Title
Carino vs. Carino
Case
G.R. No. 132529
Decision Date
Feb 2, 2001
Dispute over death benefits between two wives of deceased SPO4 Santiago CariAo; first marriage void due to lack of license, second void for lack of nullity declaration. Benefits split: half to first wife, half to heirs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18707)

Key Dates

First marriage solemnized June 20, 1969
Second marriage solemnized November 10, 1992
Deceased’s death on November 23, 1992
Respondent’s collection suit filed December 14, 1993
Decision by the Supreme Court rendered February 2, 2001

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
Civil Code of 1950 (in force at first marriage)
Family Code of 1987 (governs nullity and property regime)
Rules on government-employee “death benefits”

Facts

During his lifetime, SPO4 Cariño validly cohabited with Susan Nicdao from 1969 without obtaining a marriage license. In 1992, he married Susan Yee while still married to Susan Nicdao. Upon the officer’s death, Nicdao collected ₱146,000 in various death benefits; Yee obtained ₱21,000 from GSIS/SSS. Yee then sued Nicdao for half of the ₱146,000 on the ground that Nicdao’s marriage was void for lack of license.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court declared Nicdao in default and awarded Yee ₱73,000 plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Nicdao petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the first marriage, solemnized without a license, is void ab initio.
  2. Whether the second marriage is likewise void for absence of a prior judicial nullity decree under Family Code Article 40.
  3. Under what property‐regime rules the contested death benefits should be distributed.

Validity of the Marriages

Under Civil Code Article 53 and 80, a marriage requires a license; failure to secure one renders it void ab initio. The Local Civil Registrar’s certification of no license proves non-issuance. The first marriage is therefore void ab initio. Because Family Code Article 40 mandates a prior judicial declaration of nullity for a void marriage only for purposes of remarriage, but none was obtained, the second marriage is also void ab initio.

Property Regime Applicable to the Second (Bigamous) Union

Family Code Article 148 governs property in bigamous or otherwise void unions: only properties acquired by actual joint contribution belong in common. Death benefits earned solely by the officer, without joint contribution from Yee, are not co-owned by her. Yee has no share under Article 148 and is not a legal heir entitled by intestate succession.

Property Regime Applicable to the First (Void) Union

Family Code Article 147 applies to void marriages contracted in good faith: wages and salaries earned by either party during cohabitation are owned equally. The ₱146,000 in death benefi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.