Cario vs Cario

FACTS: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cario married Susan Nicdao Cario. He had 2 children with
her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cario. In 1988,
prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In
1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the
benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect
a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao.
She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was
solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage
between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as
certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed that she only found out about the previous
marriage on SPO4s funeral.
ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of marriage may be invoked to claim presumptive
legitimes.
HELD: The marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due the absence of a valid
marriage license. The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null and void for the same
has been solemnized without the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage between
Nicdao and SPO4. Under Article 40 of the FC, 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. Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to
be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for
said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring the previous
marriage void. However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to
declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the
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 after the death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to
question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case.
In such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the
existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not
be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void.
The SC ruled that Yee has no right to the benefits earned by SPO4 as a policeman for their
marriage is void due to bigamy; she is only entitled to properties, money etc owned by them in
common in proportion to their respective contributions. Wages and salaries earned by each
party shall belong to him or her exclusively (Art. 148 of FC). Nicdao is entitled to the full benefits
earned by SPO4 as a cop even if their marriage is likewise void. This is because the two were
capacitated to marry each other for there were no impediments but their marriage was void due
to the lack of a marriage license; in their situation, their property relations is governed by Art 147
of the FC which provides that everything they earned during their cohabitation is presumed to
have been equally contributed by each party this includes salaries and wages earned by each
party notwithstanding the fact that the other may not have contributed at all.