Can one marry without a valid marriage license?

As a general rule, couples intending to marry must secure a marriage license from the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either of them habitually resides.

Under Article 3 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines, a valid marriage license is one of the formal requisites of marriage, without which the marriage will be void. Hence, the parties to an intended marriage must secure the same.

However, the general rule is not without exception. Article 34 of the said Code provides that:

“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 are found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

The case of Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez (A.M. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001, Ponente: Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.) laid down the requisites in applying the provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation, to wit:

“For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur:

“1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage.

“2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other.

“3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage.

“4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years (and are without legal impediment to marry each other).

“5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.”

The five-year period of cohabitation was further explained in the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog (GR 133778; 14 March 2000; Ponente: Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

“Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as ‘husband and wife’ where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years and continuity — that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.”

Thus, a man and a woman may enter into a contract of marriage even without a marriage license, provided that they have been living together as husband and wife for the last five years prior to the date of the marriage, and that neither of them has any legal impediment to marry each other during the same period.

This continuous five-year common-law cohabitation must be characterized by exclusivity. Moreover, both of them must execute an affidavit stating this fact, and the solemnizing officer is also required to execute a sworn statement pronouncing that he has ascertained their qualifications and that he has found no legal impediment to said marriage.

Source: Manila Times

Sticky Philippine loan rates blunt impact of central bank cuts

The Philippine central bank has slashed its key policy rate by almost two percentage points to 4.75% since last year, but the price of a home loan from the nation’s top banks has barely budged.

BDO Unibank Inc. charges a 6% fixed rate on new housing loans for the first year, with the debt then subject to repricing, or else 6.5% fixed for five years. That’s roughly the same as the minimum offered in 2024, and rates at Bank of the Philippine Islands and Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. show a similar trend.

Examples of home loan rates November 2025

Across Asia, as policymakers have reduced benchmark rates to support economic growth in the face of US tariffs, there’s evidence that banks aren’t fully passing on the cuts to consumers, according to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. In the Philippines’ case, the stickiness of borrowing costs may prolong a slump that’s left its economy trailing Indonesia and China in growth.

Philippine commercial banks’ average lending rate, after dipping earlier in the year, hit 8.132% in August, up from 8.097% at the end of last year, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas data show. That’s as the benchmark has been cut 175 basis points since August last year.

For Philippine lenders, there’s little incentive to cut interest rates when a scandal over government graft has rocked confidence, threatening more bad loans. Demand is also weak: growth in household consumption, which accounts for more than 70% of the nation’s output, hit a four-year low in the three months through September as consumers held off spending.

“There’s this corruption scandal. Liken it to a toothache – the rest of the body feels it because everything is connected,” said Jonathan Ravelas, managing director at eManagement for Business and Marketing Services, a Manila-based consultancy. “Banks are cautious because of the economic outlook. It challenges jobs.”

“Banks are exercising prudent credit underwriting, particularly in consumer segments, to mitigate non-performing loan risks,” the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas said in response to questions.

It noted that a survey of bank loan officers showed most expect tighter lending standards for households in the current quarter, “citing a deterioration in portfolio profitability, a less favorable economic outlook, reduced risk tolerance, and weakening borrower profile.”

To be sure, total loans are still gaining, rising 10.5% in September from a year earlier, down from 12.2% at end-2024. And banks have eased up in some ways, with mortgage incentives including lower downpayments; waivers of application, registration and appraisal fees; or free insurance for the first year.

“We’re cautiously optimistic about where lending rates are headed. In the near term, we expect them to hold steady or dip slightly,” said Maria Cristina Go, head of consumer banking at BPI, one of the biggest in the country. “This will depend not only on the policy rates that will impact funding costs but will also consider inflation trends and asset quality.”

BDO Unibank said it expects lending rates for this year and the next two years to be “generally in the same range given current economic conditions.” And BSP data shows the rate at which banks lend to each other is declining.

The BSP says data shows lending rates “generally moved in line” with policy rate cuts, though the range and degree differed across loan types. It added that not all lenders engage in rate competition.

