View full case

ENGRACE NIÑAL FOR HERSELF v. NORMA BAYADOG

FACTS:

Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones in 1974, and they had children together. Unfortunately, Teodulfa was shot by Pepito and died in 1985. After a year and eight months, Pepito married Norma Badayog without obtaining a marriage license. Instead, they signed an affidavit stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, which they believed exempted them from securing a marriage license. However, Pepito died in a car accident in February 1997. Following his death, the children of Pepito and Teodulfa filed a petition to declare the marriage between Pepito and Norma null and void due to the lack of a marriage license. Norma, in response, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the children did not have the right to file an action for the annulment of marriage. The Regional Trial Court sided with Norma and dismissed the petition, stating that the children should have filed the action prior to their father's death. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the absence of a marriage license rendered their father's marriage to Norma void ab initio.

ISSUES:

  1. May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death?

  2. Was the second marriage of Pepito Niñal to respondent Norma Badayog null and void ab initio due to lack of a marriage license?

  3. Are petitioners estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage after it was dissolved due to their father's death?

RULING:

  1. Yes. The heirs of a deceased person may file a petition for the declaration of nullity of the deceased person's marriage even after his death. The Supreme Court emphasized that unlike voidable marriages which prescribe and can only be impugned during the lifetime of the spouses, void marriages have no legal effect and can be attacked collaterally by any proper interested party and questioned even after the death of either party.

  2. Yes. The second marriage of Pepito Niñal to respondent Norma Badayog was null and void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. The purported cohabitation of Pepito and Norma did not meet the legal requirement of a continuous five-year period of living together as husband and wife, as Pepito was still legally married to his first wife during part of that period.

  3. No. The petitioners are not estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage. The marriage being void from inception (void ab initio), it is as though it never existed, and thus, the death of either party does not affect the ability to challenge the validity of the marriage.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Article 47 of the Family Code Pertains to grounds, periods, and persons who can file an annulment suit, not a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage.

  2. Void vs. Voidable Marriages A voidable marriage is valid until annulled and may be ratified by cohabitation or prescription, while a void marriage is considered never to have taken place and is subject to collateral attack.

  3. Imprescriptibility of Action The action or defense for nullity of absolute nullity of marriage is imprescriptible.

  4. Marriage License Requirement Under the Civil Code, a valid marriage license is requisite for marriage, and the absence thereof renders the marriage void ab initio.

  5. Exemption from Marriage License The exemption provided under Article 76 of the Civil Code requires a continuous five-year period of cohabitation as husband and wife without legal impediments to marry.

  6. Necessity of Judicial Declaration for Nullity Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before remarrying.

  7. Effect of Void Marriage No judicial decree is necessary to establish the nullity of a void marriage, but is advisable for clarity and good order of society.