Short answer. Yes. Article 35(5) of the Family Code declares void from the beginning any marriage contracted through mistake of one party as to the identity of the other. If you wed someone believing they were a different person entirely, the marriage has no legal effect.
What the law says
Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other
Family Code, Article 35 — Void Marriages. Read the full provision →
What the law requires: mistake as to identity
Article 35(5) of the Family Code targets a narrow but serious defect: one party agreed to marry a specific person but actually married someone else entirely. The classic example is an impersonation — a twin or impostor takes the place of the intended spouse during the ceremony. The mistake must go to identity itself, not merely to qualities, character, or other attributes of the person. Marrying someone whose background or behavior you misunderstood does not fall here; marrying someone who was literally not the person you consented to wed does.
Identity, not qualities: where the line is drawn
Philippine law distinguishes sharply between a mistake as to identity and a mistake as to the qualities of the person. If you were deceived about your spouse's wealth, profession, or character, that deception may support an annulment for fraud under a separate provision — it does not make the marriage void under Article 35(5). The identity ground under Article 35 is for the situation where the person standing beside you at the altar was not the person you said yes to. The distinction matters because void marriages and voidable marriages have different legal consequences.
Void from the beginning, not merely voidable
A marriage void under Article 35 is void from the beginning — it is as if it never happened. Unlike a voidable marriage, which continues to exist and produce legal effects until a court annuls it, a void marriage produces no legal bond. Either party, or an interested person, can seek a judicial declaration of absolute nullity at any time. The action does not prescribe, and the marriage cannot be ratified by cohabitation or any other subsequent act. The court declaration is needed practically — to correct civil registry records and allow remarriage — but the nullity exists from the moment of the ceremony.
What to do if you believe this applies to you
Situations where one person impersonated another during a marriage ceremony are rare but not impossible. If you believe you were the victim of such an impersonation, gathering evidence of the intended person's identity and the impostor's true identity is the starting point. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity under Article 35(5) is filed before the Regional Trial Court. Because the law in this area intersects with civil registration, criminal law, and property rights, speaking with a lawyer early will help you understand the full scope of what needs to be done.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Abbas v. Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013 (Velasco, Jr., J.) — the leading modern authority on paragraph (3). The marriage licence is a formal requisite; where the licence number on the certificate belongs to no licence actually issued to the parties, the licence is absent and the marriage is void ab initio. Decided under the Family Code (marriage celebrated 1992).
- Republic v. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 and 179474, March 28, 2008 — a false affidavit of five years' cohabitation cannot exempt a marriage from the licence requirement; the marriage is void for want of a licence. Decided under Civil Code Article 76 (marriage celebrated 1986, before the Family Code took effect), but it is the leading authority on the cohabitation exception now carried into Article 34, and so on when a marriage is void under Article 35(3).