“I’m actually in the camp transmission is getting better,” said Euben Paracuelles, chief ASEAN economist at Nomura Holdings Inc. “It’s certainly not the lowest in the region and I would say compared to past cutting cycles, policy transmission of BSP’s latest rate cuts is improving.”

In the meantime, banks and consumers are cautious amid worsening political uncertainty. In July, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. unveiled a major campaign against corruption, especially in flood control projects. Massive protests erupted in anger at the scale of the graft, and the government slowed public works spending to allow more scrutiny, with stocks sliding to a three-year low.

Sentiment had already been hit by a year of fierce feuding between Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte.

The Philippines isn’t alone in seeing banks refrain from rate cuts. Bank Indonesia’s governor last month criticized banks for only cutting lending rates by 15 basis points, even as the benchmark has been reduced by ten times that. In other countries such as Malaysia, however, lending rates are required to be calibrated with policy rates. In Communist Vietnam, the government is driving state-owned lenders to extend credit as it pushes to achieve economic growth to 10% a year.

“Household credit demand has responded uncharacteristically weakly to the recent monetary policy easing cycle in Asia,” ANZ analysts led by Sanjay Mathur and Dhiraj Nim wrote in a Nov. 6 report.

Source: Business World

Who Is an Innocent Purchaser for Value?

Imagine this: you are the rightful owner of a piece of land. One day, you discover that a distant relative has forged your signature on a deed of absolute sale and managed to secure a new title in their own name. Before you can react, they sell the property to someone else — a third party.

You rush to city hall for advice, only to be told that you can’t recover the land because the new buyer is an innocent purchaser for value.

At first, this sounds absurd. How could you lose your property because of someone else’s forgery? But the answer lies in how the Philippines’ land registration system — the Torrens system — works.

Forgery Transfers No Ownership

Let’s start with a basic principle: a forged deed of sale is void from the very beginning.

Under Philippine law, a contract signed without a person’s real consent has no legal effect. In other words, the forger acquires nothing — and since they have nothing to sell, any sale they make is also void.

So, in theory, you remain the rightful owner.

The Torrens System and the Innocent Buyer

However, the Philippines uses the Torrens system of land registration, which prioritizes the security and reliability of land titles.

Under this system, people are allowed to rely on what appears on the face of the title. If someone buys a property in good faith — believing the title is genuine and clean — the law gives them protection, even if a previous deed was forged.

This type of buyer is called an innocent purchaser for value.

What Makes a Buyer “Innocent”?

A person qualifies as an innocent purchaser for value if they:

• Paid a fair price for the property;

• Checked the title and found it free from any liens, disputes, or defects; and

• Had no knowledge or suspicion that something was wrong with the transaction.

If these conditions are met, the buyer’s title is protected — even if the seller obtained it through fraud or forgery.

That’s why your city hall contact said you might not be able to recover the property. The Torrens system protects the integrity of the buyer’s title, even at the expense of the original owner.

When the Buyer Is Not Innocent

Not all buyers can hide behind the label of “innocent purchaser.”

If the third person knew or should have known that something was wrong — such as a suspiciously low price, a hurried sale, or rumors of family conflict — then they are not considered innocent.

Courts require buyers to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence. If they ignored warning signs, they lose their legal protection, and the true owner can demand the land back through reconveyance or annulment of title.

The Owner’s Remedies

If you find yourself in this situation:

1. Gather all your documents — your original title, tax declarations, tax receipts, and proof that you never sold the land.

2. File a civil case for Annulment of Title and Reconveyance, and a criminal case for Forgery or Falsification against the forger.

3. If the court rules that the buyer was truly innocent, your remedy shifts to claiming compensation from the Assurance Fund under Section 96 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

An innocent purchaser for value is someone who buys a property in good faith, for fair consideration, and without notice of any defect in the title.

While forgery never transfers ownership, the Torrens system protects innocent buyers to maintain confidence in land transactions.

That means if your property ends up in the hands of such a buyer, you may lose the land itself — but not your right to seek justice and compensation from the real culprit.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate