FACTS:

This case involves a dispute between two women, petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño and respondent Susan Yee Cariño, over the "death benefits" of deceased SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño. The issue at hand revolves around the validity of the two marriages contracted by the deceased - one with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño in 1969, and another with respondent Susan Yee Cariño in 1992.

During their marriage, petitioner and the deceased had two children together. On the other hand, respondent and the deceased did not have any children despite being in a relationship for almost ten years. The deceased became ill and bedridden in 1988 due to diabetes and pulmonary tuberculosis. He passed away in 1992, with respondent Susan Yee shouldering his medical and burial expenses.

Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance from various government agencies. Petitioner was able to collect a total of P146,000.00, while respondent received P21,000.00. In 1993, respondent filed a case against petitioner, seeking the return of at least half of the P146,000.00 "death benefits" that petitioner received. Petitioner failed to file her answer, resulting in her being declared in default.

Respondent admitted that her marriage to the deceased occurred without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and the deceased. She alleged that she was unaware of the previous marriage until the funeral, where she met petitioner who introduced herself as the wife of the deceased. Respondent claimed that the marriage between petitioner and the deceased is void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license.

The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay respondent P73,000.00, half of the amount that petitioner received as "death benefits." Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased is void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license.

2. Whether the second marriage of the deceased with respondent Susan Yee is valid despite the declaration of nullity of the previous marriage.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to one-half of the death benefits earned by the deceased as a government employee.

4. Whether a prior and separate declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary in order to determine the rights of the parties in cases other than remarriage.

RULING:

1. The marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased is declared void ab initio as it was solemnized without the necessary marriage license.

2. The second marriage of the deceased with respondent Susan Yee is also declared void ab initio as it was solemnized without a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage.

3. The petitioner is entitled to one-half of the death benefits earned by the deceased as a government employee. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the petitioner and the deceased are considered as co-owners of the wages and salaries earned during their cohabitation, regardless of who actually earned the wages. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to share one-half of the death benefits.

4. A prior and separate declaration of nullity of marriage is not necessary in order to determine the rights of the parties in cases other than remarriage. As long as it is essential to the determination of the case, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same. The final judgment declaring the previous marriage void is not only required for purposes of remarriage, but also for other purposes, like filing a case for collection of a sum of money anchored on a marriage claimed to be valid.

PRINCIPLES:

• A marriage solemnized without the necessary marriage license is void ab initio.

• A prior judicial declaration of nullity is necessary before a party can enter into a second marriage following the declaration of nullity of a previous marriage.

• The property regime of unions without marriage is governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.

• Under Article 147 of the Family Code, wages and salaries of the parties living together shall be owned by them in equal shares, while properties acquired through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

• Under Article 148 of the Family Code, properties acquired by both parties through actual joint contribution shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. Contributions in the form of care of the home, children, and household are excluded in this property regime.

• Under Article 147 of the Family Code, wages and salaries earned by either party during the cohabitation shall be owned by the parties in equal shares and will be divided equally between them, even if only one party earned the wages.

• A prior and separate declaration of nullity of marriage is not necessary in order to determine the rights of the parties in cases other than remarriage. The court may pass upon the validity of marriage even if the purpose is other than to remarry, as long as it is essential to the determination of the case.