Ninal v. Bayadog

8/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 328 8/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 328
VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 123
Niñal vs. Bayadog
riage license is dispensed with, one of which is that provided in

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Article 76, referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who
have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband
Niñal vs. Bayadog
and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five
* years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is
G.R. No. 133778. March 14, 2000. required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to
humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due
of the minors BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, to the publication of every applicant’s name for a marriage
ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR., petitioners, vs. license. The publicity attending the marriage license may
NORMA BAYADOG, respondent. discourage such persons from legitimizing their status. To
preserve peace in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye
of public exposure and contain the source of gossip arising from
Civil Law; Family Code; Marriages; A valid marriage license
the publication of their names, the law deemed it wise to preserve
is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the
their privacy and exempt them from that requirement.
absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to
Article 80 (3) in relation to Article 58.—A valid marriage license is Same; Same; Same; The five-year common-law cohabitation
a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of
absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the
Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58. The requirement and absence of the marriage.—Working on the assumption that Pepito
issuance of marriage license is the State’s demonstration of its and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years
involvement and participation in every marriage, in the without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be
maintenance of which the general public is interested. This computed on the basis of a cohabitation as “husband and wife”
interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage
recognizes the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law
the family as a basic “autonomous social institution.” Specifically, cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of
the Constitution considers marriage as an “inviolable social celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it
institution,” and is the foundation of family life which shall be not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period
protected by the State. This is why the Family Code considers should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage
marriage as “a special contract of permanent union” and case law and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by
considers it “not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment.” exclusivity—meaning no third party was involved at any time
within the 5 years and continuity—that is unbroken. Otherwise, if
Same; Same; Same; There are several instances recognized by
that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any
the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed with.—
distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry
There are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein
each other during the entire five years, then the law would be
a mar-
sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common
law relationships and placing them on the same footing with
________________ those who lived faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a
special relationship must be respected as such and its
* FIRST DIVISION.
requirements must be strictly observed. The presumption that a
man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is
based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The
123
parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply with
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f5d4d1103a61b2bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f5d4d1103a61b2bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
every single requirement and later use the same missing element make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as
as a pre-conceived escape ground to nul- being one as “husband and wife.”
Same; Same; Same; Void marriages can be questioned even
124
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
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
125
Niñal vs. Bayadog
lify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a

VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 125
marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the
ambit of the exception. It should be noted that a license is Niñal vs. Bayadog
required in order to notify the public that two persons are about
to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has which case the parties and their offspring will be left: as if the
knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make marriage had been perfectly valid.—The Code is silent as to who
it known to the local civil registrar. can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable
Same; Same; Same; Any marriage subsequently contracted and void marriages are not identical. A marriage that is
during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void.— annulable is valid until otherwise declared by the court; whereas
This is the same reason why our civil laws, past or present, a marriage that is void ab initio is considered as having never to
absolutely prohibited the concurrence of multiple marriages by have taken place and cannot be the source of rights. The first can
the same person during the same period. Thus, any marriage be generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or
subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse prescription while the other can never be ratified. A voidable
shall be illegal and void, subject only to the exception in cases of marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct
absence or where the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. proceeding while a void marriage can be attacked collaterally.
The Revised Penal Code complements the civil law in that the Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the
contracting of two or more marriages and the having of death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only
extramarital affairs are considered felonies, i.e., bigamy and during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in
concubinage and adultery. The law sanctions monogamy. which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the
Same; Same; Same; The subsistence of the marriage even marriage had been perfectly valid. That is why the action or
where there was actual severance of the filial companionship defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages
between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse where the action prescribes. Only the parties to a voidable
with any third party as being one as “husband and wife.”—Even marriage can assail it but any proper interested party may attack
assuming that Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and a void marriage.
thereafter both Pepito and respondent had started living with Same; Same; Same; No judicial decree is necessary in order to
each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains establish the nullity of a marriage.—Jurisprudence under the
that their five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation Civil Code states that no judicial decree is necessary in order to
contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of a perfect union establish the nullity of a marriage. “A void marriage does not
that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the require a judicial decree to restore the parties to their original
absence of the marriage contract. Pepito had a subsisting rights or to make the marriage void but though no sentence of
marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with respondent. avoidance be absolutely necessary, yet as well for the sake of good
It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had order of society as for the peace of mind of all concerned, it is
already been separated in fact from his lawful spouse. The expedient that the nullity of the marriage should be ascertained
subsistence of the marriage even where there was actual and declared by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
severance of the filial companionship between the spouses cannot Same; Same; Same; Other than for purposes of remarriage, no
judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute
nullity.—Other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. The
is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other case was filed under the assumption that the validity or
purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner’s
legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, successional rights. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the
dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they
the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit are not among the persons who could file an action for
not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is “annulment of marriage” under Article 47 of the Family
essential to the determination of the case. This is without Code.
prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need
127
arises, a final judgment of decla-
126 VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 127

