Carino v.

Carino
G.R. No. 132529 February 2, 2001
Justice Ynares-Santiago

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51263, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 87, in Civil Case No. Q-93-18632.

FACTS:
• The issue for resolution in the case at bar hinges on the validity of the two marriages contracted by the
deceased SPO4 Santiago S. Carino, whose death benefits is now the subject of the constroversy between
the two Susans whom he married.
• During the lifetime of SPO4 Carino he contracted two marriages
- 20 June 1969: Marriage with Susan Nicdao Carino (Susan Nicdao) whom he had two children
(Sahlee and Sandee)
- 10 Nov 1992: Marriage with Susan Yee Carino (Susan Yee) whom he had no children despite
their almost 10 year cohabitation starting in 1982
• In 1988, SPO4 Carino became ill and bedridden due to diabetes complicated by pulmonary tuberculosis
• 23 November 1992: He passed away under the care of Susan Yee, who spent for his medical and burial
expenses
• Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance
- Susan Nicdao was able to collect a total Php 146,000 from AFP Mutual Benefit Assoc, Inc.,
PCCUI, Commutation, NAPOLCOM, and Pag-ibig
- Susan Yee was able to collect Php 21,000 from GSIS Life, Burial (GSIS), and Burial (SSS)
• 14 Dec 1993: Susan Yee filed the Instant Case for Collection of Sum of Money against Susan Nicdao.
Despite service of summons Susan Nicdao failed to file her answer, prompting the trial court to declare
her in default
• Susan Yee admitted that her marriage to the deceased took place during the subsistence of (and without
first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity) the the first marriage. She claimed that she had no
knowledge of the first knowledge and became aware of it only at the funeral
• To bolster her collection of sum money, Susan Yee contended that the first marriage is void ab initio
because it was solemnized without a marriage license. To support he claims she presented the following
- The marriage certificate of Susan Nicdao and deceased which bears no marriage license number
- A certification dated 9 march 1994 from the LCR of San Juan, Metro Manila which states that
there is no record of the marriage license between Santiago Carino and Susan Nicdao
• 28 Aug 1995: Trial court ruled in favor of Susan Yee
• Susan Nicdao appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, the petition before
this Court

ISSUE/S
1. W/N the marriage between Susan Yee and the deceased is valid because the subsequent marriage was
solemnized without a marriage license
2. W/N the death of benefits of the deceased should be given to either Susan Yee

HELD:
1. No
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
The marriage between Susan Nicdao and deceased is void ab initio because according to the Civil Code (
the law in effect during the solemnization of the marriage) a valid marriage license is a requisite for mar-
riage. However, despite the aforementioned, Susan Yee contracted her marriage with the deceases without
first obtaining a judicial decree declaring the first marriage void. Hence, the second marriage is likewise
void ab initio.
2. No
One of the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage is the separation of the property of the
spouses according to the applicable property regime. Given that both marriages are declared void ab intio,
the property regime that would apply are the provisions under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Under Art 148, the properties acquired by the parties through their actual joint contribution shall
belong to the co-ownership. Wages and salaries earned by each party belong to him or her exclusively.
Then too, contributions in the form of care of the home, children and household, or spiritual or moral in-
spiration, are excluded in this regime. The marriage between Susan Yee and the deceased shall fall under
this article given that her marriage is solemnized during the subsistence of a previous marriage then pre-
sumed to be valid. Unless Susan Yee presents a proof to the contrary, it could not be said that she contrib-
uted money, property or industry in the acquisition of the disputed monetary benefits. Hence they belong
to the deceased alone and shall pass to his legal heirs.
Under Art 147, in contrast to Article 148, wages and salaries earned by either party during the
cohabitation shall be owned by the parties in equal shares and will be divided equally between them, even
if only one party earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto. The marriage between Susan
Nicdao and the deceased falls under this article. One-half of the subject death benefits under scrutiny shall
go to the petitioner as her share in the property regime, and the other half pertaining to the deceased shall
pass by, intestate succession, to his legal heirs, namely, his children with Susan Nicdao.

Ruling:

The petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the
RTC of Quezon City is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.