De Castro vs.

Assidao-De Castro

Provision: E.O. No. 209, The Family Code of the Philippines, Article 4
The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35
(2).

Petitioners: Reinel Anthony B. DE CASTRO

Respondents: Annabelle ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO
Ponente: TINGA

Facts:
Petitioner Reinel De Castro and respondent Annabelle Assidao-De Castro intended to get married but failed when their marriage
license expired. In lieu of such, they executed an affidavit on March 13, 1995, stating that they had been living together as
husband and wife for at least 5 years, in order to solemnize their marriage. They did not follow-through on such action, however,
continuing to live separately. 8 months after their marriage, respondent gave birth to their child, Reinna De Castro. Respondent
raised the child alone until June 4, 1998, when she filed a complaint for support against petitioner.

Petitioner averred in the Trial Court that the marriage was void ab initio for failure to acquire a marriage license. The Trial Court
ruled that the marriage was indeed void under the same ground, but declared petitioner as the natural father of Reinna, thus
obliging him to give support. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the appeal on the basis that
marriage is presumed to be subsisting until a judicial declaration of nullity has been made. Moreover, The petitioner didnt
want to undergo DNA test and executed an affidavit wherein he voluntarily admitted that he is the legitimate father of the child.
For its part, the OSG concluded that the marriage is not valid and the child is an illegitimate child.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the Trial Court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage in an action for support;
(2) Whether or not the child is the daughter of petitioner.

(1) YES. The Trial Court was correct in rendering the marriage void ab initio for failure to acquire a marriage license. The validity
of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked, and it was properly attacked in the action for support in the case at bar.
Under Article 4 of the Family Code, the absence of any of the formal or essential
requisites of marriage renders such void ab initio.
The falsity of affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irregularity in the formal requisites. The law dispenses the ML
reqts in order to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation but in this case, there is no scandalous cohabitation to
protect.

(2) YES, as an illegitimate child. While the marriage of the De Castros was rendered
null, the paternity of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt through an affidavit signed by him personally, as well as
various findings by the Trial Court that proved that the couple engaged in sexual intercourse several times during the subsistence
of their relationship.

Analysis:
The case can also fall under Article 3 of the Civil Code which provides that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith, as the petitioner was noted to have been evasive in his responses regarding the question of sexual engagements
with the respondent. His refusal to undergo a paternity test, in particular, was frowned upon by the Court of Appeals, stating
that forgetfulness should not be used as a vehicle to relieve [petitioner] of his obligation and reward him of his being
irresponsible.