The heirs of a deceased person filed a petition to declare the deceased's second marriage null after his death. The deceased was first married in 1974 and that wife was killed by him in 1985. In 1986, he married the respondent without a marriage license, claiming they had lived together for 5 years. He died in 1997. The heirs argued the second marriage was void for lack of a license. The Supreme Court ruled that under the applicable Civil Code, a license was required for a valid marriage. However, an exception existed if the parties lived together exclusively as husband and wife for at least 5 years, which was claimed by the respondent. The Court found the marriage was valid and dismissed the petition.
The heirs of a deceased person filed a petition to declare the deceased's second marriage null after his death. The deceased was first married in 1974 and that wife was killed by him in 1985. In 1986, he married the respondent without a marriage license, claiming they had lived together for 5 years. He died in 1997. The heirs argued the second marriage was void for lack of a license. The Supreme Court ruled that under the applicable Civil Code, a license was required for a valid marriage. However, an exception existed if the parties lived together exclusively as husband and wife for at least 5 years, which was claimed by the respondent. The Court found the marriage was valid and dismissed the petition.
The heirs of a deceased person filed a petition to declare the deceased's second marriage null after his death. The deceased was first married in 1974 and that wife was killed by him in 1985. In 1986, he married the respondent without a marriage license, claiming they had lived together for 5 years. He died in 1997. The heirs argued the second marriage was void for lack of a license. The Supreme Court ruled that under the applicable Civil Code, a license was required for a valid marriage. However, an exception existed if the parties lived together exclusively as husband and wife for at least 5 years, which was claimed by the respondent. The Court found the marriage was valid and dismissed the petition.
The heirs of a deceased person filed a petition to declare the deceased's second marriage null after his death. The deceased was first married in 1974 and that wife was killed by him in 1985. In 1986, he married the respondent without a marriage license, claiming they had lived together for 5 years. He died in 1997. The heirs argued the second marriage was void for lack of a license. The Supreme Court ruled that under the applicable Civil Code, a license was required for a valid marriage. However, an exception existed if the parties lived together exclusively as husband and wife for at least 5 years, which was claimed by the respondent. The Court found the marriage was valid and dismissed the petition.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
FER GRACE CATAYLO NIAGA JD I
NIÑAL vs. BAYADOG
(GR. No. 133778, MARCH 14, 2000) FACTS: Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. She was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a 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. May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death? 2. Whether or not Pepito and Norma’ living together as husband and wife for at least five years exempts them from obtaining a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines. RULING: 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. [5] A valid marriage... license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, [6] the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio The requirement... and issuance of marriage license is the State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested
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, [14] 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. Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties and... their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid. Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the death of petitioner's father extinguished the alleged marital bond between him and respondent. The conclusion is erroneous and proceeds from a wrong premise that there was a marriage bond that was dissolved between the two. It should be... noted that their marriage was void hence it is deemed as if it never existed at all and the death of either extinguished nothing. 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 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 in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case.