void vcases

8/11/2019 Void Vcases

1/29


2/29

Complainant Mayor Rodolfo Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte led t#is case to t#e

Supreme Court against respondent !udge "enando Domagtoy of MCC of Monica5

)urgos, Surigao del Norte, for gross misconduct as well as ine$ciency and

ignorance of t#e law.

2irst, on Sept. +/, -/, !udge Domagtoy solemni'ed t#e marriage of Gasparagadan and (rlyn )or*a despite #is 0nowledge t#at agadan was merely separated

from #is wife. Second, #er performed a marriage ceremony between 2loriano

Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario in 4ctober -/ at respondent *udge3s residence

in Dapa, SDN. (s to t#e rst, Domagtoy contended t#at #e merely relied on t#e

a$davit issued by t#e RC !udge of )assey, Samar, w#ic# stated t#at agadan and

#is wife #ave not seen eac# ot#er for almost seven years. "owever, t#e certied

true copy of t#e marriage contract between agadan and )or*a s#owed t#at #is civil

status was ?;

@-A 8#et#er or not a court may solemni'e anot#er marriage of a #usband w#o

was merely separated from #is wife for almost seven years.

@+A 8#et#er or not a !udge may solemni'e a marriage at #is residence.

"?BD;

@-A (rticle /- of t#e 2amily Code epressly provides t#at a marriage contracted by

any person during t#e subsistence of a previous marriage s#all be null and void,

unless before t#e celebration of t#e subse9uent marriage t#e prior spouse #ad beenabsent for four consecutive years and t#e spouse present #ad a well5founded belief

t#at t#e absent spouse was already dead. &n case of disappearance w#ere t#ere is

danger of deat# under t#e circumstances set fort# in t#e provisions of (rticle - of

t#e Civil Code, an absence of only two years s#all be su$cient.

2or t#e purpose of contracting t#e subse9uent marriage under t#e preceding

paragrap#, t#e spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in

t#e Code for t#e declaration of presumptive deat#. (bsent t#is *udicial declaration,

#e remains to be married to 1eEaranda. 8ittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest

error on t#e part of respondent *udge to #ave accepted t#e *oind a$davit submitted

by agadan. Suc# neglect or ignorance of t#e law #as resulted in a bigamous andt#erefore void marriage.

@+A (rt. . ( marriage may be solemni'ed by @-A any incumbent member of t#e

*udiciary wit#in t#e court3s *urisdiction . (rticle :, #owever, states t#at

marriages s#all be solemni'ed publicly in t#e c#ambers of t#e *udge or in open

court, in t#e c#urc#, c#apel or temple, or in t#e o$ce of t#e consul5general, consul

or vice consul, as t#e case may be, and not elsew#ere, ecept in cases of marriages


3/29

contracted on t#e point of deat# or in remote places in accordance wit# (rt. + of

t#e 2amily Code, or w#ere bot# parties in w#ic# case t#e marriage may be

solemni'ed at a #ouse or place designated by t#em in a sworn statement to t#at

e%ect.

#ere is no pretense t#at eit#er Sumaylo or del Rosario was at t#e point of deat# orin a remote place. Moreover, t#e written re9uest presented addressed to t#e

respondent *udge is t#e


4/29

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16925 July 24, 1962

FABIAN PUGEA,plaintiff-appellee,vs.RAFAEL TRIAS, MIGUEL TRIAS, SOLEA TRIAS, !""#"$%& 'y (%) (u"'!*& ANGEL SANC+E,CLARA TRIAS, !""#"$%& 'y (%) (u"'!*& ICTORIANO SALAOR,GABRIEL TRIAS, #*o)" ROMULO INIEGRA, GLORIA INIEGRA !*& FERNANO INIEGRA, JR.,!""#"$%& 'y /u!)!*-!&-l#$%,RAFAEL TRIAS, TEOFILO PUGEA, !*& IRGINIA PUGEA, !""#"$%& 'y (%) (u"'!*& RAMONPORTUGAL,defendants-appellants.

Placido C. Ramos and Fortunato Jose for plaintiff-appellee.Ramon C. Aquino for defendants-appellants Teofilo Pugeda and Virginia Pugeda.Jose T. Cajulis, Miguel F. Trias and Carlos T. Viniegra for all oter defendants-appellants.

R E S O L ! " O N

LABRAOR, J.:

!his #esolution conce#ns a $otion fo# the #econside#ation of the decision #ende#ed b% this Cou#t. !he $aina#&u$ent in suppo#t of the $otion is that the lots not full% paid fo# at the ti$e of the death of Mi&uel !#ias,'hich lots 'e#e, b% p#ovision of the (#ia# Lands Act )Act No. **+, subseuentl% t#ansfe##ed to the'ido'/s na$e and late# paid fo# b% he# out of the p#oceeds of the f#uits of the lands pu#chased, and fo#

'hich titles 'e#e issued in the na$e of the 'ido', belon& to the latte# as he# e0clusive pa#aphe#nalp#ope#ties, and a#e not con1u&al p#ope#ties of he# deceased husband and he#self. "n ou# decision 'e laiddo'n the #ule that upon the issuance of a ce#tificate of sale to the husband of a lot in a f#ia# lands estate,pu#chased b% the 2ove#n$ent f#o$ the f#ia#s, the land beco$es the p#ope#t% of the husband and the 'ife,and the fact that the ce#tificate of sale is the#eafte# t#ansfe##ed to the 'ife does not chan&e the status ofthe p#ope#t% so pu#chased as con1u&al p#ope#t% of the deceased husband and 'ife. !he #eason fo# this#ulin& is the p#ovision of the Civil Code to the effect that p#ope#ties acui#ed b% husband and 'ife a#econ1u&al p#ope#ties. )A#t. *3*, Civil Code of Spain. !he p#ovision of the (#ia# Lands Act to the effect thatupon the death of the husband the ce#tificate of sale is t#ansfe##ed to the na$e of the 'ife is $e#el% anad$inist#ative device desi&ned to facilitate the docu$entation of the t#ansaction and the collection of


5/29

install$ents4 it does not p#oduce the effect of dest#o%in& the cha#acte# as con1u&al p#ope#t% of the landspu#chased. 5ence, the issuance of the title, afte# co$pletion of the install$ents, in the na$e of the 'ido'does not $a6e the f#ia# lands pu#chased he# o'n pa#aphe#nal p#ope#t%. !he said lands, not'ithstandin& ace#tificate of sale, continue to be the con1u&al p#ope#t% of he# deceased husband and he#self.