Niñal vs. Bayadog
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial Court of
Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissed the petition after
Niñal vs. Bayadog
finding that the Family Code is “rather silent, obscure,
insufficient” to resolve the following issues:
ration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to
remarry. The clause “on the basis of a final judgment declaring (1) Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action
such previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the Family Code against defendant in asking for the declaration of
connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only for the nullity of marriage of their deceased father,
purpose of remarriage. Pepito G. Niñal, with her specially so when at the
time of the filing of this instant suit, their father
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Pepito G. Niñal is already dead;
Court of Appeals. (2) Whether or not the second marriage of plaintiffs’
deceased father with defendant is null and void ab
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
initio;
Roldan R. Mangubat for petitioners.
Daryll A. Amante for private respondent. (3) Whether or not plaintiffs are estopped from
assailing the validity of the second marriage
1
after it
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: was dissolved due to their father’s death.
May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the Thus, the lower court ruled that petitioners should have
declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death? filed the action to declare null and void their father’s
Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on marriage to respondent before his death, applying by
September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born analogy Article 47 of the Family Code which enumerates
herein petitioners. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in the time and the persons who could initiate an action for
2
her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months annulment of marriage. Hence, this petition for review
thereafter or on December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent with this Court grounded on a pure question of law.
Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. This petition was originally dismissed for non-
In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived Civil Procedure, and because “the verification failed to
together as husband and wife for at least five years and state the basis of petitioner’s averment that the allegations
were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On in the petition are ‘true and correct.’ ” It was thus treated
February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After their as an unsigned pleading which produces3 no legal effect
father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of under Section 3, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules. However, upon
nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the motion of petitioners, this Court
________________ (3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of

exceptional character.
1 The dispositive portion of the Order dated March 27, 1998 issued by
x x x x x x x x x
Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 59, 8 Art. 58. Save marriages of an exceptional character authorized in
Toledo City, reads: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant’s
Chapter 2 of this Title, but not those under article 76, no marriage shall
motion to dismiss is hereby granted and this instant case is hereby
be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil
ordered dismissed without costs.” (p. 6; Rollo, p. 21).
registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually
2 Order, p. 4; Rollo, p. 19.
resides.
3 Minute Resolution dated July 13, 1998; Rollo, p. 39. 9 Perido v. Perido, 63 SCRA 97 (1975).
128
129

VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 129
Niñal vs. Bayadog
Niñal vs. Bayadog
reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition for 10

4 “autonomous social institution.” Specifically, the
review.
Constitution considers marriage as an “inviolable social
The two marriages involved herein having been
institution,” and is the foundation of family life which shall
solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code (FC), 11
be protected by the State. This is why the Family Code
the applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil
considers marriage as “a special contract of permanent
Code which5 was the law in effect at the time of their 12
union” and case law considers it “not just an adventure
celebration. A valid marriage license is 6 a requisite of 13
but a lifetime commitment.”
marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of
However, there are several instances recognized by the
which renders the marriage void ab 8initio pursuant to
7 Civil Code wherein a marriage license is14dispensed with,
Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58. The requirement
one of which is that provided in Article 76, referring to the
and issuance of marriage license is the State’s
marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together
demonstration of its involvement and participation in every
and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a
marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is
9 continuous and unbroken period of at least five years
interested. This interest proceeds from the constitutional
before the marriage. The rationale why no license is
mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family
required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to
life and of affording protection to the family as a basic
humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with
the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid
__________________ marriage due to the publication of every applicant’s name
for a marriage license. The publicity attending the
4 Minute Resolution dated October 7, 1998; Rollo, p. 50.
marriage license may discourage such
5 Tamano v. Ortiz, 291 SCRA 584 (1998).
6 Now Article 3, Family Code. Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized
unless all the requisites are complied with: ________________
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; their consent, freely

