Case Summary (G.R. No. 133778)
Key Dates
First marriage: September 26, 1974. Killing of first wife: April 24, 1985. Purported second marriage and affidavit: December 11, 1986. Death of Pepito: February 19, 1997. Decision under review: order of dismissal by RTC (March 27, 1998) and reinstatement by the Supreme Court (petition for review decided March 14, 2000).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Because both marriages were solemnized before the Family Code’s effectivity, the Civil Code governs the requisites and defects of marriage for validity assessment. The Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the constitutional framework governing family policy, specifically invoking the State’s recognition and protection of the family (Section 12, Article II; Section 2, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution), as reflected in the civil and family laws cited.
Procedural History and Threshold Matters
The RTC dismissed the petition for declaratory nullity, reasoning by analogy to Article 47 of the Family Code that petitioners lacked standing to seek annulment after the death of their father. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition for procedural defects but reinstated it on motion. The present review raises pure questions of law regarding the nature of the five‑year cohabitation exception and the capacity of heirs to seek judicial declaration of a marriage’s nullity after the alleged spouse’s death.
Requisites of Marriage; License Requirement and Exceptions
Under the Civil Code (as subsequently embodied in the Family Code provisions quoted), a marriage requires legal capacity, consent, authority of the solemnizing officer, and a marriage license (except for marriages of exceptional character). Marriages solemnized without a required marriage license are void ab initio, save for recognized exceptions. One statutory exception (Article 76 Civil Code / Article 34 Family Code) dispenses with a license when two persons of majority who are unmarried have lived together as husband and wife continuously and exclusively for at least five years prior to the marriage, and both state this fact under oath.
Nature and Interpretation of the Article 76 Five-Year Cohabitation Exception
The Court framed the crucial question as whether the five‑year cohabitation must be a period during which both parties were legally capacitated to marry each other throughout, or whether it suffices that they lived together “as husband and wife” regardless of legal impediments that might have existed during part of that period. The Court held the five‑year period must approximate a legally valid union except for the absence of the formal marriage contract: it must be continuous, exclusive (no third-party involvement), and immediate to the date of marriage, and it must reflect a union that, but for the missing formal element (license and solemnization), would have been a lawful marriage. The rationale is to prevent the exception from becoming a sanction for immorality or for deliberate circumvention of the marriage formalities and to preserve the unique nature of marriage as a protected social institution.
Application to the Facts: Why the Affidavit Did Not Qualify
Applying that standard, the Court found the December 11, 1986 marriage could not rely on the five‑year cohabitation exception because Pepito’s prior marriage to Teodulfa subsisted when he purportedly began cohabiting with Norma. Only about twenty months elapsed between Teodulfa’s death and the purported marriage date; the cohabitation thus was not the type of five-year period contemplated by the statute. Actual separation or factually living apart from a lawful spouse does not transform cohabitation with a third party into a lawful “husband-and-wife” cohabitation for purposes of the exception when the prior marriage still subsists.
Void Versus Voidable Marriage; Legal Effects and Remedies
The Court emphasized the distinction between void and voidable marriages. A voidable marriage is valid until annulled and can be ratified or barred by prescription; only the parties (or certain persons) may seek annulment within statutory periods. By contrast, a void marriage is null ab initio, confers no legal effects except those specifically provided by law, and may be attacked collaterally by any proper interested party at any time, including after the death of a party. Because the second marriage was void for want of a license (not falling within the statutory exception), it is treated as never having existed for legal purposes.
Standing of Heirs to Seek Declaration of Nullity After Death
The Court rejected the RTC’s application by analogy of Article 47 of the Family Code (which governs annulment suits and prescribes who may file and when) to the petition for declaration of nullity. Article 47’s rule that some causes for annulment must be asserted before death of the party does not control actions seeking declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage that is void ab initio. The Family Code expressly requires a judicial declaration only for the purpose of allowing remarriage (Article 40), but judicial pronouncements are otherwise not necessary to negate the legal effects of a void marriage. Nevertheless, for
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 133778)
Facts
- Pepito Niaal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974; out of that marriage were born the petitioners (the minors represented by Engrace Niaal).
