Kasal na walang marriage license, kailan pinapayagan ng batas?

ni PAO Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | November 13, 2026

Dear Chief Acosta,

Anim (6) na taon na ang relasyon namin ng mapapangasawa ko. Noong ikalawang taon ng aming relasyon, nagsama na kami sa iisang bahay. Hindi rin nagtagal ay naayos ang kanyang papel at nakaalis papuntang ibang bansa. Mula noong siya ay umalis ng bansa, umuuwi na lamang siya nang malapit na ang aming kasal. Limitado lamang ang kanyang pananatili rito sa Pilipinas. Maaari ba kaming mapasama sa bilang ng mga taong maaaring ikasal kahit walang marriage license? — Jelena

---

Dear Jelena,

Malinaw na nakasaad sa Artikulo 3(2) ng Family Code of the Philippines na ang isa sa mga kinakailangan upang makapagpakasal ay ang balidong lisensya (marriage license). Ang isang kasal na isinagawa nang walang nauukol na marriage license ay walang bisa, maliban sa mga di-pangkaraniwang pagkakataon na kinikilala ng batas. 

Alinsunod sa Artikulo 34 ng nasabing Code, hindi kinakailangan ang marriage license para sa kasal ng isang lalaki at isang babae na nagsasama bilang mag-asawa nang hindi bababa sa limang (5) taon at walang anumang legal na hadlang upang magpakasal sa isa’t isa:

“Article 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 are found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

Kaugnay nito, sa kaso ng Republic of the Philippines vs. Boots Rodel Aguirre and Alma T. Aguirre, G.R. No. 262653, February 24, 2026, sa panulat ni Hon. Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinasiyahan ng ating Korte Suprema na ang limang (5) taong pagsasama o live-in ay dapat tuloy-tuloy o mailalarawan bilang regular na pagsasama, at hindi lamang paminsan-minsang pangyayari o pagtatagpo:

“Niñal v. Bayadog instructs that Article 34 of the Family Code refers to a five-year period of common-law cohabitation by the parties as ‘husband and wife,’ where the relationship would have been considered a legal marital union had it not been for the absence of a marriage. The five-year cohabitation period is reckoned from the date immediately preceding the celebration of the marriage. It must be exclusive, meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five-year period, and continuous, meaning the period must be unbroken: xxx

To ‘cohabit’ means ‘to dwell or live together as husband and wife; to live together as husband and wife although not legally married; to live in the same house, claiming to be married; to live together at bed and board.’ The cohabitation must be characterized by regularity as distinguished from occasional, transient affairs or encounters.

Here, the subject marriage was celebrated on May 3, 2009; however, the fact of cohabitation by Boots and Alma as husband and wife during the immediately preceding five-year period (i.e., from May 2, 2004 until May 2, 2009) was not sufficiently established by the Republic.

From 2001 to 2004, prior to his departure to Israel, Boots testified on cross-examination that while he and Alma were dating exclusively before their marriage, they lived separately. At most, the two temporarily resided together in Jaro, Iloilo City at an apartment or boarding house that they rented, but the living arrangement was not exclusive as they shared the same space with their relatives. It also does not appear that they intended to reside in the same place regularly. They were not even residents of the place indicated in their Affidavit of Cohabitation as their place of residence:

xxx

To be sure, Article 34 of the Family Code is an exception to the general rule that a valid marriage license is required as a formal requisite of marriage. As such, the exception must be strictly construed. That is, the marriage license requirement may be dispensed with only in circumstances that clearly fall within the ambit of Article 34. A false affidavit of cohabitation would thus render the marriage void.” 

Batay sa nabanggit na desisyon, ang paulit-ulit o paminsan-minsang pananatili sa iisang lugar/bahay ay hindi awtomatikong maituturing na tuluy-tuloy na pagsasama bilang mag-asawa sa ilalim ng Artikulo 34 ng Family Code. Dahil dito, maaaring hindi maituring na pagsasama o cohabitation bilang mag-asawa sa ilalim ng ating batas ang mga panahong nasa ibang bansa ang iyong kasintahan para maging exempt sa pagkuha ng marriage license.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyong iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.