!he case ofAra!ata "s. Jo!a, et al., 7* Phil. 873, cited b% the $ovants, is not applicable to the case at

ba# because it #efe#s to the supe#io# #i&hts of the 'ido' #eco&ni9ed in Section *8 of Act No. **+ ove#t#ansfe#s $ade b% the husband#ic a"e not $een appro"ed $! te %irector of &ands. As a $atte# offact the s%llabus in said case is as follo's:

'ido#(s rigts. ; !he 'ido' of a holde# of a ce#tificate of sale of f#ia# lands acui#ed b% the2ove#n$ent has an e0clusive #i&ht to said lands and thei# f#uits f#o$ he# husband/s death,p#ovided that the deceased has not conve%ed the$ to anothe# du#in& his lifeti$e and shefulfills the #eui#e$ents p#esc#ibed b% the la' fo# the pu#chase of the sa$e.

A $ino# ound fo# the #econside#ation is that the decision of


6/29

!"#l! V$. %"&&"'!" 1(( SCRA 1)6 *!&$"+$ +- F'ly R!l/"+$A

2acts; (t #ig# noon on !uly , -:-, t#e four year old niece of Susana F ?lias

)orromeo told Matilde aborada @mot#er of SusanaA t#at Susana was screaming

because ?lias was 0illing #er. aborada told #er to inform #er son, Geronimoaborada. Geronimo, in turn, told #is fat#er and toget#er, t#ey went to Susana3s

#ut. #ere t#ey found Susana3s lifeless body net to #er crying infant and ?lias

mumbling inco#erently still wit# t#e weapon in #is #ands. #e accused5appellant,

?lias, said t#at because t#ey were legally and validly married, #e s#ould only be

liable for


7/29


8/29


Manila

!5"R= =""S"ON

G.R. No. L-5062 J!*u!)y 24, 1992

MARIA EL ROSARIO MARIATEGUI, ET AL., petitione#s,vs.

+ON. COURT OF APPEALS, JACINTO MARIATEGUI, JULIAN MARIATEGUI !*& PAULINAMARIATEGUI,#espondents.

Montesa, Al$on ) Associates for petitioners.

Parmenio *. Patacsil, Patacsil T#ins &a# +ffice for te eirs of te late Maria del RosarioMariategui.

Tinga, Fuentes ) Tagle Firm for pri"ate respondents.

BIIN, J.:

!his is a petition fo# #evie' on certiorari of the decision of the Cou#t of Appeals dated =ece$be#+3, * in CA-2.R. No. 8*3*, entitled > #eve#sin& the 1ud&$ent of the then Cou#t of (i#st "nstance of Ri9al, B#anch """ at Pasi&, Met#oManila.

!he undisputed facts a#e as follo's:


9/29

Lupo Ma#iate&ui died 'ithout a 'ill on


10/29

!he plaintiffs/ #i&ht to inhe#it depends upon the ac6no'led&$ent o# #eco&nition ofthei# continuous en1o%$ent and possession of status of child#en of thei# supposedfathe#. !he evidence fails to sustain eithe# p#e$ise, and it is clea# that this actioncannot be sustained. )$id, Rollo, pp. 8D-8

!he plaintiffs elevated the case to the Cou#t of Appeals on the ound that the t#ial cou#t co$$itted

an e##o# >. . . in not findin& that the pa#ents of the appellants, Lupo Ma#iate&ui and (elipa elasco)'e#e la'full% $a##ied, and in holdin& )that the% )appellants a#e not le&iti$ate child#en of thei# saidpa#ents, the#eb% divestin& the$ of thei# inhe#itance . . . > )Rollo, pp. *3-*7.

On =ece$be# +3, *, the Cou#t of Appeals #ende#ed a decision decla#in& all the child#en anddescendants of Lupo Ma#iate&ui, includin& appellants plaintiffs a#e the child#en of the deceased spousesLupo Ma#iate&ui . . . and (elipa elasco>4 that >du#in& his lifeti$e, Lupo Ma#iate&ui had #epeatedl%ac6no'led&ed and confi#$ed plaintiffs as his child#en and the latte#, in tu#n, have continuousl%en1o%ed such status since thei# bi#th>4 and >on the basis of thei# #elationship to the deceased LupoMa#iate&ui and in acco#dance 'ith the la' on intestate succession, plaintiffs a#e entitled to inhe#itsha#es in the fo#e&oin& estate )Reco#d on Appeal, pp. 7 8. "t p#a%ed, a$on& othe#s, that plaintiffsbe decla#ed as child#en and hei#s of Lupo Ma#iate&ui and ad1udication in favo# of plaintiffs thei# la'fulsha#es in the estate of the decedent )$id, p. *.

A pe#usal of the enti#e alle&ations of the co$plaint, ho'eve#, sho's that the action is p#incipall% oneof pa#tition. !he alle&ation 'ith #espect to the status of the p#ivate #espondents 'as #aised onl%collate#all% to asse#t thei# #i&hts in the estate of the deceased. 5ence, the Cou#t of Appeals co##ectl%adopted the settled #ule that the natu#e of an action filed in cou#t is dete#$ined b% the facts alle&ed inthe co$plaint constitutin& the cause of action )Republic vs. Esten9o, *7 SCRA ++ F*G.

"t has been held that, if the #elief de$anded is not the p#ope# one 'hich $a% be anted unde# thela', it does not cha#acte#i9e o# dete#$ine the natu#e of plaintiffs/ action, and the #elief to 'hichplaintiff is entitled based on the facts alle&ed b% hi$ in his co$plaint, althou&h it is not the #eliefde$anded, is 'hat dete#$ines the natu#e of the action )* Mo#an, p. *+D, *D ed., citin& Ba&uio#ovs. Ba##ios, et al., DD Phil. *+.


11/29

@ith #espect to the le&al basis of p#ivate #espondents/ de$and fo# pa#tition of the estate of LupoMa#iate&ui, the Cou#t of Appeals aptl% held that the p#ivate #espondents a#e le&iti$ate child#en of thedeceased.

Lupo Ma#iate&ui and (elipa elasco 'e#e alle&ed to have been la'full% $a##ied in o# about *?.!his fact is based on the decla#ation co$$unicated b% Lupo Ma#iate&ui to


12/29

Evidence on #eco#d p#oves the le&iti$ate filiation of the p#ivate #espondents.


