Ninal V Badayog G.R. No. 133779

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

133778
Engrace Ninal for herself and as guardian ad Litem of the minors Babyline Ninal, Ingrid Ninal, Archie Ninal & Pepito Ninal, Jr.
vs Norma Bayadog
March 14, 2000

FACTS:
Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26,1974. Out of their marriage were born petitioners. Teodulfa was shot by
Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. Pepito and Norma Bayadog then married on December 11, 1986 without any marriage license.
Both have executed an affidavit stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were exempt from securing a
marriage license, with an affidavit, they have attained majority, have lived together for at least five years and desire to marry. On February 19,
1997, Pepito died in a car accident. Petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma on the ground that
it was void for lack of a marriage license. Case was filed under assumption that it would affect the petitioner’s successional rights. Norma 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. Judge Marcos of RTC Cebu Branch 59 dismissed the petition after finding that the
Family Code is "rather silent, obscure, insufficient" to resolve theissues.
Petition was originally dismissed for non-compliance with Sec 11, Rule 13 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, however, upon motion of
petitioners, Court reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition for review.

ISSUES:
(1) May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death?
(2) Is the nature of cohabitation contemplated under Article 76 of the Civil Code be a cohabitation wherein:
a) both parties are capacitated to marry each other during the entire five-year continuous period; or
b) both parties have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife during the entire five-year continuous period
regardless of whether there is a legal impediment to their being lawfully married?
(3) Whether or not the second marriage of plaintiffs' deceased father with defendant is null and void ab initio;
(4) Whether or not plaintiffs are estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage after it was dissolved due to their father's death.

HELD:
The marriages involved having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law to determine their validity is the
Civil Code.

(1) Article 47 pertains to the grounds, periods and persons who can file an annulment suit, not a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage.
The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. Void marriages can be questioned even after the death of
either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties
and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid.

(2) The five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special
contract of marriage to validate the union. The five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration
of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. Otherwise, if it is computed without any
distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning
immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully
with their spouse.

(3) It cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day. The fact remains
that their five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid
under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract. Having determined that the second marriage is not
covered by the exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element.

(4) Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the death of petitioner's father extinguished the alleged marital bond between him and respondent. The
conclusion is erroneous and proceeds from a wrong premise that there was a marriage bond that was dissolved between the two. It should be
noted that their marriage was void hence it is deemed as if it never existed at all and the death of either extinguished nothing.

Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court, Toledo City, Cebu, Branch59, dismissing Civil Case No. T-639, is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The said case is ordered REINSTATED.

You might also like