Carino v.

Carino (Certiorari on CA decision favoring the respondent)

The late SPO4 Santiago Carino married twice in his lifetime. First is with Susan
Nicdao, with whom he had two children. Second is with Susan Yee, with whom he
had no children. After the death of SPO4 Carino, Nicdao was able to take P146000
and Yee was able to take P21000, both from different government agencies.
Respondent filed a petition to claim half of what the petitioner was able to get, but
the petitioner never heeded the TC summons. Respondent admitted that her
marriage was contracted while the first was subsisting. However, she defended
that the first was void due to lack of ML and such marriage isnt recorded in the
local civil registry. TC ruled ordered petitioner to give half of P146000 to
respondent and CA affirmed this order.

WON CA erred in applying equity which isnt mandated by FC for cases of this
nature

Court held that the first marriage is void due to a lack of ML. Also, the court held
that the second marriage is void due to absence of judicial declaration of nullity of
the previous marriage when they contracted the second. The applicable property
regime in this case is Art 147-148, CC (Property Regime of Unions without
Marriage). Art 148 refers to property regime of bigamous marriages like what Yee
had. It states that only properties acquired through actual joint contribution
would belong to co-ownership and in this case, Yee has no claim on P146000 because
it is the earning of SPO4 Carino alone. Art 147, on the other hand, refers to
property regime of two unmarried, legally capacitated, cohabiting people and in
contrast to Art 148, wages and salaries are divided between the husband and wife.
Therefore, the court ruled that half of the disputed amount goes to Nicdao and
the other half goes to the legal heirs of SPO4 Carino, the children of Nicdao.
Petition granted. CA decision reversed.