13/29

Petitione#s/ #e&ist#ation of the p#ope#ties in thei# na$es in *D* did not ope#ate as a valid #epudiationof the co-o'ne#ship. "nAdille "s.Court of Appeals )*7D SCRA 377, 38*-38+ F*G, the Cou#t held:

P#esc#iption, as a $ode of te#$inatin& a #elation of co-o'ne#ship, $ust have beenp#eceded b% #epudiation )of the co-o'ne#ship. !he act of #epudiation, in tu#n, issub1ect to ce#tain conditions: )* a co-o'ne# #epudiates the co-o'ne#ship4 )+ such

an act of #epudiation is clea#l% $ade 6no'n to the othe# co-o'ne#s4 )? the evidencethe#eon is clea# and conclusive4 and )3 he has been in possession th#ou&h open,continuous, e0clusive, and noto#ious possession of the p#ope#t% fo# the pe#iod#eui#ed b% la'.

000 000 000

"t is t#ue that #e&ist#ation unde# the !o##ens s%ste$ is const#uctive notice of title, but ithas li6e'ise been ou# holdin& that the !o##ens title does not fu#nish shield fo# f#aud. "tis the#efo#e no a#&u$ent to sa% that the act of #e&ist#ation is euivalent to notice of#epudiation, assu$in& the#e 'as one, not'ithstandin& the lon&-standin& #ule that#e&ist#ation ope#ates as a unive#sal notice of title.

"nas$uch as petitione#s #e&iste#ed the p#ope#ties in thei# na$es in f#aud of thei# co-hei#s p#esc#iptioncan onl% be dee$ed to have co$$enced f#o$ the ti$e p#ivate #espondents discove#ed thepetitione#s/ act of def#audation )Adille vs. Cou#t of Appeals, supra. 5ence, p#esc#iption definitel%$a% not be invo6ed b% petitione#s because p#ivate #espondents co$$enced the instant actionba#el% t'o $onths afte# lea#nin& that petitione#s had #e&iste#ed in thei# na$es the lots involved.

@5ERE(ORE, the petition is =EN"E= and the assailed decision of the Cou#t of Appeals dated=ece$be# +3, * is Affi#$ed.

SO OR=ERE=.

M!)#!$%/u# 3". CA GR NO. 5062, J!*u!)y 24, 1992

(AC!S:

Lupo Ma#iate&ui died 'ithout a 'ill on


14/29

siblin&s in the thi#d $a##ia&e p#a%ed fo# inclusion in the pa#tition of the estate of thei# deceasedfathe# and annul$ent of the deed of e0t#a1udicial pa#tition dated =ec. *8D.

"SSE: @hethe# the $a##ia&e of Lupo 'ith (elipa is valid in the absence of a $a##ia&e license.

5EL=:

Althou&h no $a##ia&e ce#tificate 'as int#oduced to p#ove Lupo and (elipaHs $a##ia&e, no evidence'as li6e'ise offe#ed to cont#ove#t these facts. Mo#eove#, the $e#e fact that no #eco#d of the $a##ia&ee0ists does not invalidate the $a##ia&e, p#ovided all #euisites fo# its validit% a#e p#esent.

nde# these ci#cu$stances, a $a##ia&e $a% be p#esu$ed to have ta6en place bet'een Lupo and(elipa. !he la's p#esu$e that a $an and a 'o$an, depo#tin& the$selves as husband and 'ife,have ente#ed into a la'ful cont#act of $a##ia&e4 that a child bo#n in la'ful 'edloc6, the#e bein& nodivo#ce, absolute o# f#o$ bed and boa#d is le&iti$ate4 and that thin&s have happened acco#din& tothe o#dina#% cou#se of natu#e and the o#dina#% habits of life.

5ence, (elipaHs child#en a#e le&iti$ate and the#efo#e have successional #i&hts


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 1505 F%')u!)y 1, 24

ERONICO TENEBRO,petitione#vs.T+E +ONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,#espondent.

= E C " S " O N

NARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

@e a#e called on to decide the novel issue conce#nin& the effect of the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% ofa second o# subseuent $a##ia&e, on the ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, on an individualHs c#i$inalliabilit% fo# bi&a$%. @e hold that the subseuent 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of $a##ia&e on the ound ofps%cholo&ical incapacit% does not #et#oact to the date of the celeb#ation of the $a##ia&e insofa# as thePhilippinesH penal la's a#e conce#ned. As such, an individual 'ho cont#acts a second o# subseuent$a##ia&e du#in& the subsistence of a valid $a##ia&e is c#i$inall% liable fo# bi&a$%, not'ithstandin& thesubseuent decla#ation that the second $a##ia&e is void ab initio on the ound of ps%cholo&icalincapacit%.

Petitione# in this case, e#onico !eneb#o, cont#acted $a##ia&e 'ith p#ivate co$plainant Leticia Anca1as onAp#il *, *. !he t'o 'e#e 'ed b%


15/29

illa#e%es. "nvo6in& this p#evious $a##ia&e, petitione# the#eafte# left the con1u&al d'ellin& 'hich he sha#ed'ith Anca1as, statin& that he 'as &oin& to cohabit 'ith illa#e%es.*

On .8

=u#in& the t#ial, petitione# ad$itted havin& cohabited 'ith illa#e%es f#o$ *3-*, 'ith 'ho$ he si#edt'o child#en. 5o'eve#, he denied that he and illa#e%es 'e#e validl% $a##ied to each othe#, clai$in& thatno $a##ia&e ce#e$on% too6 place to sole$ni9e thei# union.D5e alle&ed that he si&ned a $a##ia&e cont#act$e#el% to enable he# to &et the allot$ent f#o$ his office in connection 'ith his 'o#6 as a sea$an.5efu#the# testified that he #euested his b#othe# to ve#if% f#o$ the Civil Re&iste# in Manila 'hethe# the#e 'asan% $a##ia&e at all bet'een hi$ and illa#e%es, but the#e 'as no #eco#d of said $a##ia&e.

On Nove$be# *, *D, the Re&ional !#ial Cou#t of Lapu-lapu Cit%, B#anch 73, #ende#ed a decisionfindin& the accused &uilt% be%ond #easonable doubt of the c#i$e of bi&a$% unde# A#ticle ?3 of theRevised Penal Code, and sentencin& hi$ to fou# )3 %ea#s and t'o )+ $onths of p#ision co##eccional, as$ini$u$, to ei&ht ) %ea#s and one )* da% of p#ision $a%o#, as $a0i$u$.*On appeal, the Cou#t of

Appeals affi#$ed the decision of the t#ial cou#t. Petitione#Hs $otion fo# #econside#ation 'as denied fo# lac6of $e#it.

