Many Filipinos, especially an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW), choose to marry through an affidavit of cohabitation without realizing the strict legal requirements under the Family Code. A recent Supreme Court ruling serves as an important reminder that a false affidavit of cohabitation may render a marriage void from the beginning, making it a significant issue for those seeking annulment in the Philippines or a declaration of nullity of marriage.
In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Boots Rodel Aguirre and Alma T. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653, promulgated on 24 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reaffirmed that a marriage solemnized without a valid marriage license based on a false Affidavit of Cohabitation is completely void from the beginning (void ab initio).
The ruling firmly establishes that a prolonged absence due to overseas employment breaks the legal continuity of the mandatory five-year cohabitation required under Article 34 of the Family Code. This case highlights the critical importance of strictly complying with the formal requisites of marriage and provides essential jurisprudence for individuals seeking an annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage in the Philippines due to fraudulent or defective marriage documentation.
The case involves respondents Boots Rodel R. Aguirre and Alma T. Aguirre, who were married on May 8, 2009, at St. Joseph Cathedral in San Jose de Buenavista, Antique, without securing a marriage license. To bypass this formal requirement, they executed a sworn Affidavit of Cohabitation on May 6, 2009, falsely claiming they had continuously lived together as husband and wife since December 2003.
The undisputed records established that Boots left the Philippines for Israel on May 24, 2006, to work as an overseas contract worker and remained there uninterrupted until May 3, 2009, returning to the country a mere five days before the wedding celebration. Non-cohabitation was legally established because cross-examination revealed that from 2001 to 2004, prior to Boots going abroad, they lived completely separate lives as students and never established a regular, exclusive marital home. At most, they transiently shared a rented boarding house room in Jaro, Iloilo City, but this arrangement was non-exclusive as they stayed in the exact same room with their siblings and cousins, and they explicitly did not conduct themselves as husband and wife during that time.
Furthermore, during his subsequent three-year employment in Israel, Boots had no intention of returning to the Philippines on occasion to live with Alma, and there was a total absence of evidence showing they publicly deported themselves or maintained a common-law union as husband and wife while separated.
Although Boots initiated the nullity petition and his testimony could be perceived as self-serving, the Supreme Court ruled that his statements constituted judicial admissions against his own interest because admitting to the falsity of the Affidavit of Cohabitation directly exposed him to severe criminal liability for Perjury. Guided by the evidentiary principle that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration was true, the Court gave his testimony full probative weight to resolve the case and declare the marriage void.
The principal issue in this matter is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the nullification of the respondents' marriage based on the finding that their Affidavit of Cohabitation was false, thereby invalidating their exemption from the marriage license requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code. Under Article 3(2) of the Family Code, a valid marriage license is an essential formal requisite, and any marriage contracted without it is void ab initio unless it qualifies under specific statutory exceptions.
For the exception under Article 34 to apply, the following requisites must be met: (a) the man and woman must have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage; (b) there must be no legal impediment between them at any point during that period or at the time of the wedding; (c) the parties must execute a sworn affidavit attesting to these facts; and (d) the solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement confirming they verified the parties' qualifications and found no legal impediments. The core controversy in the instant case, hinges on the first requisite, specifically whether a spouse's prolonged absence while working abroad breaks the continuity of the mandatory five-year cohabitation period.
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 34 explicitly contemplates common-law unions, which lawmakers exempted from the license requirement to spare couples the public embarrassment, shame, and humiliation associated with publishing their names during a license application. In determining what constitutes a disruption of cohabitation, the Court noted that while brief or temporary absences do not break continuity if the couple has an established common residence and a mutual intent to return, such as a husband leaving briefly to oversee a property in another locality or traveling transiently for work while maintaining the shared home as his residential address, the relationship must first be grounded in a regular common-law life.
To legally cohabit requires a regular, continuous arrangement of dwelling together at bed and board as husband and wife, which is distinct from occasional, transient encounters or exclusive dating. In cases where temporary absences were legally excused, the continuity of the relationship despite physical separation was evidenced by shared milestones like a common residence, joint bank accounts, and split living expenses.
In the present case, the Republic failed to establish that Boots and Alma continuously and regularly cohabited during the five years immediately preceding their May 8, 2009 wedding. Because exceptions to formal marriage requisites must be strictly construed, a false affidavit of cohabitation fails to satisfy the law, rendering the document a mere scrap of paper without force and effect.
If your marriage was solemnized without a marriage license through a false affidavit of cohabitation, or if you are facing complex family law issues related to legal separation, child custody, or property division, navigating the Philippine legal system requires expert guidance.
At Cunanan Law Office, our experienced family law attorneys specialize in petitions for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, administrative corrections, and protecting your civil status. Reach out to our team today to schedule a legal consultation at Cunanan Law Office, Unit 10, Mr. Blue Building, MacArthur Highway, Brgy. Dolores, Capas, 2315 Tarlac, Philippines. You can also contact us by phone at +63 968 679 6617, via email at inquiries@mpeclaw.com, or visit our website at www.mpeclaw.com.