[Letter Asking a Lawyer About the Concern]
Dear Attorney,
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek clarification regarding the applicability of Article 34 of the Family Code in a rather peculiar situation. My partner and I had cohabited continuously for about five years before we eventually parted ways and lived separately for some time. Recently, we have reconciled and have decided to formalize our relationship through marriage. However, we are unsure whether our previous five-year cohabitation period would still qualify us to marry without a license under Article 34, given that there was a period of separation.
Could you kindly provide guidance on whether the law still allows us to contract marriage without a license in light of the break in our cohabitation? Any legal insights you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Individual
Comprehensive Legal Article on Philippine Law Addressing the Concern
In the Philippines, one of the unique exceptions to the general rule requiring a marriage license prior to the solemnization of marriage is embodied in Article 34 of the Family Code. Article 34 provides that a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and who desire to marry each other may do so without the necessity of a marriage license, provided that they meet all the legal requisites stated under the law. The special exception under Article 34 is intended to recognize the legitimacy of a union that has long been established and is, for all intents and purposes, stable and continuous—mirroring what might otherwise be a de facto marital relationship.
I. Understanding Article 34 of the Family Code
Article 34 of the Family Code states:
“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.”
Under normal circumstances, the Family Code of the Philippines requires an intending couple to secure a marriage license from the local civil registrar’s office as a prerequisite to a valid marriage. However, Article 34 dispenses with this requirement in recognition of certain relationships that have already manifested the characteristics of a true marital union. This exemption is founded on practical considerations: the couple has, in effect, displayed a clear and consistent intention to live as a married couple over a significant period of time, making the procurement of a license an unnecessary formality.
II. Requirements for Availing of the Article 34 Exemption
For couples who intend to rely upon Article 34 to dispense with the requirement of a marriage license, certain elements must be present:
Cohabitation as Husband and Wife for at Least Five Years: The couple must have lived together in a relationship analogous to marriage for an uninterrupted period of at least five years. Importantly, this cohabitation must not be merely casual or occasional; it must reflect a genuine union, resembling that of a married couple, with all the attendant obligations, such as mutual support, shared residence, and a degree of exclusivity and permanency.
No Legal Impediment to Marry: Throughout the period of cohabitation (and at the time of the intended marriage), there must have been no legal impediment for the parties to marry each other. Any impediment includes being underage, already married to another, or being within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity. The purpose here is that the law recognizes only that stable cohabitation which could have been a valid marriage in the first place, had the parties chosen to wed earlier.
Continuous Cohabitation Up to the Time of Marriage: The standard interpretation is that the cohabitation must be continuous and without significant breaks. The rationale is that the exemption is granted due to the nature of the stable relationship itself—akin to a marriage in all but name. A temporary separation or a break in the cohabitation can complicate the application of the exception.
Affidavit Executed by the Parties: The couple must present an affidavit stating that they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and that no legal impediment existed at any point during that period. This affidavit, sworn before an authorized official, serves as a formal attestation of the facts that justify the dispensing of the marriage license requirement.
Diligence by the Solemnizing Officer: The solemnizing officer, such as a judge, mayor, or an authorized priest or minister, must ascertain the truth of the couple’s claims, ensure that no legal impediments exist, and that all the requirements of Article 34 are complied with. Only then can the officer proceed to solemnize the marriage without a license.
III. The Significance of the Five-Year Period
The five-year period is not an arbitrary figure but reflects a legislative judgment that such a duration is sufficient to establish a stable and enduring relationship. This period is meant to prove that the relationship has indeed evolved into what is functionally equivalent to a marital union.
However, a crucial issue arises when continuity is broken. If the couple separates for a significant period, the rationale that their relationship is akin to a longstanding marital union is weakened. Courts and legal commentators emphasize the importance of an unbroken chain of cohabitation. If a couple, who once lived together as husband and wife for five continuous years, separates and then reconciles after some time apart, the central question becomes: Does the prior cohabitation period still “count,” or must the couple restart the clock for another five years of continuous cohabitation?
IV. Continuity and Its Impact on Eligibility
The wording of Article 34 implies that the cohabitation must be unbroken and must endure until the time of the marriage. The idea is that if a couple is essentially married in all but name for at least five years, the law grants them a shortcut to legal formalization. This logic presupposes continuity because the presence of any substantial interruption suggests that the relationship, at some point, ceased to function as a quasi-marital union.
