Ninal vs.

Bayadog
328 SCRA 122
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 Engrace Ninal. 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.

ISSUES:
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 Pepitos marriage after his death?

HELD:
The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. 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 Pepitos 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.

Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of
rights. It can be questioned even after the death of one of the parties and any
proper interested party may attack a void marriage.

Ninal vs. Bayadog 328 SCRA 122 March 14, 2000 Fact of the Case: Pepito Ninal was
married to Teodulfa on September 26, 1974. On April 24, 1985 he shot and killed
her. After 20 months he remarried Norma Badayog, the respondent herewith. After
Pepito died, his heirs by his first marriage filed a petition for declaration of nullity on
the marriage of their father with Norma Badayog on the ground of lack of marriage
license. Norma Badayog contends that the ground have no legal basis for her
marriage to Pepito according to Article 34 of the Family Code no marriage license is
necessary for person who have cohabited for atleast five years. The respondent also
contends that petitioners are not among those allowed by the law to file a suit for
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Pepito. The trial court ruled in favor of the
respondent on the ground that indeed the Family Code is silent as to situation. The
Petition should have been filed before the death of Pepito and not after his death.
Thus, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: (1) Whether or not the
respondent is right to contend that no need of marriage license was necessary for
Pepito and her have cohabited for at least five years. (2)Whether or not the second
marriage of Pepito valid. Held: Pepito and Norma could not have possibly be legally
cohabited for atleast five years since Pepito was still married to Teodulfa counting
backwards from the time he and Norma celebrated their marriage. A period of
cohabitation is characterized by exclusivity and continuity. There should be no legal
impediment on either party to marry. Pepitos previous marriage to Teodulfa is a
legal impediment disqualifying him to the exception of a marriage license. Thus, his
second marriage should have a marriage license to be valid. In this case, the
marriage of Pepito and Norma lacking the formal requisite of a marriage licese is
therefore void.

Fact:

Pepito married his second wife Norma a year and eight months after his first wife
Teodulfas death. Pepito and Norma got married without any marriage license
because they lived together for 5 years and thus exempt from marriage license.
Some years after, Pepito died in a car accident.

The heirs as petitioners, fearing problems in successional rights (succession only

occurs after the death of an ascendant) due to the second marriage, filed a petition
for declaration for nullity of marriage (a.k.a. declaration of nullity of void marriages)
between Pepito (deceased) and Norma using the absence of a marriage license as a
legal basis.

Issues:

The lower court dismissed the petition because:

(1) The Family Code is silent whether the petition has a cause of action. Can there
be such a petition when the heirs parent is deceased?

(2) Are the heirs a proper party?

(3) Determination whether the second marriage is void ab initio (from the
beginning) is a must but is a different matter. Void marriages cannot be attacked
collaterally.

(4) Whether the petition for declaration for nullity of marriage has prescribed.

The lower court ruled:

(1) Petitioners should have filed an action to declare null and void their fathers
marriage before the latters death.

(2) The prescription period and the proper party in an annulment proceeding were
used as a basis to dismiss petitioners case.

Petitioners disagree with the decision and petitions for a review.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled that:

(1) The applicable law, for the determination of marriage, is the Civil Code and not
the Family Code. (In determining the validity of marriage, it is to be tested by the
law in force at the time the marriage was contracted.)

(2) There is no second marriage. The absence of a marriage license renders

marriage void ab initio. The exemption for a marriage license, the cohabitation, was
not the one described by the Civil Code. It is not the one described by the Civil Code
because the cohabitation, after the first marriage, was only twenty months whereas
the law requires five years. If the respondent took into consideration the other years
and months before the second marriage, then the cohabitation would include the
period of the first marriage. This is in violation of the law.

(3) Separation in fact (not the legal separation) by the first marriage does not count
cohabitation.

This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage
and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity meaning no
third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity that is
unbroken.

(4) The judges ruling (lower court), where void and voidable marriages are made
identical is erroneous. Void and voidable marriages are not identical.

A marriage that is annulable is valid until otherwise declared by the court; whereas
a marriage that is void ab initio is considered as having never to have taken place.

A voidable can be generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or

prescription while a void marriage can never be ratified.

A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding

while a void marriage can be attacked collaterally.

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.

The action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages

where the action prescribes.

Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any proper interested
party may attack a void marriage.

Void marriages have no legal effects except those declared by law concerning the
properties of the alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through
actual joint contribution, and its effect on the children born to such void marriages
as provided in Article 50 in relation to Article 43 and 44 as well as Article 51, 53 and
54 of the Family Code. On the contrary, the property regime governing voidable
marriages is generally conjugal partnership and the children conceived before its
annulment are legitimate.

(5) The Supreme Court requires a judicial decree of nullity of second marriage
before determining succession rights.

Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no judicial decree is necessary in
order to establish the nullity of a marriage. 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.

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. This is without
prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final
judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to
remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment
need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.