Carino vs Carino Facts: The petitioner, Susan Nicdao, filed a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the decision

of the trial court and the CA in favor of the respondent, Susan Yee. Susan Nicdao was allegedly married to the deceased SPO4 Carino on June 20, 1969. The deceased, however, contracted another marriage to the respondent, Yee and cohabitated for a decade before expiring. Carino died in 1992 under the care of the respondent Yee. Subsequently, the two parties separately had collected several death benefits of their common husband from different government agencies, with Nicdao soliciting 146,000Php from MBAI, NAPOLCOM and PCCUI, and Yee acquiring 21,00Php from GSIS. Yee filed a suit for collection of sum of money from the petitioner amounting to one half of what Nicdao Acquired on the grounds that Nicdaos marriage to the deceased is void ab initio for the absence of a marriage license during solemnization, as corroborated by the Civil Registrars Offices certification that the marriage license used in the first marriage is nonexistent. The trial court held in favor of the respondent and was affirmed by the CA upon appeal. Hence, this present recourse with the petitioner arguing that the lower court and the CA erred in applying in their adjudication the case of Consuegra vs GSIS and not pertinent provisions of the Family Code.

WON the CA erred in considering the case of Consuegra vs GSIS and overlooked the family code in the case at bar

Held: The SC held that the marriage of the deceased to the petitioner is undoubtedly void ab initio, in accordance to the Old Civil Code for the total absence of a formal requisite of a valid marriage. However, it cannot be overlooked that the respondents marriage also is void and bigamous because the marriage was contracted within the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage due to the lack of a judicial declaration that nullifies the first marriage. Considering the fact that both marriages are void, articles 147 and 148 of the family code shall apply. Under article 148, the properties of the parties that contracted a bigamous marriage shall be owned by them in common proportion to their respective contributions. However, the court found that the respondent did not have any contribution to bolster the death benefits, hence, the latter does not have the right to claim any of the death benefits. On the other hand, the petitioner shall fall subject to article 147 which subjects parties, who in good faith, contracted a void marriage to joint ownership in equal shares of their respective properties. The said ownership shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. Thus, one half of the death benefits shall be under the petitioners ownership. The CA erred in applying the case of Consguera vs CA on account that the case is primarily based on the acquisition of a declaration of nullity. However, for purposes other than to remarry, like for filing a case for collection of sum of money anchored on a marriage claimed to be valid, no prior and separate judicial declaration of nullity is necessary.