5ence, the instant petition fo# #evie' on the follo'in& assi&n$ent of e##o#s:

". !5E 5ONORABLE COR! O( APPEALS 2RAELI ERRE=, AN= !5"S ERROR "SCORREC!"BLE "N !5"S APPEAL J @5EN "! A(("RME= !5E =EC"S"ON O( !5E5ONORABLE COR! A KO CON"C!"N2 !5E ACCSE= (OR )sic !5E CR"ME O(B"2AMI, =ESP"!E !5E NON-E"S!ENCE O( !5E ("RS! MARR"A2E AN="NS(("C"ENCI O( E"=ENCE.

"". !5E COR! ERRE= "N CON"C!"N2 !5E ACCSE= (OR )sic !5E CR"ME O(B"2AMI =ESP"!E CLEAR PROO( !5A! !5E MARR"A2E BE!@EEN !5E ACCSE=

AN= PR"A!E COMPLA"NAN! 5A= BEEN =ECLARE= NLL AN= O"= AB "N"!"O AN=@"!5O! LE2AL (ORCE AN= E((EC!.**

Afte# a ca#eful #evie' of the evidence on #eco#d, 'e find no co&ent #eason to distu#b the assailed1ud&$ent.


16/29

nde# A#ticle ?3 of the Revised Penal Code, the ele$ents of the c#i$e of Bi&a$% a#e:

)* that the offende# has been le&all% $a##ied4

)+ that the fi#st $a##ia&e has not been le&all% dissolved o#, in case his o# he# spouse isabsent, the absent spouse could not %et be p#esu$ed dead acco#din& to the Civil Code4

)? that he cont#acts a second o# subseuent $a##ia&e4 and

)3 that the second o# subseuent $a##ia&e has all the essential #euisites fo# validit%.*+

Petitione#Hs assi&n$ent of e##o#s p#esents a t'o-tie#ed defense, in 'hich he )* denies the e0istence ofhis fi#st $a##ia&e to illa#e%es, and )+ a#&ues that the decla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e onthe ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, 'hich is an alle&ed indicato# that his $a##ia&e to Anca1as lac6s theessential #euisites fo# validit%, #et#oacts to the date on 'hich the second $a##ia&e 'asceleb#ated.*?5ence, petitione# a#&ues that all fou# of the ele$ents of the c#i$e of bi&a$% a#e absent, andp#a%s fo# his acuittal.*3

Petitione#Hs defense $ust fail on both counts.

(i#st, the p#osecution p#esented sufficient evidence, both docu$enta#% and o#al, to p#ove the e0istence ofthe fi#st $a##ia&e bet'een petitione# and illa#e%es. =ocu$enta#% evidence p#esented 'as in the fo#$ of:)* a cop% of a $a##ia&e cont#act bet'een !eneb#o and illa#e%es, dated Nove$be# *, *8, 'hich, asseen on the docu$ent, 'as sole$ni9ed at the Manila Cit% 5all befo#e Rev.


17/29

sho' that neithe# docu$ent attests as a positive fact that the#e 'as no $a##ia&e celeb#ated bet'eene#onico B. !eneb#o and 5ilda B. illa#e%es on Nove$be# *, *8. Rathe#, the docu$ents $e#el% attestthat the #espective issuin& offices have no #eco#d of such a $a##ia&e. =ocu$enta#% evidence as to theabsence of a #eco#d is uite diffe#ent f#o$ docu$enta#% evidence as to the absence of a $a##ia&ece#e$on%, o# docu$enta#% evidence as to the invalidit% of the $a##ia&e bet'een !eneb#o and illa#e%es.

!he $a##ia&e cont#act p#esented b% the p#osecution se#ves as positive evidence as to the e0istence ofthe $a##ia&e bet'een !eneb#o and illa#e%es, 'hich should be &iven eate# c#edence than docu$entstestif%in& $e#el% as to absence of an% #eco#d of the $a##ia&e, especiall% conside#in& that the#e isabsolutel% no #eui#e$ent in the la' that a $a##ia&e cont#act needs to be sub$itted to the civil #e&ist#a#as a condition p#ecedent fo# the validit% of a $a##ia&e. !he $e#e fact that no #eco#d of a $a##ia&e e0istsdoes not invalidate the $a##ia&e, p#ovided all #euisites fo# its validit% a#e p#esent.*!he#e is no evidencep#esented b% the defense that 'ould indicate that the $a##ia&e bet'een !eneb#o and illa#e%es lac6edan% #euisite fo# validit%, apa#t f#o$ the self-se#vin& testi$on% of the accused hi$self. Balanced a&ainstthis testi$on% a#e illa#e%esH lette#, Anca1asH testi$on% that petitione# info#$ed he# of the e0istence of thevalid fi#st $a##ia&e, and petitione#Hs o'n conduct, 'hich 'ould all tend to indicate that the f i#st $a##ia&ehad all the #euisites fo# validit%.

(inall%, althou&h the accused clai$s that he too6 steps to ve#if% the non-e0istence of the fi#st $a##ia&e to

illa#e%es b% #euestin& his b#othe# to validate such pu#po#ted non-e0istence, it is si&nificant to note thatthe ce#tifications issued b% the National Statistics Office and the Cit% Civil Re&ist#% of Manila a#e datedOctobe# D, *7 and (eb#ua#% ?, *D, #espectivel%. Both docu$ents, the#efo#e, a#e dated afte# theaccusedHs $a##ia&e to his second 'ife, p#ivate #espondent in this case.

As such, this Cou#t #ules that the#e 'as sufficient evidence p#esented b% the p#osecution to p#ove the fi#stand second #euisites fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$%.

!he second tie# of petitione#Hs defense hin&es on the effects of the subseuent 1udicial decla#ation+of thenullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%.

Petitione# a#&ues that this subseuent 1udicial decla#ation #et#oacts to the date of the celeb#ation of the$a##ia&e to Anca1as. As such, he a#&ues that, since his $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'as subseuentl% decla#ed

void ab initio, the c#i$e of bi&a$% 'as not co$$itted.+*

!his a#&u$ent is not i$p#essed 'ith $e#it.

Petitione# $a6es $uch of the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the ound ofps%cholo&ical incapacit%, invo6in& A#ticle ?8 of the (a$il% Code. @hat petitione# fails to #eali9e is that adecla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit% is of absolutel%no $o$ent insofa# as the StateHs penal la's a#e conce#ned.