10 Section 12, Article II, 1987 Constitution; Hernandez v. CA, G.R. No.
given; 126010, December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 76; See also Tuason v. CA, 256
SCRA 158 (1996).
(2) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and
11 Section 2, Article XV (The Family), 1987 Constitution.
(3) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.
12 Article 1, Family Code provides: “Marriage is a special contract of
7 Now Article 4, Family Code. Art. 80. The following marriages shall be permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance
void from the beginning: with law for the establishment of conjugal or family life. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
13 Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20 at 35 (1995); 58 SCAD 17 (1995); 310
Phil. 21, 41 (1995).
14 Now Article 34, Family Code. Art. 76. No marriage license shall be year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted
necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a
majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the
wife for at least five years, desire to marry each other. The contracting marriage. This 5-year period should be the years
parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person immediately before the day of the marriage and it should
authorized by law to administer oaths. The official, priest or minister who be a period of cohabitation characterized
solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps
to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties _______________
and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.
15 Report of the Code Commission, p. 80.
130 16 Rollo, p. 29.
131
Niñal vs. Bayadog
VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 131
15
persons from legitimizing their status. To preserve peace Niñal vs. Bayadog
in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye of
public exposure and contain the source of gossip arising by exclusivity—meaning no third party was involved at any
from the publication of their names, the law deemed it wise time within the 5 years and continuity—that is unbroken.
to preserve their privacy and exempt them from that Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is
requirement. computed without any distinction as to whether the parties
There is no dispute that the marriage of petitioners’ were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five
father to respondent Norma was celebrated without any years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and
marriage license. In lieu thereof, they executed an affidavit encouraging parties to have common law relationships and
stating that “they have attained the age of majority, and, placing them on the same footing with those who lived
being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a special
for at least 16five years, and that we now desire to marry relationship must be respected as such and its
each other.” The only issue that needs to be resolved requirements must be strictly observed. The presumption
pertains to what nature of cohabitation is contemplated that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband
under Article 76 of the Civil Code to warrant the counting and wife is based on the approximation of the requirements
of the five year period in order to exempt the future of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse to
spouses from securing a marriage license. Should it be a not comply with every single requirement and later use the
cohabitation wherein both parties are capacitated to marry same missing element as a preconceived escape ground to
each other during the entire five-year continuous period or nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption from
should it be a cohabitation wherein both parties have lived securing a marriage license unless the circumstances
together and exclusively with each other as husband and clearly fall within the ambit of the exception. It should be
wife during the entire five-year continuous period noted that a license is required in order to notify the public
regardless of whether there is a legal impediment to their that two persons are about to be united in matrimony and
being lawfully married, which impediment may have either that anyone who is aware or has knowledge of any
disappeared or intervened sometime during the impediment to the union 17
of the two shall make it known to
cohabitation period? the local civil registrar. The Civil Code provides:
Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have
Article 63: “x x x. This notice shall request all persons having
lived together as husband and wife for five years without
knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to advise the local
the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be
civil registrar thereof. x x x.”
computed on the basis of a cohabitation as “husband and
Article 64: “Upon being advised of any alleged impediment to
wife” where the only missing factor is the special contract
the marriage, the local civil registrar shall forthwith make an
of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-
investigation, examining persons under oath. x x x” 18 Article 83, Civil Code provides “Any marriage subsequently
contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such
This is reiterated in the Family Code thus: person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and
void from its performance, unless:
Article 17 provides in part: “x x x. This notice shall request all
persons having knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to (1) the first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
advise the local civil registrar thereof. x x x.”
(2) the first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years . . .”
_______________ Article 41 of the Family Code reads: “A marriage contracted by any

person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
17 Articles 63 and 64, Civil Code; Articles 17 and 18, Family Code.
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years . . .”
132
19 Arts. 333 and 334, Revised Penal Code.
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 133
Niñal vs. Bayadog

VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 133
Article 18 reads in part: “x x x.In case of any impediment known Niñal vs. Bayadog
to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention, he shall note
down the particulars thereof and his findings thereon in the year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation
application for a marriage license. x x x.” contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of a perfect
union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect
This is the same reason why our civil laws, past or present,
only by the absence of the marriage contract. Pepito had a
absolutely prohibited the concurrence of multiple
subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting
marriages by the same person during the same period.
with respondent. It is immaterial that when they lived with
Thus, any marriage subsequently contracted during the 18
each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from
lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void,
his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even
subject only to the exception in cases of absence or where
where there was actual severance of the filial
the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. The Revised
companionship between the spouses cannot make any
Penal Code complements the civil law in that the
cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being
contracting of two or more marriages and the having of
one as “husband and wife.”
extramarital affairs are considered felonies, i.e., bigamy
19
Having determined that the second marriage involved in
and concubinage and adultery. The law sanctions
this case is not covered by the exception to the requirement
monogamy.
of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the
In this case, at the time of Pepito and respondent’s
absence of such element.
marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with each
The next issue to be resolved is: do petitioners have the
other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to
personality to file a petition to declare their father’s
their wedding day. From the time Pepito’s first marriage
marriage void after his death?
was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent,
Contrary to20 respondent judge’s ruling, Article 47 of the
only about twenty months had elapsed. Even assuming
Family Code cannot be applied even by analogy to
that Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and
petitions
thereafter both Pepito and respondent had started living
with each other that has already lasted for five years, the
fact remains that their five- _________________
20 Art. 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the
_______________ following persons and within the periods indicated herein:

