VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

Cariño vs Cariño

FACTS

 During the lifetime of the late SPO4 Santiago S. Cariñ o, he contracted two marriages.

 The first was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariñ o with whom he had
two children.

 And the second was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cariñ o with
whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way back in
1982.

 In November 23, 1992, SPO4 Santiago Cariñ o 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.

 On December 14, 1993, respondent filed the instant case for collection of sum of money
against the petitioner praying that petitioner be ordered to return to her at least one-half of
the one hundred forty-six thousand pesos.

 To bolster her action for collection of sum of money, respondent contended that the
marriage of petitioner and the deceased is void ab initio because the same was solemnized
without the required marriage license confirmed by the marriage certificate of the deceased
and the petitioner which bears no marriage license number and a certification dated March
9, 1994, from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Manila stating that they have no record of
marriage license of the spouses Santiago Cariñ o and Susan Nicdao Cariñ o who allegedly
married in the said municipality on June 20, 1969.

ISSUE: Whether the two marriages contracted by the deceased SPO4 Santiago S. Cariñ o are valid
in determining the beneficiary of his death benefits

RULING: NO.

Under the Civil Code which was the law in force when the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao
and the deceased was solemnized in 1969, a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage and
the absence thereof, subject to certain exceptions, renders a marriage void ab initio. In the case
at bar, there is no question that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased does not fall within
the marriages exempt from the license requirement. A marriage license was indispensable to the
 VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

validity of their marriage. The records reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the
deceased bears no marriage license number and as certified by the Local Civil registrar of San
Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such marriage license. The certification issued
by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to
keep a record of all data to the issuance of a marriage license. Therefore, the marriage between
petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased having been solemnized without the necessary
marriage license, and not being one of the marriages exempt from the said requirement, is
undoubtedly void ab initio.

The declaration in the instant case of nullity of the previous marriage of the deceased and
petitioner does not validate the second marriage of the deceased with respondent Susan Yee.
The fact remains that their marriage was solemnized without first obtaining a judicial decree
declaring the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased void. Hence, the marriage of
respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is, likewise, void ab initio. To reiterate, under article 40
of Family Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a prior judicial declaration of the
nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage,
otherwise, the second marriage would also be void.

Considering that the two marriages are void ab initio, the applicable property regime would not
be absolute community or conjugal partnership of property, but rather, is governed by the
provisions of Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, wherein, the properties acquired by the
parties through their actual joint contribution shall belong to the co-ownership.

By intestate succession, the said “death benefits” of the deceased shall pass to his legal heirs
and respondent, not being the legal wife is not one of them. Conformably, even if the disputed
“death benefits” were earned by the deceased alone as a government employee, Article 147
creates a co- ownership, entitling the petitioner to share one-half thereof. There is no allegation
of bad faith in the present case; both parties of the first marriage are presumed in good faith.
Thus, one-half of the subject “death benefits” under scrutiny shall go to the petitioner as her
share in the property regime, and the other half pertaining to the deceased shall pass by,
intestate succession, to his legal heirs, namely, his children.
 VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

Capili vs People

FACTS:

 On September 1999, James Capili married Karla Medina.

 After three months, Capili married another woman named Shirley Tismo.

 In 2004, Karla filed an action for declaration of nullity of the second marriage and on June
2004, Tismo filed a bigamy case against Capili.

 Before the release of the decision on the bigamy case, Karla’s petition was granted declaring
the marriage between Capili and Tismo void. Consequently, Capili filed a motion to dismiss
 VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

the bigamy case claiming that the second marriage was declared void ab initio which means
that the marriage never took place at all.

 RTC: Bigamy case was dismissed. Second marriage was declared void ab initio. No bigamy to
speak of.

 CA: Reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity of the second marriage can be a ground to dismiss the
bigamy case

RULING:

NO.

The elements of bigamy are:

1. That the offender has been legally married;

2. That the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

Thus, when Capili married Tismo, the above mentioned elements were present. Hence, the crime
of bigamy was already consummated.

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover,
petitioner’s assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an
accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the
pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case.

The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to Shirley Tismo had no
bearing upon the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy,
because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be
subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Thus, under the law, a marriage, even
one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first
 VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting
before the first marriage was annulled.

Quiazon, et. al. vs Belen, et. al.

FACTS

 Eliseo died intestate on 12 December 1992. On 12 September 1994, Maria Lourdes Elise
Quiazon (Elise), represented by her mother, Ma. Lourdes Belen (Lourdes), filed a Petition for
Letters of Administration before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City.

 In her Petition, Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and
born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry each other. Insisting on
the legal capacity of Eliseo and Lourdes to marry, Elise impugned the validity of Eliseo’s
marriage to Amelia by claiming that it was bigamous for having been contracted during the
subsistence of the latter’s marriage with one Filipito Sandico (Filipito).

 To prove her filiation to the decedent, Elise, among others, attached to the Petition for
Letters of Administration her Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as her father. In the
same petition, it was alleged that Eliseo left real properties worth ₱2,040,000.00 and
personal properties worth ₱2,100,000.00. In order to preserve the estate of Eliseo and to
prevent the dissipation of its value, Elise sought her appointment as administratrix of her
late father’s estate.

ISSUE: Did the Court err in declaring the marriage of Amelia to Eliseo void?

RULING:

NO. The existence of a previous marriage between Amelia and Filipito was sufficiently established
by no less than the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Diocese of Tarlac and signed by the
officiating priest of the Parish of San Nicolas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarlac. The said marriage
certificate is a competent evidence of marriage and the certification from the National Archive
that no information relative to the said marriage exists does not diminish the probative value of
the entries therein.

In a void marriage, no marriage has taken place and it cannot be the source of rights, such that
any interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally without prescription, which
may be filed even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the marriage. Relevant to the foregoing,
there is no doubt that Elise, whose successional rights would be prejudiced by her father’s
marriage to Amelia, may impugn the existence of such marriage even after the death of her
 VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

father. The said marriage may be questioned directly by filing an action attacking the validity
thereof, or collaterally by raising it as an issue in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
the deceased spouse, such as in the case at bar. Ineluctably, Elise, as a compulsory heir, has a
cause of action for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the void marriage of Eliseo and
Amelia, and the death of either party to the said marriage does not extinguish such cause of
action.