NIÑAL v.

BAYADOG

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

Procedural History:

This case is an original petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito Niñ al to Norma Bayadog under the
Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59. Norma, the respondent, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for "annulment of marriage"
under Article 47 of the Family Code. The lower court ruled that petitioners should have filed the action to declare null and void
their father‘s marriage to respondent before his death, applying by analogy Article 47 of the Family Code which enumerates
the time and the persons who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage.

Statement of facts:

Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974.  They had 3 children—Babyline Niñ al,
Ingrid Niñ al, Archie Niñ al and Pepito Niñ al Jr.—the petitioners.  Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died
on April 24, 1985.  1 year and 8 months later on December 11, 1986, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any
marriage licence.  They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5 years exempting from securing
the marriage license.  Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1997.  After his death, petitioners filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void.

2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepito’s marriage and even after
his death.

Answers:

1. Yes, the second marriage of Pepito was void for absence of marriage licence.
2. Yes, the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepito’s marriage. The marriage will be
disregarded or treated as non-existent by the courts upon mere proof of facts even after the latter’s death.

Reasoning:

Even though Pepito and Norma instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years, the marriage
would not be valid because from the time of Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only
about 20 months had elapsed. Pepito and his first wife may had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had
started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation
was not the cohabitation contemplated by law.  Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void.

Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of rights.  It can be questioned even after
the death of one of the parties and any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.

Holding: The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court, Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissing
Civil Case No. T-639, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The said case is ordered REINSTATED.