Engrace Niñal v.

Norma Bayadog
G.R. No. 133778; 14 March 2000
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Topic:
Valid Marriage License

Petitioners:
1. ENGRACE NIÑAL (for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors…)
2. BABYLINE NIÑAL,
3. INGRID NIÑAL,
4. ARCHIE NIÑAL
5. & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR.

Respondent:
NORMA BAYADOG

Background:
- Pepito Niñal
was married to Teodulfa Bellones,…
• out of their
marriage were born herein petitioners Ninal.
- Teodulfa was
shot by Pepito resulting in her death.
- One year and 8
months thereafter, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage
license.
- In lieu thereof,
Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadog executed an affidavit…
• stating that they
had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years
• and were thus
exempt from securing a marriage license.
- Subsequently,
Pepito died in a car accident.

Allegations of Petitioners Ninal:

- After their
father's death, petitioners Ninals 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.

Allegations of Respondent Bayadog:

- 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.
Marriage History:
- 1st Marriage
• Pepito Niñal
and Teodulfa Bellones
• 1974

- 2nd Marriage
• Pepito and
respondent Norma Badayog
• 1986
• executed an
affidavit in the same year

- Family Code
took effect on…
• 03 August 1988

Procedural History:
- Regional Trial
Court
• dismissed the
petition
• ruled that
petitioners Ninals should have filed
- the action to declare null and void their father's marriage to respondent Bayadog before his death,
…
- applying by analogy Article 47 of the Family Code which enumerates the time and the persons
who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage.

- Supreme Court
• petition for
review with this Court grounded on a pure question of law

Supreme Court Ruling:

• WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED.
• The assailed
Order of the Regional Trial Court, dismissing Civil Case No. T-639, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
• The said case is
ordered REINSTATED.

ISSUES:
• Whether or not the marriage license is dispensable.
• Whether or not
the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death.

Applicable Law:
- The two
marriages involved here have been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code (FC).
- The applicable
law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of their
celebration. 
- Article 76 of the Civil Code or Article 34 of Family Code.

Doctrine Relevant to the 1st Issue:

- Generally no, but

there are several instances recognized by the Civil Code (and the Family Code) wherein a marriage
license is dispensed with.

- A valid marriage
license is a requisite of marriage, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio.

- The requirement
and issuance of marriage license is the State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in
every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. 

- However, a
marriage license may be dispensed when the marriage of a man and a woman…
• who have lived
together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife
• for a continuous
and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage.

- The rationale
why no license is required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to 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 five-year
common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage,
should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage.
- 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 anytime within the 5 years and
• continuity — that
is unbroken. 
- Otherwise, if that
continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction…
• as to whether the
parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years,
• then the law
would be 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. 
- There should be
no exemption from securing a marriage license…
• unless the
circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception.

- It should be noted
that a license is 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 knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make it known to the
local civil registrar.

Doctrine Relevant to the 2nd issue:

- Yes. The heirs
of a deceased person may file a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage after his
death.

- The Civil Code

is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.

- Voidable and
Void Marriages are Not Identical.

- A marriage that
is annullable 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 and cannot
be the source of rights.

- The first can be

generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription
- while the other
can never be ratified.

- A voidable
marriage cannot be assailed collaterally
 • except in a
direct proceeding
- while a void
marriage can be attacked collaterally.

- Consequently,
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.

- That is why 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.

- 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.

Held:
- In this case, there
is no dispute that the marriage of petitioners' father to respondent Norma Bayadog was celebrated
without any marriage license.

- In lieu thereof,
they executed an affidavit stating that
 • "they have
attained the age of majority,
• and, being
unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years,
• and that we now
desire to marry each other."

- However, at the
time of Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadog's marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with
each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day.
- It should be in the
nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the
marriage contract.
- Pepito had a
subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with respondent.
- The subsistence
of the marriage even where there was actual severance of the filial companionship between the spouses
cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as "husband and
wife”.

- Having
determined that the second marriage involved in this case is not covered by the exception to the
requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element.

- Since any proper

interested party may attack a void marriage, the petitioners Ninals may file a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death.