SANTIAGO CARINO, petitioner vs.

SUSAN CARINO, defendant
G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001

Facts:

During the lifetime of SP04 Santiago S. Carino, he contracted two marriages, the first
with Susan Nicdao Carino with whom he had two offsprings (Sahlee and Sandee) and
with Susan Yee Carino with whom he had no children in their almost ten
year cohabitation. In 1988, Santiago 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 pertaining to the deceased from various
government agencies. Nicdao was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 and Yee received
a total of P21,000.00. Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao,
contending that the marriage of the latter with Santiago is void ab initio because their
marriage was solemnized without the required marriage license. The trial court ruled
in favor of Yee, ordering Nicdao to pay Yee half of acquired death benefits. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriage of Santiago Carino and Susan Nicdao is void for lack of
marriage license.

Ruling:

Under the Civil Code, which was the law in force when the marriage of Nicdao and
Carino was solemnized in 1969, a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage and
the absence thereof, subject to certain exceptions, renders the marriage void ab initio. In
the case at bar, the marriage does not fall within any of those exceptions and a marriage
license therefore was indispensable to the validity of it. This fact is certified by the Local
Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila. Such being the case, the presumed validity of
the marriage of Nicdao and Carino has been sufficiently overcome and cannot stand.
The marriage of Yee and Carino is void ab initio as well for lack of judicial decree of
nullity of marriage of Carino and Nicdao at the time it was contracted. The marriages
are bigamous; under Article 148 of the Family Code, properties acquired by the parties
through their actual joint contribution shall belong to the co-ownership. The decision of
the trial court and Court of Appeals is affirmed.