ENGRACE NIÑAL V.

NORMA BAYADOG

(G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000)

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones and out of their marriage the petitioners were born.
Teodulfa was shot by Pepito and thereafter, the latter married Norma Badayog without a marriage
license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit stating that they had lived together as
husband and wife for at least 5 years and thus exempt from securing a marriage license.

After Pepito died in a car accident, the petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage of
Pepito and Norma on the basis that it was void due to lack of marriage license.

The RTC dismissed the petition in that the Family Code is silent in whether the plaintiffs have cause of
action for the nullity of marriage of the deceased and the respondent and that petitioners should have
filed the action before Pepito’s death.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the second marriage is void ab initio for the lack of marriage license
2. Whether or not petitioners have the personality to file a petition to declare the nullity of their
father’s second marriage to Norma

HELD:

1. Yes. The Court held that the second marriage of Pepito to Norma is void ab initio for the absence
of securing a marriage license emphasizing that there should be no exemption from securing a
marriage license unless the parties complied with the requirement of cohabitation under Article
76 of the Civil Code that the parties should have lived together as husband and wife for at least
five years immediately before the day of the marriage. However, Pepito and Norma have not
met this requirement, only having lived with each other for 20 months after the dissolution of
the former’s first marriage.

2. Yes. The Court held that since the premise that the second marriage of this case is null and void,
considered non-existent and devoid of any rights, void marriages can be questioned even after
the death of either party. Void marriages, having no legal effects, except those declared by law
concerning the properties of the alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through
actual join contribution and its effect on the children born to such void marriages as provided in
Article 50 in relation to Article 43 and 44 as well as Article 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code.

The Court further emphasized that when the need arises, although Article 40 of the Civil Code
provides that other than remarriage, the clause “on the basis of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void” implies that such judgment need not be obtained only for the purpose
of remarriage.