As a second o# subseuent $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of petitione#Hs valid $a##ia&e toilla#e%es, petitione#Hs $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'ould be null and void ab initio co$pletel% #e&a#dless ofpetitione#Hs ps%cholo&ical capacit% o# incapacit%.++Since a $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of avalid $a##ia&e is auto$aticall% void, the nullit% of this second $a##ia&e is not pe# se an a#&u$ent fo# theavoidance of c#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$%. Pe#tinentl%, A#ticle ?3 of the Revised Penal Code c#i$inali9es>an% pe#son 'ho shall cont#act a second o# subseuent $a##ia&e befo#e the fo#$e# $a##ia&e has beenle&all% dissolved, o# befo#e the absent spouse has been decla#ed p#esu$ptivel% dead b% $eans of a

1ud&$ent #ende#ed in the p#ope# p#oceedin&s>. A plain #eadin& of the la', the#efo#e, 'ould indicate thatthe p#ovision penali9es the $e#e act of cont#actin& a second o# a subseuent $a##ia&e du#in& thesubsistence of a valid $a##ia&e.

!hus, as soon as the second $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'as celeb#ated on Ap#il *, *, du#in& thesubsistence of the valid fi#st $a##ia&e, the c#i$e of bi&a$% had al#ead% been consu$$ated. !o ou# $ind,


18/29


19/29

c#i$e of Bi&a$% and sentencin& hi$ to suffe# the indete#$inate penalt% of fou# )3 %ea#s and t'o )+$onths of p#ision co##eccional, as $ini$u$, to ei&ht ) %ea#s and one )* da% of p#ision $a%o#, as$a0i$u$, is A(("RME= in toto.

SO OR=ERE=.

%a"ide, Jr., C.J. Cairman, Pangani$an, /ando"al-0utierre1, Corona, and A1cuna, JJ.,concu#.Puno, J., join te opinion of J. Vitug.Vitug, J.,see sepa#ate opinion.2uisum$ing, J.,1oin the dissent in vie' of void nuptia.Carpio, J.,see dissentin& opinion.

Austria-Martine1, J.,1oin the dissent of


20/29

cont#acted, the#e has as %et no 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of the p#io# $a##ia&e.7" $aintain st#onese#vations to this #ulin&. A#ticle 3 of the (a$il% Code #eads:

>A#ticle 3. !he absolute nullit% of the p#evious $a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed fo# pu#poses of #e$a##ia&e onthe basis solel% of the final 1ud&$ent decla#in& such p#evious $a##ia&e void.>

"t is onl% >fo# pu#pose of #e$a##ia&e> that the la' has e0p#essed that the absolute nullit% of the p#evious$a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed >on the basis solel% of the final 1ud&$ent decla#in& such p#evious $a##ia&evoid.> "t $a% not be a$iss to state that unde# the #e&i$e of the Civil Code of *7, the Sup#e$e Cou#t, in@ie&el vs.


21/29

"n cases 'he#e the second $a##ia&e is void on ounds othe# than the e0istence of the fi#st $a##ia&e, thisCou#t has decla#ed in a line of cases that no c#i$e of bi&a$% is co$$itted.*+!he Cou#t has e0plained thatfo# a pe#son to be held &uilt% of bi&a$%, it $ust, even as it needs onl%, be sho'n that the subseuent$a##ia&e has all the essential ele$ents of a valid $a##ia&e, 'e#e it not fo# the subsistin& fi#st union.5ence, 'he#e it is established that the second $a##ia&e has been cont#acted 'ithout the necessa#%license and thus void,*?o# that the accused is $e#el% fo#ced to ente# into the second )voidable$a##ia&e,*3no c#i$inal liabilit% fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$% can attach. "n both and li6e instances, ho'eve#, thelapses #efe#s to the ele$ents #eui#ed fo# cont#actin& a valid $a##ia&e. "f, then, all the #euisites fo# thepe#fection of the cont#act $a##ia&e, f#eel% and volunta#il% ente#ed into, a#e sho'n to be e0tant, thec#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$% can unassailabl% a#ise.

S#*7% 8"y7(olo/#7!l #*7!8!7#$y, u8o* $(% o$(%) (!*&, &o%" *o$ )%l!$% $o !* #*#)#$y #* $(%%l%%*$", %#$(%) %""%*$#!l o) o)!l, #* 7o*$!7$#*/ ! 3!l#& !))#!/%, $(% &%7l!)!$#o* o *ull#$y"u'"%:u%*$ $o $(% '#/!ou" !))#!/% &u% $o $(!$ /)ou*&, ;#$(ou$ o)%, ;oul& '%#*7o*"%:u%*$#!l #* ! 7)##*!l 7(!)/% o) '#/!y. !he 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of a bi&a$ous$a##ia&e on the ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit% $e#el% nullifies the %%7$"of the $a##ia&e but it doesnot ne&ate the fact of 8%)%7$#o*of the bi&a$ous $a##ia&e. "ts subseuent decla#ation of nullit% dissolvesthe #elationship of the spouses but, bein& alien to the #euisite conditions fo# the pe#fection of the$a##ia&e, the 1ud&$ent of the cou#t is no defense on the pa#t of the offende# 'ho had ente#ed into it.

Acco#din&l%, " vote to dis$iss the petition

TENEBRO S CA GR 1505, FEB 1,24

!eneb#o cont#acted $a##ia&e 'ith Anca1as in *. !he t'o lived to&ethe# continuousl% and 'ithout

inte##uption until the latte# pa#t of **, 'hen !eneb#o info#$ed Anca1as that he had been p#eviousl%

$a##ied to a ce#tain 5ilda illa#e%es in *8. Petitione# the#eafte# left the con1u&al d'ellin& 'hich he

sha#ed 'ith Anca1as, statin& that he 'as &oin& to cohabit 'ith illa#e%es. "n *?, petitione#

cont#acted %et anothe# $a##ia&e 'ith a ce#tain Nilda ille&as. Anca1as the#eafte# filed a co$plaint fo#

bi&a$% a&ainst petitione#. ille&as counte#ed that his $a##ia&e 'ith illa#e%es cannot be p#oven as a

fact the#e bein& no #eco#d of such. 5e fu#the# a#&ued that his second $a##ia&e, 'ith Anca1as, hasbeen decla#ed void ab initio due to ps%cholo&ical incapacit%. 5ence he cannot be cha#&ed fo#

bi&a$%.

ISSUE< @hethe# o# not !eneb#o is &uilt% of bi&a$%.