While the Family Code does not explicitly define what constitutes a “break” in cohabitation, it is generally accepted that any voluntary and prolonged separation that undermines the quasi-marital nature of the union is incompatible with the uninterrupted cohabitation required by law. A brief and involuntary physical separation due to work or necessity might not necessarily break continuity, provided the intention to remain in a marital-like relationship was never abandoned. On the other hand, if the couple actually parted ways and ceased to consider themselves in a spousal relationship (e.g., ending romantic involvement, living entirely separate lives for more than a trivial period), this would likely break the chain.
V. Case Law and Judicial Interpretations
Philippine jurisprudence on Article 34 is not as extensive or definitive in addressing every nuanced scenario, but certain guiding principles can be distilled from existing doctrine and commentaries on family law:
Strict Interpretation of Exceptions: As a general rule, courts tend to interpret exceptions to mandatory requirements like marriage licenses strictly. This means the conditions for availing the exception must be strictly proven. If any doubt exists as to whether the couple meets the standard of continuous cohabitation, the safer legal route would be to obtain a marriage license.
Evidentiary Burden: The parties must convincingly prove that they indeed cohabited as husband and wife for the entire five-year period without interruption. In a scenario where the couple separated for a significant time and only later reconciled, they would have difficulty establishing that the five-year period of continuous cohabitation was immediately followed by marriage.
Reconciliation After Break in Cohabitation: While the law encourages marriage and family stability, a period of separation that substantially disrupts the continuity of cohabitation could be seen as resetting the clock. The reconciling couple may need to cohabit again for a fresh continuous period of five years before availing of Article 34’s exemption. Without clear jurisprudential guidance directly on point, the prudent legal stance is to consider that the exception may no longer be available once continuity is lost.
VI. Policy Considerations
Article 34 aims to legitimize stable and lasting relationships that have been ongoing for a substantial time. The idea is that the formality of a marriage license is no longer necessary to prove the sincerity and permanence of the union. If a couple separates, that casts doubt upon the stability of their relationship. The decision to part ways contradicts the assumption that the couple had been in a near-marital state continuously. A renewed cohabitation after separation might still count toward future compliance with Article 34, but only if the couple again completes a new, full five-year period of uninterrupted life together as husband and wife.
From a policy standpoint, allowing the original cohabitation period to count after a subsequent break and reconciliation could open opportunities for abuse. Individuals might claim intermittent cohabitation that, when pieced together, sums up to five years, even though the relationship was not continuous. Such an interpretation would undermine the policy behind Article 34 and create confusion in implementing this legal exception.
VII. Practical Implications for the Concerned Individual
For a couple who lived together for five years, then broke up, and later reconciled, questions arise about their eligibility for the Article 34 exemption. The critical factor is determining whether the initial continuous five-year cohabitation can still be counted despite the intervening period of separation. Given the language and rationale of Article 34, as well as strict interpretations by the courts, the safer conclusion is that the break in cohabitation likely disqualifies the couple from using the previous period to claim the exemption.
If the couple genuinely wishes to rely on Article 34, they must be prepared to demonstrate continuous cohabitation akin to marriage for a fresh period of five years before approaching the solemnizing officer. Otherwise, and more practically, they should comply with the standard requirement of obtaining a marriage license before proceeding to marry. The existence of a prior period of cohabitation that ended in separation complicates the situation. Without explicit jurisprudence stating that prior cohabitation periods may be “tacked on” after reconciliation, the conservative interpretation is that continuity has been severed, rendering the initial period moot for purposes of Article 34.
VIII. Securing a Marriage License as a Practical Solution
Considering the legal uncertainties and the strict requirement of continuity, the safest course of action for a reconciled couple is simply to apply for a marriage license. Acquiring a marriage license is relatively straightforward—provided there are no other legal impediments—and ensures the resulting marriage is valid and beyond challenge. Attempting to rely on Article 34 in a scenario involving a substantial break in cohabitation risks future complications, including potential challenges to the validity of the marriage.
IX. Conclusion
While Article 34 offers a valuable means of legalizing stable, marriage-like relationships without the formality of a marriage license, it is circumscribed by specific requirements that must be strictly observed. Continuous cohabitation as husband and wife for at least five years is a critical element, and any substantial break in the relationship likely resets the conditions. In cases where a couple has separated and later reconciled, the five-year cohabitation period preceding the separation would generally not suffice for the Article 34 exemption.
In the absence of clear judicial precedent allowing for a “stop-and-go” approach to the cohabitation period, the prudent legal counsel is to advise the couple to secure a marriage license. Doing so avoids any ambiguity and protects the validity and stability of the marriage. If the couple desires to rely strictly on Article 34, they should be prepared to demonstrate a fresh, continuous five-year period of cohabitation following their reconciliation. Until that standard is met, the safer legal route remains the traditional path of applying for and obtaining a marriage license before proceeding with the solemnization of their union.