Ninal vs Bayadog (2000)

Summary Cases:

Ninal vs. Bayadog 328 SCRA 122

Subject:

Void and Voidable Marriage, Requirement of Marriage License (exemption),Co-habitation for 5 years,
Judicial Declaration of Nullity

Facts:

Pepito Nial previously married Teodulfa Bellones. On April 1985, Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting
in her death. Petitioners are children from that union.

One year and eight months after, Pepito married Norma Badayog without any marriage license. In lieu
thereof, they 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.

Pepito later died in a car accident. After their father's death, petitioners 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.

Norma moved 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.

Held:

Governing Law on Marriage

1. The two marriages involved herein having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code
(August 1988). The applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect
| Page 1 of 4
at the time of their celebration.

Requirement of Marriage License, exemption, co-habitation for 5 years

2. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of
which renders the marriage void ab initio.

3. One instance wherein a marriage license is dispensed with refers to 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. (Art 76, Civil Code)

4. The rationale why no license is required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to
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 publicity attending the marriage
license may discourage such persons from legitimizing their status.

5. The five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife"
where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. 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.

6. Otherwise, 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.

7. The second marriage between Pepito and Norma Bayadog 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. At the
time of their 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. From the time Pepito's first marriage was dissolved to the time
of his marriage with Norma, only about twenty months had elapsed. Pepito had a subsisting marriage at
the time when he started cohabiting with Norma. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other,
Pepito had already been separated in fact from his lawful (first) spouse. 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".

| Page 2 of 4
Void and Voidable marriages distinguished

8. Voidable and void marriages are not identical. A voidable marriage is valid until annulled 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.

9. A voidable marriage be generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription while a void
marriage can never be ratified.

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

11. 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.

12. An action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages where the action
prescribes.

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

14. 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 (note: for marriages before effectivity of the Family Code)
and the children conceived before its annulment are legitimate.

Judicial declaration of nullity

15. 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 and such
| Page 3 of 4
absolute nullity can be based only on a final judgment to that effect. For the same reason, the law makes
either the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage imprescriptible. Corollarily,
if the death of either party would extinguish the cause of action or the ground for defense, then the same
cannot be considered imprescriptible.

16. 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.

| Page 4 of 4