SANTIAGO CARINO, Petitioner vs. SUSAN CARINO, Defendant

SANTIAGO CARINO, petitioner vs.
SUSAN CARINO, defendant

G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001
Facts:
During the lifetime of SP04 Santiago S. Carino, he contracted two marriages, the first with Susan
Nicdao Carino with whom he had two offsprings (Sahlee and Sandee) and with Susan Yee
Carino with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation. In 1988, Santiago
passed away under the care of Susan Yee who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both
petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining
to the deceased from various government agencies. Nicdao was able to collect a total of
P146,000.00 and Yee received a total of P21,000.00. Yee filed an action for collection of sum of
money against Nicdao, contending that the marriage of the latter with Santiago is void ab initio
because their marriage was solemnized without the required marriage license. The trial court
ruled in favor of Yee, ordering Nicdao to pay Yee half of acquired death benefits. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage of Santiago Carino and Susan Nicdao is void for lack of
marriage license.
Held:
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. However, 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.
Ninal v. Bayadog
G.R. No. 133778, 14 March 2000
FACTS:
Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children
namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa,
the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of EngraceNinal. 1
year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license.
They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5 years exempting
from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his
death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma
alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license. The case was filed under the
assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner’s
successional rights.Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no
cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for “annulment
of marriage” under Article 47 of the Family Code.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of
Pepito’s marriage after his death?
RULING:
1. The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. The two
marriages involved herein having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code
(FC), the applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect
at the time of their celebration. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article
53 of the Civil Code, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio. However, there
are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed with,
one of which is that provided in Article 76, referring to the marriage of a man and a woman
who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous
and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage.
In this case, they cannot be exempted even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that
they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved
to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and
his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living
with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year
period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to
Norma is still void.
2. No. Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no judicial decree is necessary in order to
establish the nullity of a marriage. “A void marriage does not require a judicial decree to restore
the parties to their original rights or to make the marriage void but though no sentence of
avoidance be absolutely necessary, yet as well for the sake of good order of society as for the
peace of mind of all concerned, it is expedient that the nullity of the marriage should be
ascertained and declared by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. Under ordinary
circumstances, the effect of a void marriage, so far as concerns the conferring of legal rights
upon the parties is as though no marriage had ever taken place. And therefore, being good for
no legal purpose, its invalidity can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of
marriage may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between any parties at
any time, whether before or after the death of either or both the husband and the wife, and
upon mere proof of the facts rendering such marriage void, it will be disregarded or treated as
non-existent by the courts.” It is not like a voidable marriage which cannot be collaterally
attacked except in direct proceeding instituted during the lifetime of the parties so that on the
death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio. But Article 40
of the Family Code expressly provides that there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a
previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage and such
absolute nullity can be based only on a final judgment to that effect.
However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a
marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of
heir ship, 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 in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the
determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case.

SANTIAGO CARINO, Petitioner vs. SUSAN CARINO, Defendant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANTIAGO CARINO, Petitioner vs. SUSAN CARINO, Defendant

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

SANTIAGO CARINO, Petitioner vs. SUSAN CARINO, Defendant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANTIAGO CARINO, petitioner vs.

SUSAN CARINO, defendant

You might also like