Carino Vs Carino

Nicdao Cariño vs.
Yee Cariño,
G.R. No. 108763
February 13, 1997
FACTS
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking
to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the
petition for collection of sum of money.
During the lifetime of the late SPO4 Santiago Cariño, he
contracted two marriages, the first was in 1969, with
petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño (Susan Nicdao), with whom
he had two offsprings; and the second was in 1992, with
respondent Susan Yee Cariño (Susan Yee), with whom he
had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting
way back in 1982.
In 1988, SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño became ill and bedridden
due to diabetes complicated by pulmonary tuberculosis. He
passed away on November 23, 1992, under the care of Susan
Yee, who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both
Susans filed for monetary benefits and financial assistance.
Nicdao was able to collect 146K while Yee was able to collect
21K.
Yee filed an instant case for collection of sum of money
against Nicdao. Yee wanted at least half of the 146K. Nicdao
failed to file her answer and was declared in default. Yee
admitted that her marriage to Santiago took place during the
subsistence of, and without first obtaining a judicial declaration
of nullity of, the marriage between petitioner and the deceased.
She, however, claimed that she had no knowledge of the
previous marriage and that she became aware of it only at the
funeral of the deceased, where she met petitioner who
introduced herself as the wife of the deceased. To bolster her
action for collection of sum of money, respondent contended
that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is void ab
initio because the same was solemnized without the required
marriage license. In support thereof, respondent presented:
1) the marriage certificate of the deceased and the petitioner
which bears no marriage license number and 2) a certification
dated March 9, 1994, from the Local Civil Registrar of San
Juan, Metro Manila, which summarily stated that there was no
record of a marriage license The trial court ruled in favor of
Susan Yee. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE/S
1.) Whether the subsequent marriage is void for failure to
obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity in the first
marriage.
2.) Whether or absolute nullity of marriage may be invoked
to claim presumptive legitimes.
RULING:
1.) Yes. The marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null
and void due the absence of a valid marriage license.
The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null
and void for the same has been solemnized without the
judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage between
Nicdao and SPO4. Under Article 40 of the FC, the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of
contracting a second marriage, the sole basis
acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free
from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring the
previous marriage void.
2.) No. For purposes other than remarriage, no judicial

action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute
nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the
determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a
child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property
regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may
pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death
of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly
instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so
long as it is essential to the determination of the case. In
such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial
or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds
rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity.
These need not be limited solely to an earlier final
judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage
void.
The SC ruled that Yee has no right to the benefits earned by
SPO4 as a policeman for their marriage is void due to bigamy;
she is only entitled to properties, money etc owned by them in
common in proportion to their respective contributions. Wages
and salaries earned by each party shall belong to him or her
exclusively (Art. 148 of FC). Nicdao is entitled to the full
benefits earned by SPO4 as a cop even if their marriage is
likewise void. This is because the two were capacitated to
marry each other for there were no impediments but their
marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license; in
their situation, their property relations is governed by Art 147
of the FC which provides that everything they earned during
their cohabitation is presumed to have been equally
contributed by each party – this includes salaries and wages
earned by each party notwithstanding the fact that the other
may not have contributed at all.

Carino Vs Carino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carino Vs Carino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carino Vs Carino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nicdao Cariño vs.

2.) No. For purposes other than remarriage, no judicial

You might also like