- Teodulfa Bellones was shot by Pepito, resulting in her death on April 24, 1985.
- On December 11, 1986 (one year and eight months after Teodulfa's death), Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without obtaining a marriage license.
- Instead of a license, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986, stating they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were therefore exempt from securing a marriage license.
- Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1997.
- After Pepito’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of Pepito’s marriage to Norma, alleging that the marriage was void for lack of a marriage license and asserting that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioners’ successional rights.
- Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, contending petitioners had no cause of action because they were not among the persons authorized to file an action for annulment of marriage under Article 47 of the Family Code.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Toledo City, Branch 59 (Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos), granted respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition, finding the Family Code “rather silent, obscure, insufficient” on the issues presented and ruling petitioners should have filed the action before their father’s death by analogy to Article 47 of the Family Code.
- The RTC identified the following issues it considered unresolved: (1) whether plaintiffs have cause of action to seek a declaration of nullity of their deceased father’s marriage; (2) whether the second marriage of the deceased father and respondent is null and void ab initio; (3) whether plaintiffs are estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage after its dissolution by death.
- The petition for review to the Supreme Court was grounded on a pure question of law.
- The petition was originally dismissed by the Supreme Court for non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and for verification defects; it was treated as an unsigned pleading producing no legal effect under Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules.
- Upon motion of petitioners, the Supreme Court reconsidered, reinstated the petition for review, and proceeded to resolve the legal questions.
Applicable Law and Legal Background
- The two marriages at issue were solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code; thus the Civil Code (then in force) is the applicable law to determine their validity (citing Tamano v. Ortiz, 291 SCRA 584 (1998)).
- Article 53 of the Civil Code (now Article 3, Family Code) lists requisites of marriage, including a marriage license except in marriages of exceptional character.
- Article 80(3) of the Civil Code (now Article 4, Family Code) provides that marriages solemnized without a marriage license are void ab initio, save marriages of exceptional character.
- Article 58 of the Civil Code provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license, save marriages of an exceptional character authorized in Chapter 2 of the Title.
- Article 76 of the Civil Code (now Article 34, Family Code) dispenses with the marriage license requirement where a man and woman of majority, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years; the contracting parties must state such facts in an affidavit, and the solemnizing official must likewise attest that he ascertained ages, qualifications and found no legal impediment.
- Civil Code Articles 63 and 64 require publication of notice for a marriage license application and give the local civil registrar authority to investigate alleged impediments; the Family Code echoes these provisions in Articles 17 and 18.
- The Constitution recognizes the sanctity of family life and mandates State protection of the family as an autonomous social institution (Section 12, Article II; Section 2, Article XV).
- The Civil Code and Family Code embody a public policy favoring monogamy; Article 83 Civil Code and Article 41 Family Code render subsequent marriages during a subsisting marriage illegal and void except in specific exceptions (annulment/dissolution, prolonged absence).
- Criminal provisions (Revised Penal Code Arts. 333 and 334) penalize concurrence of multiple marriages and extramarital affairs (bigamy, concubinage, adultery).
- Distinction between void and voidable marriages: a void marriage is considered never to have existed and can be attacked collaterally at any time and by any proper interested party; a voidable (annulable) marriage is valid until declared otherwise, may be ratified, and generally can only be assailed by the parties within prescribed periods.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- May the heirs (petitioners) of a deceased person file a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death?
- Was the second marriage between Pepito and Norma void ab initio for lack of a marriage license?
- Could Article 47 of the Family Code (which enumerates who may file an action for annulment and the applicable periods) be applied by analogy to bar petitioners from filing a petition to declare nullity of a marriage after the death of a spouse?
- What is the proper interpretation of the five-year cohabitation exception (Article 76 Civil Code / Article 34 Family Code) as to the nature of cohabitation required to dispense with the marriage license?