+EL< !he p#osecution 'as able to establish the validit% of the fi#st $a##ia&e. As a second o#

subseuent $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of petitione#Hs valid $a##ia&e to illa#e%es,

petitione#Hs $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'ould be null and void ab initio co$pletel% #e&a#dless of petitione#Hs

ps%cholo&ical capacit% o# incapacit%. Since a $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of a valid

$a##ia&e is auto$aticall% void, the nullit% of this second $a##ia&e is not pe# se an a#&u$ent fo# the

avoidance of c#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$%. Pe#tinentl%, A#ticle ?3 of the Revised Penal Code

c#i$inali9es an% pe#son 'ho shall cont#act a second o# subseuent $a##ia&e befo#e the fo#$e#

$a##ia&e has been le&all% dissolved, o# befo#e the absent spouse has been decla#ed p#esu$ptivel%dead b% $eans of a 1ud&$ent #ende#ed in the p#ope# p#oceedin&s. A plain #eadin& of the la',

the#efo#e, 'ould indicate that the p#ovision penali9es the $e#e act of cont#actin& a second o# a

subseuent $a##ia&e du#in& the subsistence of a valid $a##ia&e.

Read full te3t ere.

S%8!)!$% O8#*#o* o Ju"$#7% #$u/


22/29

$a##ia&es #eui#e no 1udicial dec#ee to establish thei# nullit%. "t is t#ue that the Revised Penal Code

does not #eui#e the fi#st o# second $a##ia&e to be decla#ed void to avoid a c#i$inal case of

bi&a$% but this should onl% be applicable to voidable $a##ia&es - because a&ain, void ab initio

$a##ia&es #eall% do not need such 1udicial dec#ee.

R!#u0l $. Dy"/

GR N". 135541, M& 24, 2))4

2(CS;

!ose and 2elisa Dayot were married at t#e 1asay City "all on November +/, -:H. &n

lieu of a marriage license, t#ey eecuted a sworn a$davit t#at t#ey #ad lived

toget#er for at least 7years. 4n (ugust -6, !ose contracted marriage wit# a

certain Runa 1ascual. #ey were bot# employees of t#e National Statistics and

Coordinating )oard. 2elisa t#en led on !une - an action for bigamy against !ose

and an administrative complaint wit# t#e 4$ce of t#e 4mbudsman. 4n t#e ot#er

#and, !ose led a complaint on !uly - for annulment andIor declaration of nullity

of marriage w#ere #e contended t#at #is marriage wit# 2elisa was a s#am and #is

consent was secured t#roug# fraud.

&SS>?; 8#et#er or not !ose3s marriage wit# 2elisa is valid considering t#at t#ey

eecuted a sworn a$davit in lieu of t#e marriage license re9uirement.

"?BD;

C( indubitably establis#ed t#at !ose and 2elisa #ave not lived toget#er for ve yearsat t#e time t#ey eecuted t#eir sworn a$davit and contracted marriage. !ose and

2elisa started living toget#er only in !une -:H, or barely ve mont#s before t#e

celebration of t#eir marriage on November -:H. 2indings of facts of t#e Court of

(ppeals are binding in t#e Supreme Court.

#e solemni'ation of a marriage wit#out prior license is a clear violation of t#e law

and invalidates a marriage. 2urt#ermore,


23/29

a$davit relating to t#e period of !ose and 2elisa3s co#abitation, w#ic# would #ave

9ualied t#eir marriage as an eception to t#e re9uirement for a marriage license,

cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a 9uintessential fact t#at t#e law

precisely re9uired to be deposed and attested to by t#e parties under oat#=. "ence,

!ose and 2elisa3s marriage is void ab initio. #e court also ruled t#at an action for

nullity of marriage is imprescriptible. #e rig#t to impugn marriage does notprescribe and may be raised any time.

R!#u0l " /! l##+!$ $ J"$! A. Dy"/ GR N". 135541 M& 24, 2))4

2act of t#e Case; 4n November +/, -:H !ose and 2elisa Dayot were married at t#e

1asay City "all. &n lieu of a marriage license, t#ey eecuted a sworn a$davit

attesting t#at bot# of t#em are legally capacitated and t#at t#ey co#abited for

atleast ve years w#en in fact t#ey only barely 0nown eac# ot#er since 2ebruary

-:H.4n -, !ose led a complaint for (nnulment andIor Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage contending t#at t#eir marriage was s#am, as to no ceremony was

celebrated between t#emJ t#at #e did not eecute t#e sworn statement t#at #e and

2elisa #ad co#abited for atleast ve yearsJ and t#at #is consent was secured

t#roug# fraud. "is sister, #owever, testied as witness t#at !ose voluntarily gave #is

consent during t#eir marriage. #e complaint was dismissed on Regional rial Court

stating t#at !ose is deemed estopped from assailing t#e legality of #is marriage for

lac0 of marriage license. &t is claimed t#at !ose and 2elisa #ad lived toget#er from

-:H to -6, and t#at it too0 !ose seven years before #e soug#t t#e declaration of

nullityJ #e RC ruled t#at !ose3s action #ad prescribe. &t cited (rt : of t#e New Civil

Code w#ic# re9uires t#at t#e action for annulment must be commenced by t#e

in*ured party wit#in four years after t#e discovery of fraud. !ose appealed to t#eCourt of (ppeals w#ic# rendered a decision declaring t#eir marriage void ab initio

for absence of marriage license. 2elisa soug#t a petition for review praying t#at t#e

Court of (ppeal3s (mended decision be reversed and set aside.

&ssue; @-A 8#et#er t#e falsity of an a$davit of marital co#abitation, w#ere t#e

parties #ave in trut# fallen s#ort of t#e minimum ve5year re9uirement., e%ectively

renders t#e marriage voib an initio for lac0 of marriage. @+A 8#et#er or not t#e

action for nullity prescribes as t#e case #ere w#ere !ose led a complaint after

seven years from contracting marriage.

"eld; @-AKes.#e intendment of law or fact leans towards t#e validity of marriage,will not salvage t#e parties3 marriage, and etricate t#em from t#e e%ect of a

violation of t#e law. #e Court protects t#e fabric of t#e institution of marriage and

at t#e same time wary of deceptive sc#emes t#at violate t#e legal measures set

fort# in t#e law. #e case cannot fall under irregularity of t#e marriage license, w#at

#appens #ere is an absence of marriage license w#ic# ma0es t#eir marriage void for

lac0 of one of t#e essential re9uirement of a valid marriage. @+A No. (n action for


24/29

nullity is imprescriptible. !ose and 2elisa3s marriage was celebrated san a marriage

license. #e rig#t to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe.

