Case Summary (G.R. No. 133778)
Issue
- Whether the second marriage is void for lack of a license.
- Whether petitioners have legal personality to file for declaration of nullity after their father’s death.
Basis for Applying the Civil Code
Both marriages occurred before the Family Code’s effectivity (August 3, 1988). Civil Code provisions govern validity:
- Article 53 requires a marriage license as a requisite.
- Article 58 prohibits solemnization without a license, save those of exceptional character.
- Article 80(3) declares marriages void ab initio when solemnized without license, except in statutory exceptions.
Exceptional License Exemption and Its Scope
Civil Code Article 76 exempts parties from a license if they are of legal age, unmarried, and have lived together as husband and wife for at least five continuous years. The Court held that the cohabitation must approximate a perfect union, lacking only the marriage contract. Cohabitation during a subsisting prior marriage cannot qualify: the parties must have been capacitated to marry each other throughout the five-year period.
Application to the Case
Pepito’s first marriage subsisted when he began cohabiting with Norma. Even if separation in fact occurred, the legal impediment remained. Furthermore, less than twenty months elapsed between Teodulfa’s death and Pepito’s wedding to Norma. Thus, the statutory exception did not apply, and the second marriage is void ab initio for absence of a license.
Character of Void Marriages and Standing to Sue
Under Civil Code and consistent jurisprudence:
- A void marriage is considered never to have existed and may be attacked collaterally in any proceeding where its existence is material.
- It requires no judicial decree to restore original rights, but a court declaration is desirable for public order.
- Void marriages confer no rights except those statutorily provided concerning property co-ownership and legitimacy of children (Family Code Arts. 43–44, 50–54).
- Voidable marriages differ: valid until annulled, subject to prescription, and attackable only by parties during their lifetimes (Family Code Art. 47).
Post-Death Action and Imprescriptibility
The Court rejected the analogy to Family Code Article 47, which governs voidable marriages. The action for absolute nullity of a void marriage is imprescriptible and survives the death of either party. Petitioners, as proper interested parties, may invoke nullity to determine inheritance, legitimacy, and property regime. Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of nullity before a party may remarry, but that requirement does not limit actions for other purposes, such as s
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 133778)
Procedural History
- Petitioners, as heirs of Pepito NiAal and minors represented by their sister Engrace NiAal, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their father’s second marriage to Norma Bayadog, on the ground of lack of a marriage license.
- Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action, invoking Article 47 of the Family Code on annulment actions and pointing out that the father was already deceased when the petition was filed.
- The Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 59, granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the petition, holding that petitioners should have filed before their father’s death and applying by analogy the time and parties rule of Article 47.
- Petitioners elevated the case by petition for review to the Supreme Court. The petition was initially dismissed for verification defects under Section 11, Rule 13, and treated as an unsigned pleading under Section 3, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Upon motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court reinstated the petition for review.
Facts
- Pepito NiAal married Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974; four children were born of this union—the present petitioners.
- On April 24, 1985, Pepito shot and killed Teodulfa, thereby dissolving the first marriage by death.
- On December 11, 1986—one year and eight months after the first spouse’s death—Pepito and Norma Bayadog underwent a marriage ceremony without obtaining a marriage license.
- Instead of a license, they executed reciprocal affidavits stating they had lived together “as husband and wife for at least five years” and were thus exempt from securing a license under Article 76, Civil Code.
- Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1997.
- Petitioners filed their petition thereafter, asserting that the second marriage was void ab initio for lack of a license and that its status affects their succession rights.
Legal Issues
- May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death?
- Is a marriage solemnized without a license void ab initio under the Civil Code?
- Does the common-law cohabitation exception of Article 76, Civil Code, apply to a period during which one party was still validly married to another?
- Does Article 47