Non-existent

A LAW EACH DAY(Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) |

Updated December 11, 2013 - 12:00am

The existence of a marriage is important in determining the property rights of persons

living together. This is illustrated in this case of Benny.

Benny was validly married to Annie with whom she had three children. While handling
his family’s auto parts and services business, he met and fell in love with Cita who was
one of their regular customers. When Annie learned of Benny’s romantic relationship
with Cita, she left him and went to the US.

A year later, Benny and Cita decided to live together as husband and wife. And to
appease Cita’s parents who were against the live-in relationship — being conservative
Chinese, Cita asked Benny to go with her to an office somewhere in the City where they
signed a purported marriage contract without having obtained any marriage license.
Knowing of Benny’s marital status, Cita assured him that the marriage contract would not
be registered.

During their period of cohabitation they bore two children and acquired seven properties
covered by TCT No 61722 registered in their names as spouses; TCT Nos. 61720 and
190860 registered in the name of Benny married to Cita; CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783
registered in the name of Cita married to Benny; and TCTs Nos. 193656 and 253681 in
the name of Cita as single individual. Benny also acquired by inheritance 37 properties
which was registered in his name “married to Cita.”

After 12 years of living together however, the relationship between Benny and Cita ended
when Cita left for Canada bringing with her their two children. She then filed a criminal
action for Bigamy and falsification of public document based on their marriage contract.

Benny, in turn, filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or

declaration of nullity of marriage before the trial court on the ground that his marriage to
Cita lacked the formal requisites of a valid marriage. He also asked for partition of the 7
properties they acquired during the cohabitation in accordance with Article 148 of the
Family Code which provides that only those acquired by both of them through their
actual contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their contribution. In answer, Cita insisted that said article is not applicable
and asked that all the 44 properties including the 37 properties inherited by Benny, since
it was registered in Benny’s name “married to Cita.” Was Cita correct?

No. First of all, the marriage between Benny and Cita was not bigamous but was null and
void and at the same time, non-existent because of lack of a marriage license. For bigamy
to exist, the second and subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for
validity except for the existence of a prior marriage. In this case, there was no subsequent
marriage. Benny and Cita just signed a purported marriage contract without a marriage
license. It was not even recorded in the local civil registrar and the National Statistics
Office. In short, the marriage between Benny and Cita did not exist. They just lived
together and represented themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
Thus only the properties acquired by them through their actual contribution of money,
property or industry shall be owned by them in common, in proportion to their respective
contributions under Article 148 of the Family Code.

Hence the 37 properties inherited by Benny from his father are to be excluded in the
partition even if the titles show that it was in the name of Benny “married to Cita” which
was only descriptive of his marital status. As regards the 7 other properties, TCT Nos.
61720 and 190860 registered in the name of Benny belong exclusively to Benny because
they were acquired by him solely. Properties under TCT Nos. 193656 and 253681 CCT
Nos. 8782 and 8783 are exclusive properties of Cita in the absence of proof of Benny’s
actual contribution in their purchase. The property under TCT 61722 registered in both
their names shall be owned by them in common, with Benny’s share accruing to his
conjugal partnership with Annie his first wife (Bangayan vs. Bangayan J. G.R. 201061,
July 3, 2013).

Note books containing compilation of my articles in Labor Law and Criminal Law now
available. Call tel. 7249445 or email: attyjosesison@gmail.com