daFIRST DIVISION

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

ENGRACE NIAL for Hersef a!" as G#ar"$a! a" L$%e& of %he &$!ors
'A'(LINE NIAL, INGRI) NIAL, ARCHIE NIAL * +E+I,- NIAL,
.R., petitioners, vs. N-RMA 'A(A)-G, respondent. Nc&&$s/
) E C I 0 I - N
(NARE010AN,IAG-, J.2
May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage after his death?
Pepito Nial !as married to Teodulfa "ellones on Septem#er $%& '()*+ Out of their
marriage !ere #orn herein petitioners+ Teodulfa !as shot #y Pepito resulting in her
death on ,pril $*& '(-.+ One year and - months thereafter or on Decem#er ''& '(-%&
Pepito and respondent Norma "adayog got married !ithout any marriage license+ In
lieu thereof& Pepito and Norma e/ecuted an affida0it dated Decem#er ''& '(-% stating
that they had li0ed together as hus#and and !ife for at least fi0e years and !ere thus
e/empt from securing a marriage license+ On Fe#ruary '(& '(()& Pepito died in a car
accident+ ,fter their father1s death& petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage !as 0oid for lac2 of a
marriage license+ The case !as filed under the assumption that the 0alidity or in0alidity
of the second marriage !ould affect petitioner1s successional rights+ Norma filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners ha0e no cause of action since they are
not among the persons !ho could file an action for 3annulment of marriage3 under
,rticle *) of the Family 4ode+
5udge Ferdinand 5+ Marcos of the Regional Trial 4ourt of Toledo 4ity& 4e#u& "ranch .(&
dismissed the petition after finding that the Family 4ode is 3rather silent& o#scure&
insufficient3 to resol0e the follo!ing issues6
7'8 9hether or not plaintiffs ha0e a cause of action against defendant in
as2ing for the declaration of the nullity of marriage of their deceased
father& Pepito :+ Nial& !ith her specially so !hen at the time of the filing
of this instant suit& their father Pepito :+ Nial is already dead;
7$8 9hether or not the second marriage of plaintiffs1 deceased father !ith
defendant is null and 0oid a# initio;
7<8 9hether or not plaintiffs are estopped from assailing the 0alidity of the
second marriage after it !as dissol0ed due to their father1s death+
='>
Thus& the lo!er court ruled that petitioners should ha0e filed the action to declare null
and 0oid their father1s marriage to respondent #efore his death& applying #y analogy
,rticle *) of the Family 4ode !hich enumerates the time and the persons !ho could
initiate an action for annulment of marriage+
=$>
?ence& this petition for re0ie! !ith this
4ourt grounded on a pure @uestion of la!+ ScncA m
This petition !as originally dismissed for nonBcompliance !ith Section ''& Rule '< of the
'(() Rules of 4i0il Procedure& and #ecause 3the 0erification failed to state the #asis of
petitioner1s a0erment that the allegations in the petition are Ctrue and correct1+3 It !as
thus treated as an unsigned pleading !hich produces no legal effect under Section <&
Rule )& of the '(() Rules+
=<>
?o!e0er& upon motion of petitioners& this 4ourt reconsidered
the dismissal and reinstated the petition for re0ie!+
=*>
The t!o marriages in0ol0ed herein ha0ing #een solemniDed prior to the effecti0ity of the
Family 4ode 7F48& the applica#le la! to determine their 0alidity is the 4i0il 4ode !hich
!as the la! in effect at the time of their cele#ration+
=.>
, 0alid marriage license is a
re@uisite of marriage under ,rticle .< of the 4i0il 4ode&
=%>
the a#sence of !hich renders
the marriage void ab initio pursuant to ,rticle -E7<8
=)>
in relation to ,rticle .-+
=->
The
re@uirement and issuance of marriage license is the State1s demonstration of its
in0ol0ement and participation in e0ery marriage& in the maintenance of !hich the
general pu#lic is interested+
=(>
This interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that
the State recogniDes the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to the family as
a #asic 3autonomous social institution+3
='E>
Specifically& the 4onstitution considers
marriage as an 3in0iola#le social institution&3 and is the foundation of family life !hich
shall #e protected #y the State+
=''>
This is !hy the Family 4ode considers marriage as 3a
special contract of permanent union3
='$>
and case la! considers it 3not Fust an ad0enture
#ut a lifetime commitment+3
='<>
?o!e0er& there are se0eral instances recogniDed #y the 4i0il 4ode !herein a marriage
license is dispensed !ith& one of !hich is that pro0ided in ,rticle )%&
='*>
referring to the
marriage of a man and a !oman !ho ha0e li0ed together and e/clusi0ely !ith each
other as hus#and and !ife for a continuous and un#ro2en period of at least fi0e years
#efore the marriage+ The rationale !hy no license is re@uired in such case is to a0oid
e/posing the parties to humiliation& shame and em#arrassment concomitant !ith the
scandalous coha#itation of persons outside a 0alid marriage due to the pu#lication of
e0ery applicant1s name for a marriage license+ The pu#licity attending the marriage
license may discourage such persons from legitimiDing their status+
='.>
To preser0e peace
in the family& a0oid the peeping and suspicious eye of pu#lic e/posure and contain the
source of gossip arising from the pu#lication of their names& the la! deemed it !ise to
preser0e their pri0acy and e/empt them from that re@uirement+ SdaaG miso
There is no dispute that the marriage of petitioners1 father to respondent Norma !as
cele#rated !ithout any marriage license+ In lieu thereof& they e/ecuted an affida0it
stating that 3they ha0e attained the age of maFority& and& #eing unmarried& ha0e li0ed
together as hus#and and !ife for at least fi0e years& and that !e no! desire to marry
each other+3
='%>
The only issue that needs to #e resol0ed pertains to !hat nature of
coha#itation is contemplated under ,rticle )% of the 4i0il 4ode to !arrant the counting
of the fi0e year period in order to e/empt the future spouses from securing a marriage
license+ Should it #e a coha#itation !herein #oth parties are capacitated to marry each
other during the entire fi0eByear continuous period or should it #e a coha#itation !herein
#oth parties ha0e li0ed together and e/clusi0ely !ith each other as hus#and and !ife
during the entire fi0eByear continuous period regardless of !hether there is a legal
impediment to their #eing la!fully married& !hich impediment may ha0e either
disappeared or inter0ened sometime during the coha#itation period?
9or2ing on the assumption that Pepito and Norma ha0e li0ed together as hus#and and
!ife for fi0e years !ithout the #enefit of marriage& that fi0eByear period should #e
computed on the #asis of a coha#itation as 3hus#and and !ife3 !here the only missing
factor is the special contract of marriage to 0alidate the union+ In other !ords& the fi0eB
year commonBla! coha#itation period& !hich is counted #ac2 from the date of
cele#ration of marriage& should #e a period of legal union had it not #een for the
a#sence of the marriage+ This .Byear period should #e the years immediately #efore the
day of the marriage and it should #e a period of coha#itation characteriDed #y
e/clusi0ity H meaning no third party !as in0ol0ed at any time !ithin the . years and
continuity H that is un#ro2en+ Other!ise& if that continuous .Byear coha#itation is
computed !ithout any distinction as to !hether the parties !ere capacitated to marry
each other during the entire fi0e years& then the la! !ould #e sanctioning immorality
and encouraging parties to ha0e common la! relationships and placing them on the
same footing !ith those !ho li0ed faithfully !ith their spouse+ Marriage #eing a special
relationship must #e respected as such and its re@uirements must #e strictly o#ser0ed+
The presumption that a man and a !oman deporting themsel0es as hus#and and !ife
is #ased on the appro/imation of the re@uirements of the la!+ The parties should not #e
afforded any e/cuse to not comply !ith e0ery single re@uirement and later use the same
missing element as a preBconcei0ed escape ground to nullify their marriage+ There
should #e no e/emption from securing a marriage license unless the circumstances
clearly fall !ithin the am#it of the e/ception+ It should #e noted that a license is re@uired
in order to notify the pu#lic that t!o persons are a#out to #e united in matrimony and
that anyone !ho is a!are or has 2no!ledge of any impediment to the union of the t!o
shall ma2e it 2no!n to the local ci0il registrar+
=')>
The 4i0il 4ode pro0ides6
Article 636 3/ / /+ This notice shall re@uest all persons ha0ing 2no!ledge of
any impediment to the marriage to ad0ice the local ci0il registrar thereof+ /
/ /+3
Article 646 3Ipon #eing ad0ised of any alleged impediment to the
marriage& the local ci0il registrar shall forth!ith ma2e an in0estigation&
e/amining persons under oath+ / / /3 Sdaad
This is reiterated in the Family 4ode thus6
Article 17 pro0ides in part6 3/ / /+ This notice shall re@uest all persons
ha0ing 2no!ledge of any impediment to the marriage to ad0ise the local
ci0il registrar thereof+ / / /+3
Article 18 reads in part6 3/ / /+ In case of any impediment 2no!n to the
local ci0il registrar or #rought to his attention& he shall note do!n the
particulars thereof and his findings thereon in the application for a
marriage license+ / / /+3
This is the same reason !hy our ci0il la!s& past or present& a#solutely prohi#ited the
concurrence of multiple marriages #y the same person during the same period+ Thus&
any marriage su#se@uently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse shall #e
illegal and 0oid&
='->
su#Fect only to the e/ception in cases of a#sence or !here the prior
marriage !as dissol0ed or annulled+ The Re0ised Penal 4ode complements the ci0il la!
in that the contracting of t!o or more marriages and the ha0ing of e/tramarital affairs
are considered felonies& i.e.& #igamy and concu#inage and adultery+
='(>
The la! sanctions
monogamy+
In this case& at the time of Pepito and respondent1s marriage& it cannot #e said that they
ha0e li0ed !ith each other as hus#and and !ife for at least fi0e years prior to their
!edding day+ From the time Pepito1s first marriage !as dissol0ed to the time of his
marriage !ith respondent& only a#out t!enty months had elapsed+ J0en assuming that
Pepito and his first !ife had separated in fact& and thereafter #oth Pepito and
respondent had started li0ing !ith each other that has already lasted for fi0e years& the
fact remains that their fi0eByear period coha#itation !as not the coha#itation
contemplated #y la!+ It should #e in the nature of a perfect union that is 0alid under the
la! #ut rendered imperfect only #y the a#sence of the marriage contract+ Pepito had a
su#sisting marriage at the time !hen he started coha#iting !ith respondent+ It is
immaterial that !hen they li0ed !ith each other& Pepito had already #een separated in
fact from his la!ful spouse+ The su#sistence of the marriage e0en !here there !as
actual se0erance of the filial companionship #et!een the spouses cannot ma2e any
coha#itation #y either spouse !ith any third party as #eing one as 3hus#and and
!ife3+ ScsA daad
?a0ing determined that the second marriage in0ol0ed in this case is not co0ered #y the
e/ception to the re@uirement of a marriage license& it is 0oid ab initio #ecause of the
a#sence of such element+
The ne/t issue to #e resol0ed is6 do petitioners ha0e the personality to file a petition to
declare their father1s marriage 0oid after his death?
