Saturday, March 22, 2014

Niñal v. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, Mar. 14, 2000

FACTS: Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. They executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, thus, they are exempted from securing a marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After their father’s death, petitioners, children of Pepito in the first marriage, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. The case was filed under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner’s successional rights. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for "annulment of marriage" under Article 47 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: W/N the marriage was valid


HELD: The 5-year common law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage should be a period of legal union. Pepito and Teodulfa’s marriage was still subsisting 5 years prior to Pepito and Norma’s marriage. 2nd marriage is void ab initio. Note: 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment