Republic v.Dayot, G.R. No. 175581/179474, March 28, 2008

FACTS: Jose was introduced to Felisa in 1986.  He later came to live as a boarder in Felisa’s house, the latter being his landlady.  Later, Felisa requested him to accompany her to the Pasay City Hall, so she could claim a package sent to her by her brother from Saudi.  There, a man bearing three folded pieces of paper approached them.  They were told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the package could be released to Felisa.  He initially refused to do so.  However, Felisa cajoled him, and told him that his refusal could get both of them killed by her brother who had learned about their relationship. He signed the papers and gave them to the man. It was in February 1987 when he discovered that he had contracted marriage with Felisa.  When he confronted Felisa, she said she does not know of such. Jose claimed that their marriage was contracted with fraud. Felisa denied Jose’s allegations and defended the validity of their marriage. Felisa expounded that while her marriage to Jose was subsisting, the latter contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual on August 31, 1990.  On 3 June 1993, Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose.  Subsequently, she filed an administrative complaint against Jose with the Office of the Ombudsman, since Jose and Rufina were both employees of the National Statistics and Coordinating Board. The Ombudsman found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct ans suspended him for one year without emolument. The RTC ruled against Jose claiming that his story is impossible. RTC cited Article 87 of the New Civil Code which requires that the action for annulment of marriage must be commenced by the injured party within four years after the discovery of the fraud.

ISSUE: W/N the issue of validity of marriage due to fraud is prescriptible

HELD: SC held that an action for nullifying a marriage is imprescriptible.  It may be raised anytime. Jose and Felisa’s marriage was celebrated without a marriage license.  No other conclusion can be reached except that it is void ab initio.