4ontrary to respondent Fudge1s ruling& ,rticle *) of the Family 4ode
=$E>
cannot #e applied
e0en #y analogy to petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage+ The second ground for
annulment of marriage relied upon #y the trial court& !hich allo!s 3the sane spouse3 to
file an annulment suit 3at any time #efore the death of either party3 is inapplica#le+
,rticle *) pertains to the grounds& periods and persons !ho can file an annulment suit&
not a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage+ The 4ode is silent as to !ho can file a
petition to declare the nullity of a marriage+ Voida#le and 0oid marriages are not
identical+ , marriage that is annula#le is 0alid until other!ise declared #y the court;
!hereas a marriage that is 0oid ab initio is considered as ha0ing ne0er to ha0e ta2en
place
=$'>
and cannot #e the source of rights+ The first can #e generally ratified or
confirmed #y free coha#itation or prescription !hile the other can ne0er #e ratified+ ,
0oida#le marriage cannot #e assailed collaterally e/cept in a direct proceeding !hile a
0oid marriage can #e attac2ed collaterally+ 4onse@uently& 0oid marriages can #e
@uestioned e0en after the death of either party #ut 0oida#le marriages can #e assailed
only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either& in !hich case the
parties and their offspring !ill #e left as if the marriage had #een perfectly 0alid+
=$$>
That is
!hy the action or defense for nullity is imprescripti#le& unli2e 0oida#le marriages !here
the action prescri#es+ Only the parties to a 0oida#le marriage can assail it #ut any
proper interested party may attac2 a 0oid marriage+ Void marriages ha0e no legal
effects e/cept those declared #y la! concerning the properties of the alleged spouses&
regarding coBo!nership or o!nership through actual Foint contri#ution&
=$<>
and its effect on
the children #orn to such 0oid marriages as pro0ided in ,rticle .E in relation to ,rticle *<
and ** as !ell as ,rticle .'& .< and .* of the Family 4ode+ On the contrary& the
property regime go0erning 0oida#le marriages is generally conFugal partnership and the
children concei0ed #efore its annulment are legitimate+ SupG rema
4ontrary to the trial court1s ruling& the death of petitioner1s father e/tinguished the
alleged marital #ond #et!een him and respondent+ The conclusion is erroneous and
proceeds from a !rong premise that there !as a marriage #ond that !as dissol0ed
#et!een the t!o+ It should #e noted that their marriage !as 0oid hence it is deemed as
if it ne0er e/isted at all and the death of either e/tinguished nothing+
5urisprudence under the 4i0il 4ode states that no Fudicial decree is necessary in order
to esta#lish the nullity of a marriage+
=$*>
3, 0oid marriage does not re@uire a Fudicial
decree to restore the parties to their original rights or to ma2e the marriage 0oid #ut
though no sentence of a0oidance #e a#solutely necessary& yet as !ell for the sa2e of
good order of society as for the peace of mind of all concerned& it is e/pedient that the
nullity of the marriage should #e ascertained and declared #y the decree of a court of
competent Furisdiction+3
=$.>
3Inder ordinary circumstances& the effect of a 0oid marriage&
so far as concerns the conferring of legal rights upon the parties& is as though no
marriage had e0er ta2en place+ ,nd therefore& #eing good for no legal purpose& its
in0alidity can #e maintained in any proceeding in !hich the fact of marriage may #e
material& either direct or collateral& in any ci0il court #et!een any parties at any time&
!hether #efore or after the death of either or #oth the hus#and and the !ife& and upon
mere proof of the facts rendering such marriage 0oid& it !ill #e disregarded or treated as
nonBe/istent #y the courts+3 It is not li2e a 0oida#le marriage !hich cannot #e collaterally
attac2ed e/cept in direct proceeding instituted during the lifetime of the parties so that
on the death of either& the marriage cannot #e impeached& and is made good ab initio+
=$%>
"ut ,rticle *E of the Family 4ode e/pressly pro0ides that there must #e a Fudicial
declaration of the nullity of a pre0ious marriage& though 0oid& #efore a party can enter
into a second marriage
=$)>
and such a#solute nullity can #e #ased only on a final
Fudgment to that effect+
=$->
For the same reason& the la! ma2es either the action or
defense for the declaration of a#solute nullity of marriage imprescripti#le+
=$(>
4orollarily& if
the death of either party !ould e/tinguish the cause of action or the ground for defense&
then the same cannot #e considered imprescripti#le+ 5urisA
?o!e0er& other than for purposes of remarriage& no Fudicial action is necessary to
declare a marriage an a#solute nullity+ For other purposes& such as #ut not limited to
determination of heirship& legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child& settlement of estate&
dissolution of property regime& or a criminal case for that matter& the court may pass
upon the 0alidity of marriage e0en in a suit not directly instituted to @uestion the same
so long as it is essential to the determination of the case+ This is !ithout preFudice to
any issue that may arise in the case+ 9hen such need arises& a final Fudgment of
declaration of nullity is necessary e0en if the purpose is other than to remarry+ The
clause 3on the #asis of a final Fudgment declaring such pre0ious marriage 0oid3 in ,rticle
*E of the Family 4ode connotes that such final Fudgment need not #e o#tained only for
purpose of remarriage+
3HERE4-RE& the petition is :R,NTJD+ The assailed Order of the Regional Trial
4ourt& Toledo 4ity& 4e#u& "ranch .(& dismissing 4i0il 4ase No+ TB%<(& is RJVJRSJD
and SJT ,SIDJ+ The said case is ordered RJINST,TJD+
0- -R)ERE).
Davide, Jr., (Chairman), Puno, and a!unan, JJ., concur. "c# $uri%
Pardo, J., on official #usiness a#road+
[1]
The dispositive portion of the Order dated March 27, 1998 issued by Judge erdinand J! Marcos of "egiona# Tria#
$ourt %"T$& ' (ranch )9, To#edo $ity, reads* +,-.".O"., pre/ises considered, defendant0s /otion to dis/iss
is hereby granted and this instant case is hereby ordered dis/issed 1ithout costs!+ %p! 23 Rollo, p! 21&!
[2]
Order, p! 43 Rollo, p! 19!
[5]
Minute "eso#ution dated Ju#y 15, 19983 Rollo, p! 59!
[4]
Minute "eso#ution dated October 7, 19983 Rollo, p! )6!
[)]
Ta/ano v! Orti7, 291 8$"9 )84 %1998&!
[2]
:o1 9rtic#e 5, a/i#y $ode! 9rt! )5! :o /arriage sha## be so#e/ni7ed un#ess a## the re;uisites are co/p#ied 1ith*
%1& <ega# capacity of the contracting parties3 their consent, free#y given3
%2& 9uthority of the person perfor/ing the /arriage3 and
%5& 9 /arriage #icense, e=cept in a /arriage of e=ceptiona# character!
[7]
:o1 9rtic#e 4, a/i#y $ode! 9rt! 86! The fo##o1ing /arriages sha## be void fro/ the beginning*
= = = = = = = = =
%5& Those so#e/ni7ed 1ithout a /arriage #icense, save /arriages of e=ceptiona# character!
= = = = = = = = =
[8]
9rt! )8! 8ave /arriages of an e=ceptiona# character authori7ed in $hapter 2 of this Tit#e, but not those under artic#e
7), no /arriage sha## be so#e/ni7ed 1ithout a #icense first being issued by the #oca# civi# registrar of the
/unicipa#ity 1here either contracting party habitua##y resides!
[9]
>erido v. >erido, 25 8$"9 97 %197)&!
[16]
8ection 12, 9rtic#e ??, 1987 $onstitution3 -ernande7 v! $9, @! "! :o! 122616, Aece/ber 8, 19993 8ee a#so
Tuason v! $9, 2)2 8$"9 1)8 %1992&!
[11]
8ection 2, 9rtic#e BC %The a/i#y&, 1987 $onstitution!
[12]
9rtic#e 1, a/i#y $ode provides* +Marriage is a specia# contract of per/anent union bet1een a /an and a 1o/an
entered into in accordance 1ith #a1 for the estab#ish/ent of conDuga# or fa/i#y #ife! = = =!
[15]
8antos v. $9, )8 8$9A 17 %199)&3 516 >hi#! 21, 41 %199)&!
[14]
:o1 9rtic#e 54, a/i#y $ode! 9rt! 72! :o /arriage #icense sha## be necessary 1hen a /an and a 1o/an 1ho
have attained the age of /aDority and 1ho, being un/arried, have #ived together as husband and 1ife for at #east five
years, desire to /arry each other! The contracting parties sha## state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any
person authori7ed by #a1 to ad/inister oaths! The officia#, priest or /inister 1ho so#e/ni7ed the /arriage sha## a#so
state in an affidavit that he tooE steps to ascertain the ages and other ;ua#ifications of the contracting parties and that
he found no #ega# i/pedi/ent to the /arriage!
[1)]
"eport of the $ode $o//ission, p! 86!
[12]
Rollo, p! 29!
[17]
9rtic#es 25 and 24, $ivi# $ode3 9rtic#e 17 and 18, a/i#y $ode!
[18]
9rtic#e 85, $ivi# $ode provides +9ny /arriage subse;uent#y contracted by any person during the #ifeti/e of the
first spouse of such person 1ith any person other than such first spouse sha## be i##ega# and void fro/ its
perfor/ance, un#ess*
%1& the first /arriage 1as annu##ed or disso#ved3 or
%2& the first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive yearsF!+
9rtic#e 41 of the a/i#y $ode reads* +9 /arriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous
/arriage sha## be nu## and void, un#ess before the ce#ebration of the subse;uent /arriage, the prior spouse had been
absent for four consecutive yearsF+
[19]
9rts! 555 and 554, "evised >ena# $ode!
[26]
9rt! 47! The action for annu#/ent of /arriage /ust be fi#ed by the fo##o1ing persons and 1ithin the periods
indicated herein*
%1& or causes /entioned in nu/ber 1 of 9rtic#e 4) by the party 1hose parent or guardian did not
give his or her consent, 1ithin five years after attaining the age of t1enty'one3 or by the parent or guardian
or person having #ega# charge of the /inor, at any ti/e before such party has reached the age of t1enty'
one3
%2& or causes /entioned in nu/ber 2 of 9rtic#e 4), by the sane spouse, 1ho had no Eno1#edge of the
other0s insanity3 or by any re#ative or guardian or person having #ega# charge of the insane, at any ti/e
before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse during a #ucid interva# or after regaining sanity3
%5& or causes /entioned in nu/ber 5 of 9rtic#e 4), by the inDured party, 1ithin five years after the
discovery of the fraud3
%4& or causes /entioned in nu/ber 4 of 9rtic#e 4), by the inDured party, 1ithin five years fro/ the
ti/e the force, inti/idation or undue inf#uence disappeared or ceased3
or causes /entioned in nu/bers ) and 2 of 9rtic#e 4), by the inDured party, 1ithin five years after the /arriage!
[21]
8untay v! $oDuanco'8untay, 566 8$"9 726 %1998&3 >eop#e v. "etire/ent (oard, 272 ?##! 9pp! )9 cited in ?
To#entino, $ivi# $ode, 1996 ed! p! 271!
[22]
?n re $on7a0s .state, 172 ?##! 1923 Mi##er v. Mi##er, 17) $a#! 797, 127 >ac! 594 cited in ? To#entino, $ivi# $ode,
1996 ed!, p! 271!
[25]
9rtic#e 148'149, a/i#y $ode3 9rtic#e 144, $ivi# $ode!
[24]
Odayat v. 9/ante, 77 8$"9 558 %1977&3 ,eige# v! 8e/pio'Ay, 145 8$"9 499 %1982&3 >eop#e v. Mendo7a, 9)
>hi#! 84) %19)4&3 )6 O!@! %16& 4727 cited in >eop#e v. 9ragon, 166 >hi#! 1655 %19)7&3 )5 O!@! 5749!
[2)]
5) 9/! Jur! 219'226!
[22]
18 "$< 442'73 5) 9/ Jur! 221!
[27]
9piag v! $antero, 55) >hi#! )11 %1997&3 228 8$"9 47 %1997&3 9tien7a v! Judge (ri##antes, Jr!, 26 8$9A 1193 512
>hi#! 959 %199)&!
[28]
Ao/ingo v! $9, 222 8$"9 )72 %1995&!
[29]
9rtic#e 59, a/i#y $ode as a/ended by .!O! 269 and 227 s! 1987 and further a/ended by "!9! :o! 8)55 dated
ebruary 25, 1998!