and Norma, the
paramour of the former, got married without a marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license.

On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After their father�s death, Engrace and the above-mentioned minors filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of marriage license. The case was filed
under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect Engrace and the minors� successional rights.

Is the marriage of Pepito to Norma valid?

No. The marriage is void. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under our laws, the absence of which renders the marriage void. It was held that the requirement and issuance of marriage license is the State�s demonstration of its involvement and participation in every
marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested.

This interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to the family as a basic �autonomous social institution.� Specifically, the constitution considers marriage as an �inviolable social institution�, and
is the foundation of family life which shall be protected by the State.

This is why the Family Code considers marriage as �a special contract of permanent union� and case law considers it �not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment.�

However, there are several instances recognized by our laws wherein a marriage license is dispensed with, one of which is that referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant�s name for a marriage license. The publicity attending the marriage license may discourage such persons from legitimizing their status. To preserve peace in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye of public exposure and contain the source of gossip arising from
the publication of their names, the law deemed it wise to preserve their privacy and exempt them from that requirement.

The five-year period contemplated in the law, however, should be computed on the basis of cohabitation as �husband and wife� where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union.

In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage
and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity � meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity � that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties
were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a special relationship must be respected as such and its requirements must be strictly observed. The
presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a preconceived
escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption form securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception. It should be noted that a license is required in order to notify the public that two persons are about to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make it known to the local civil registrar.

This is the same reason why our civil laws, past or presents, absolutely prohibited the concurrence of multiple marriages by the same person during the same period. Thus, any marriage subsequently contacted during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void,
subject only to the exception in cases of absence or where the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. The Revised Penal Code complements the civil law in that the contracting of two or more considered felonies, i.e., bigamy and concubinage and adultery. The law sanctions monogamy.
In this case, at the time of Pepito and Norma�s marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day. From the time Pepito�s first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about
twenty months had elapsed. Even assuming that Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter, both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of a perfect union that is
valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract. Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with Norma. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from his lawful
spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even where there was actual severance of the filial companionship between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as �husband and wife.� (Ninal vs. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122)

(The author is the Managing Partner of MELGAR TRIA AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES with office address at Suite 409, CSP Building, 815 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Telephone Nos.: 413-55-83; 372-14-11. Email: melgarlaw@pacific.net.ph)