Su$+ N-" C&7" $. Su$+ Y!! C&7"

GR No. -+7+ 2ebruary +, +66-

2(CS;

S14/ Santiago C(riEo married petitioner Susan Nicdao on !une +6, -H,

wit# w#om #e #ad two c#ildren, Sa#lee and Sandee. 4n November -6, -:+, S14/

CariEo also married respondent Susan Kee. &n -::, S14/ CariEo became

bedridden due to diabetes and tuberculosis, and died on November +, -+, under

t#e care of Susan Kee w#o spent for #is medical and burial epenses. )ot# Susans

led claims for monetary benets and nancial assistance from various government

agencies pertaining to t#e deceased. Nicdao was able to collect 1-/H,666 fromM)(&, 1CCL&, commutation, N(14BC4M and 1ag5ibig, w#ile Kee received a total of

1+-,666 from GS&S burial and SSS burial insurance.

4n December -/, -, Kee led for collection of money against N&cdao,

praying t#at Nicdao be ordered to return to #er at least one5#alf of t#e 1-/H,666

N&cdao #ad collected. 2or failing to le #er answer, N&cdao was declared in default.

Kee admitted t#at #er marriage to t#e deceased too0 place during t#e

subsistence of and wit#out rst obtaining a *udicial declaration of nullity of t#e

marriage between Nicdao and CariEo. )ut s#e claimed good fait#, #aving no

0nowledge of t#e previous marriage until at t#e funeral w#ere s#e met Nicdao w#ointroduced #erself as t#e wife of t#e deceased. Kee submitted t#at CariEo3s

marriage to Nicdao was void because it was solemni'ed wit#out t#e re9uired

marriage license.

&SS>?S; @-A 8#et#er or not t#e subse9uent marriage is null and voidJ

@+A 8#et#er or not, if yes to above, t#e wife of t#e deceased is entitled to

collect t#e deat# benets from government agencies despite t#e nullity of t#eir

marriage.

"?BD;

>nder (rticle /6 of t#e 2amily Code, t#e nullity of a previous marriage

may be invo0ed for purposes of remarriage on t#e basis solely of a nal *udgment

declaring suc# marriage void. Meaning, w#ere t#e absolute nullity of a previous

marriage is soug#t to be invo0ed for purposes of contracting a second marriage, t#e

sole basis acceptable in law, for said pro*ected marriage to be free from legal

inrmity, is a nal *udgment declaring t#e previous marriage void. "owever, for


25/29

purposes ot#er t#an remarriage, no *udicial action is necessary to declare a

marriage an absolute nullity. 2or ot#er purposes, suc# as but not limited to t#e

determination of #eirs#ip, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a c#ild, settlement of estate,

dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for t#at matter, t#e court may

pass upon t#e validity of marriage even after t#e deat# of t#e parties t#ereto, and

even in a suit not directly instituted to 9uestion t#e validity of said marriage, so longas it is essential to t#e determination of t#e case.

>nder t#e Civil Code w#ic# was t#e law in force w#en t#e marriage of

petitioner and t#e deceased was solemni'ed in -H, a valid marriage license is a

re9uisite of marriage, and t#e absence t#erof, sub*ect to certain eceptions, renders

t#e marriage void ab initio.

&t does not follow, #owever, t#at since t#e marriage of Nicdao and t#e

deceased was void ab initio, t#e deat# benets would now be awarded to Kee. o

reiterate, under (rticle /6 of t#e 2amily Code, for purposes of remarriage, t#ere

must be a prior *udicial declaration of t#e nullity of a previous marriage, t#oug#void, before a party can enter into a second marriageJ ot#erwise, t#e second

marriage would also be void.

4ne of t#e e%ects of t#e declaration of nullity of marriage is t#e

separation of t#e property of t#e spouses according to t#e applicable property

regime. Considering t#at t#e two marriages are void ab initio, t#e applicable

property regime would be not absolute community nor con*ugal partners#ip of

property, but governed by t#e provisions of (rticles -/ and -/: of t#e 2amily Code,

on 1roperty Regime of >nions 8it#out Marriage.

CARINO S CARINO GR 12569 FEB 2, 21

"n *8 SPO3 Santia&o Ca#ino $a##ied Susan Nicdao Ca#ino. 5e had + child#en 'ith he#. "n *+,SPO3 cont#acted a second $a##ia&e, this ti$e 'ith Susan Iee Ca#ino. "n *, p#io# to his second

$a##ia&e, SPO3 is al#ead% bed#idden and he 'as unde# the ca#e of Iee. "n *+, he died *? da%s

afte# his $a##ia&e 'ith Iee. !he#eafte#, the spouses 'ent on to clai$ the benefits of SPO3. Nicdao

'as able to clai$ a total of P*3,. 'hile Iee 'as able to collect a total of P+*,.. "n *?,

Iee filed an action fo# collection of su$ of $one% a&ainst Nicdao. She 'anted to have half of the

P*36. Iee ad$itted that he# $a##ia&e 'ith SPO3 'as sole$ni9ed du#in& the subsistence of the

$a##ia&e bn SPO3 and Nicdao but the said $a##ia&e bet'een Nicdao and SPO3 is null and void


26/29

due to the absence of a valid $a##ia&e license as ce#tified b% the local civil #e&ist#a#. Iee also

clai$ed that she onl% found out about the p#evious $a##ia&e on SPO3Hs fune#al.

ISSUE< @hethe# o# not the absolute nullit% of $a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed to clai$ p#esu$ptive

le&iti$es.

+EL< !he $a##ia&e bet'een Nicdao and SPO3 is null and void due the absence of a valid $a##ia&e

license. !he $a##ia&e bet'een Iee and SPO3 is li6e'ise null and void fo# the sa$e has beensole$ni9ed 'ithout the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% of the $a##ia&e bet'een Nicdao and SPO3.

nde# A#ticle 3 of the (C, the absolute nullit% of a p#evious $a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed fo# pu#poses

of #e$a##ia&e on the basis solel% of a final 1ud&$ent decla#in& such p#evious $a##ia&e void.

Meanin&, 'he#e the absolute nullit% of a p#evious $a##ia&e is sou&ht to be invo6ed fo# pu#poses of

cont#actin& a second $a##ia&e, the sole basis acceptable in la', fo# said p#o1ected $a##ia&e to be

f#ee f#o$ le&al infi#$it%, is a final 1ud&$ent decla#in& the p#evious $a##ia&e void. 5o'eve#, fo#

pu#poses othe# than #e$a##ia&e, no 1udicial action is necessa#% to decla#e a $a##ia&e an absolute

nullit%. (o# othe# pu#poses, such as but not li$ited to the dete#$ination of hei#ship, le&iti$ac% o#

ille&iti$ac% of a child, settle$ent of estate, dissolution of p#ope#t% #e&i$e, o# a c#i$inal case fo# that

$atte#, the cou#t $a% pass upon the validit% of $a##ia&e even afte# the death of the pa#ties the#eto,

and even in a suit not di#ectl% instituted to uestion the validit% of said $a##ia&e, so lon& as it is

essential to the dete#$ination of the case. "n such instances, evidence $ust be adduced, testi$onial

o# docu$enta#%, to p#ove the e0istence of ounds #ende#in& such a p#evious $a##ia&e an absolute

nullit%. !hese need not be li$ited solel% to an ea#lie# final 1ud&$ent of a cou#t decla#in& such

p#evious $a##ia&e void.