For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party whose alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership (4) For causes
(1) parent or guardian did not give his or her consent, within five mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured party,
years after attaining the age of twenty-one; or by the parent or within five years from the time the force, intimidation or
guardian or person having legal charge of the minor, at any time undue influence disappeared or ceased; For causes
before such party has reached the age of twenty-one; mentioned in numbers 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the injured
(2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the sane party, within five years after the marriage.
spouse, who had no knowledge of the other’s insanity; or by any
relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane, at ___________________
any time before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse
during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity;
21 Suntay v. Cojuanco-Suntay, 300 SCRA 760 (1998); People v.
Retirement Board, 272 111. App. 59 cited in I Tolentino, Civil Code, 1990
(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured
party, within five years after the discovery of the fraud; ed., p. 271.
22 In re Conza’s Estate, 176 111. 192; Miller v. Miller, 175 Cal. 797, 167
134 Pac. 394 cited in I Tolentino, Civil Code, 1990 ed., p. 271.
135
Niñal vs. Bayadog VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 135
Niñal vs. Bayadog
for declaration of nullity of marriage. The second ground
for annulment of marriage relied upon by the trial court, 23
which allows “the sane spouse” to file an annulment suit or ownership through actual joint contribution, and its
“at any time before the death of either party” is effect on the children born to such void marriages as
inapplicable. Article 47 pertains to the grounds, periods provided in Article 50 in relation to Articles 43 and 44 as
and persons who can file an annulment suit, not a suit for well as Articles 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code. On the
declaration of nullity of marriage. The Code is silent as to contrary, the property regime governing voidable
who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. marriages is generally conjugal partnership and the
Voidable and void marriages are not identical. A marriage children conceived before its annulment are legitimate.
that is annulable is valid until otherwise declared by the Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the death of
court; whereas a marriage that is void ab initio is petitioner’s father extinguished the alleged marital bond
considered as having never to have taken place and
21
between him and respondent. The conclusion is erroneous
cannot be the source of rights. The first can be generally and proceeds from a wrong premise that there was a
ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription marriage bond that was dissolved between the two. It
while the other can never be ratified. A voidable marriage should be noted that their marriage was void hence it is
cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding deemed as if it never existed at all and the death of either
while a void marriage can be attacked collaterally. extinguished nothing.
Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no
the death of either party but voidable marriages can be judicial decree24is necessary in order to establish the nullity
assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not of a marriage. “A void marriage does not require a judicial
after death of either, in which case the parties and their decree to restore the parties to their original rights or to
offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly make the marriage void but though no sentence of
22
valid. That is why the action or defense for nullity is avoidance be absolutely necessary, yet as well for the sake
imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages where the of good order of society as for the peace of mind of all
action prescribes. Only the parties to a voidable marriage concerned, it is expedient that the nullity of the marriage
can assail it but any proper interested party may attack a should be ascertained and declared 25
by the decree of a court
void marriage. Void marriages have no legal effects except of competent jurisdiction.” “Under ordinary
those declared by law concerning the properties of the 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, prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When
being good for no legal purpose, its invalidity can be such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity
maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry.
may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil The clause “on the basis of a final judgment declaring such
court between any parties at any time, whether before or previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the Family Code
after the death of either or both the husband and the wife, connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained
and upon mere proof only for purpose of remarriage.
______________ __________________
23 Articles 148-149, Family Code; Article 144, Civil Code. 26 18 RCL 446-7; 35 Am Jur. 221.
24 Odayat v. Amante, 77 SCRA 338 (1977); Weigel v. Sempio-Dy, 143 27 Apiag v. Cantero, 335 Phil. 511 (1997); 268 SCRA 47 (1997); Atienza
SCRA 499 (1986); People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954); 50 O.G. (10) v. Judge Brillantes, Jr., 243 SCRA 32 (1995); 60 SCAD 119; 312 Phil. 939
4767 cited in People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957); 53 O.G. 3749. (1995).
25 35 Am. Jur. 219-220. 28 Domingo v. CA, 226 SCRA 572 (1993).
29 Article 39, Family Code as amended by E.O. 209 and 227, s. 1987 and
136
further amended by R.A. No. 8533 dated February 23, 1998.
137
Niñal vs. Bayadog
VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 137
of the facts rendering such marriage void, it will be Heirs of Alberto Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong
disregarded or treated as non-existent by the courts.” It is
not like a voidable marriage which cannot be collaterally WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
attacked except in direct proceeding instituted during the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Toledo City, Cebu,
lifetime of the parties so that on the death of either, the Branch 59, dismissing Civil Case No. T-639, is REVERSED
marriage
26
cannot be impeached, and is made good ab and SET ASIDE. The said case is ordered REINSTATED.
initio. But Article 40 of the Family Code expressly SO ORDERED.
provides that there must be a judicial declaration of the
nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno and Kapunan,
27
can enter into a second marriage and such absolute JJ., concur.
nullity28 can be based only on a final judgment to that Pardo, J., On official business abroad.
effect. For the same reason, the law makes either the
Petition granted, order reversed and set aside. Case
action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of
29
ordered reinstated.
marriage imprescriptible. Corollarily, if the death of
either party would extinguish the cause of action or the Note.—Per current jurisprudence, “a marriage though
ground for defense, then the same cannot be considered void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact” before
imprescriptible. any party thereto can marry again; otherwise, the second
However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no marriage will also be void. (Apiag vs. Cantero, 268 SCRA
judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an 47 [1997])
absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not
limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or ——o0o——
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
8/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 328
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f5d4d1103a61b2bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17

Ninal v. Bayadog

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ninal v. Bayadog

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ninal v. Bayadog

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 328 8/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 328

VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 123

Niñal vs. Bayadog

riage license is dispensed with, one of which is that provided in

lify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a

126 VOL. 328, MARCH 14, 2000 127

________________ (3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition for 10

(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; their consent, freely

_______________ Article 41 of the Family Code reads: “A marriage contracted by any

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 133

Niñal vs. Bayadog

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f5d4d1103a61b2bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/17 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173f5d4d1103a61b2bb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/17

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like