!he SC #uled that Iee has no #i&ht to the benefits ea#ned b% SPO3 as a police$an fo# thei# $a##ia&e

is void due to bi&a$%4 she is onl% entitled to p#ope#ties, $one% etc o'ned b% the$ in co$$on in

p#opo#tion to thei# #espective cont#ibutions. @a&es and sala#ies ea#ned b% each pa#t% shall belon& to

hi$ o# he# e0clusivel% )A#t. *3 of (C. Nicdao is entitled to the full benefits ea#ned b% SPO3 as a

cop even if thei# $a##ia&e is li6e'ise void. !his is because the t'o 'e#e capacitated to $a##% each

othe# fo# the#e 'e#e no i$pedi$ents but thei# $a##ia&e 'as void due to the lac6 of a $a##ia&e

license4 in thei# situation, thei# p#ope#t% #elations is &ove#ned b% A#t *3D of the (C 'hich p#ovides

that eve#%thin& the% ea#ned du#in& thei# cohabitation is p#esu$ed to have been euall% cont#ibutedb% each pa#t% J this includes sala#ies and 'a&es ea#ned b% each pa#t% not'ithstandin& the fact that

the othe# $a% not have cont#ibuted at all.

Ninal vs. Ba%ado& ?+ SCRA *++

(AC!S:

Pepito Ninal 'as $a##ied 'ith !eodulfa Bellones on Septe$be# +8, *D3. !he% had ? child#en

na$el% Bab%line, "nid and A#chie, petitione#s. =ue to the shot inflicted b% Pepito to !eodulfa, the

latte# died on Ap#il +3, *7 leavin& the child#en unde# the &ua#dianship of Enace Ninal. * %ea#

and $onths late#, Pepito and No#$a Bada%o& &ot $a##ied 'ithout an% $a##ia&e license. !he%


27/29

instituted an affidavit statin& that the% had lived to&ethe# fo# at least 7 %ea#s e0e$ptin& f#o$ secu#in&

the $a##ia&e license. Pepito died in a ca# accident on (eb#ua#% *, *DD. Afte# his death,

petitione#s filed a petition fo# decla#ation of nullit% of the $a##ia&e of Pepito and No#$a alle&in& that

said $a##ia&e 'as void fo# lac6 of $a##ia&e license.

"SSES:

*. @hethe# o# not the second $a##ia&e of Pepito 'as void

+. @hethe# o# not the hei#s of the deceased $a% file fo# the decla#ation of the nullit% of PepitoHs

$a##ia&e afte# his death

5EL=:

!he $a##ia&e of Pepito and No#$a is void fo# absence of the $a##ia&e license. !he% cannot be

e0e$pted even thou&h the% instituted an affidavit and clai$ed that the% cohabit fo# at least 7 %ea#s

because f#o$ the ti$e of PepitoHs fi#st $a##ia&e 'as dissolved to the ti$e of his $a##ia&e 'ith

No#$a, onl% about + $onths had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his fi#st 'ife had sepa#ated in fact, and

the#eafte# both Pepito and No#$a had sta#ted livin& 'ith each othe# that has al#ead% lasted fo# five

%ea#s, the fact #e$ains that thei# five-%ea# pe#iod cohabitation 'as not the cohabitation conte$plated

b% la'. 5ence, his $a##ia&e to No#$a is still void.

oid $a##ia&es a#e dee$ed to have not ta6en place and cannot be the sou#ce of #i&hts. "t can be

uestioned even afte# the death of one of the pa#ties and an% p#ope# inte#ested pa#t% $a% attac6 a

void $a##ia&e.

Ninal vs. )ayadog G.R. No. -: Marc# -/, +666

2act;

1epito married #is second wife Norma a year and eig#t mont#s after #is rst wife

eodulfa3s deat#. 1epito and Norma got married wit#out any marriage license

because t#ey lived toget#er for 7 years and t#us eempt from marriage license.

Some years after, 1epito died in a car accident.

#e #eirs as petitioners, fearing problems in successional rig#ts @succession only

occurs after t#e deat# of an ascendantA due to t#e second marriage, led a Opetition

for declaration for nullity of marriage3 @a.0.a. declaration of nullity of void marriagesA

between 1epito @deceasedA and Norma using t#e absence of a marriage license as a

legal basis.

&ssues;

#e lower court dismissed t#e petition because;


28/29

@-A #e 2amily Code is silent w#et#er t#e petition #as a 3cause of action3. Can t#ere

be suc# a petition w#en t#e #eirs3 parent is deceased

@+A (re t#e #eirs a Oproper party3

@A Determination w#et#er t#e second marriage is void ab initio @from t#e

beginningA is a must but is a di%erent matter. Loid marriages cannot be attac0ed

collaterally.

@/A 8#et#er t#e petition for declaration for nullity of marriage #as prescribed.

#e lower court ruled;

@-A 1etitioners s#ould #ave led an action to declare null and void t#eir fat#er3s

marriage before t#e latter3s deat#.

@+A #e prescription period and t#e proper party in an annulment proceeding were

used as a basis to dismiss petitioner3s case.

1etitioners disagree wit# t#e decision and petitions for a review.

"eld;

#e Supreme Court ruled t#at;

@-A #e applicable law, for t#e determination of marriage, is t#e Civil Code and not

t#e 2amily Code. @&n determining t#e validity of marriage, it is to be tested by t#e

law in force at t#e time t#e marriage was contracted.A

@+A #ere is no second marriage. #e absence of a marriage license rendersmarriage void ab initio. #e eemption for a marriage license, t#e co#abitation, was

not t#e one described by t#e Civil Code. &t is not t#e one described by t#e Civil Code

because t#e co#abitation, after t#e rst marriage, was only twenty mont#s w#ereas

t#e law re9uires ve years. &f t#e respondent too0 into consideration t#e ot#er years

and mont#s before t#e second marriage, t#en t#e co#abitation would include t#e

period of t#e rst marriage. #is is in violation of t#e law.

@A Separation in fact @not t#e legal separationA by t#e rst marriage does not count

co#abitation.


29/29

void vcases

Documents