FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001]

SUSAN NICDAO CARIO, petitioner, vs. SUSAN Y respondent. D

YNAR S!SAN"IAGO, J.#

CARIO,

CISION

The issue for resolution in the case at bar hinges on the validity of the two marriages contracted by the deceased SPO Santiago S! "ari#o$ whose %death benefits& is now the sub'ect of the controversy between the two Susans whom he married! (efore this "ourt is a )etition for review on certiorari see*ing to set aside the decisioni+,- of the "ourt of .))eals in "./0!R! "V No! 1,234$ which affirmed in toto the decisionii+2- of the Regional Trial "ourt of 5ue6on "ity$ (ranch 78$ in "ivil "ase No! 5/ 94/,7342! During the lifetime of the late SPO Santiago S! "ari#o$ he contracted two marriages$ the first was on :une 2;$ ,939$ with )etitioner Susan Nicdao "ari#o <hereafter referred to as Susan Nicdao=$ with whom he had two offs)rings$ namely$ Sahlee and Sandee "ari#o> and the second was on November ,;$ ,992$ with res)ondent Susan ?ee "ari#o <hereafter referred to as Susan ?ee=$ with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way bac* in ,972! In ,977$ SPO Santiago S! "ari#o became ill and bedridden due to diabetes com)licated by )ulmonary tuberculosis! @e )assed away on November 24$ ,992$ under the care of Susan ?ee$ who s)ent for his medical and burial eA)enses! (oth )etitioner and res)ondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance )ertaining to the deceased from various government agencies! Petitioner Susan Nicdao was able to collect a total of P, 3$;;;!;; from %B(.I$ P""CI$ "ommutation$ N.POD"OB$ +andPag/ibig$&iii+4- while res)ondent Susan ?ee received a total of P2,$;;;!;; from %0SIS Dife$ (urial <0SIS= and burial <SSS=!&iv+ On December , $ ,994$ res)ondent Susan ?ee filed the instant case for collection of sum of money against )etitioner Susan Nicdao )raying$ inter alia, that )etitioner be ordered to return to her at least one/half of the one hundred forty/siA thousand )esos <P, 3$;;;!;;= collectively denominated as %death benefits& which she <)etitioner= received from %B(.I$ P""CI$ "ommutation$ N.POD"OB$ +and- Pag/ibig!& Des)ite service of summons$ )etitioner failed to file her answer$ )rom)ting the trial court to declare her in default! Res)ondent Susan ?ee admitted that her marriage to the deceased too* )lace during

the subsistence of$ and without first obtaining a 'udicial declaration of nullity of$ the marriage between )etitioner and the deceased! She$ however$ claimed that she had no *nowledge of the )revious marriage and that she became aware of it only at the funeral of the deceased$ where she met )etitioner who introduced herself as the wife of the deceased! To bolster her action for collection of sum of money$ res)ondent contended that the marriage of )etitioner and the deceased is void ab initio because the same was solemni6ed without the reEuired marriage license! In su))ort thereof$ res)ondent )resentedF ,= the marriage certificate of the deceased and the )etitioner which bears no marriage license number>v+1- and 2= a certification dated Barch 9$ ,99 $ from the Docal "ivil Registrar of San :uan$ Betro Banila$ which reads G
This is to certify that this Office has no record of marriage license of the spouses SANTIAGO CARINO (sic and S!SAN NIC"AO, #ho are married in this municipality on $une %&, '()(* +ence, #e cannot issue as re,uested a true copy or transcription of -arriage .icense number from the records of this archi/es* This certification is issued upon the re,uest of -rs* Susan 0ee Cari1o for #hate/er legal purpose it may ser/e*vi+3-

On .ugust 27$ ,991$ the trial court ruled in favor of res)ondent$ Susan ?ee$ holding as followsF
2+3R34OR3, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of 567,&&&*&&, half of the amount #hich #as paid to her in the form of death benefits arising from the death of S5O8 Santiago S* Cari1o, plus attorney9s fees in the amount of 5:,&&&*&&, and costs of suit* IT IS SO OR"3R3"*vii+8-

On a))eal by )etitioner to the "ourt of .))eals$ the latter affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court! @ence$ the instant )etition$ contending thatF
I.

T@H @ONOR.(DH "OCRT OF .PPH.DS 0R.VHD? HRRHD IN .FFIRBIN0 T@H FINDIN0S OF T@H DOIHR "OCRT T@.T VD.! DH "ONSCH0R. VS! 0SIS IS .PPDI".(DH TO T@H ".SH .T (.R!
II.

T@H @ONOR.(DH "OCRT OF .PPH.DS 0R.VHD? HRRHD IN .PPD?IN0 H5CIT? IN T@H INST.NT ".SH INSTH.D OF T@H "DH.R .ND CNH5CIVO".D B.ND.TH OF T@H F.BID? "ODH!
III.

T@H @ONOR.(DH "OCRT OF .PPH.DS 0R.VHD? HRRHD IN NOT FINDIN0 T@H ".SH OF VD.! DH "ONSCH0R. VS 0SIS TO @.VH (HHN BODIFIHD$ .BHNDHD .ND HVHN .(.NDONHD (? T@H HN."TBHNT OF T@H F.BID? "ODH! viii+7-

Cnder .rticle ; of the Family "ode$ the absolute nullity of a )revious marriage may be invo*ed for )ur)oses of remarriage on the basis solely of a final 'udgment declaring such )revious marriage void! Beaning$ where the absolute nullity of a )revious marriage is sought to be invo*ed for )ur)oses of contracting a second marriage$ the sole basis acce)table in law$ for said )ro'ected marriage to be free from legal infirmity$ is a final 'udgment declaring the )revious marriage void!iA+9- @owever$ for )ur)oses other than

remarriage$ no 'udicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity! For other )ur)oses$ such as but not limited to the determination of heirshi)$ legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child$ settlement of estate$ dissolution of )ro)erty regime$ or a criminal case for that matter$ the court may )ass u)on the validity of marriage even after the death of the )arties thereto$ and even in a suit not directly instituted to Euestion the validity of said marriage$ so long as it is essential to the determination of the case! A+,;- In such instances$ evidence must be adduced$ testimonial or documentary$ to )rove the eAistence of grounds rendering such a )revious marriage an absolute nullity! These need not be limited solely to an earlier final 'udgment of a court declaring such )revious marriage void!Ai+,,It is clear therefore that the "ourt is clothed with sufficient authority to )ass u)on the validity of the two marriages in this case$ as the same is essential to the determination of who is rightfully entitled to the sub'ect %death benefits& of the deceased! Cnder the "ivil "ode$ which was the law in force when the marriage of )etitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased was solemni6ed in ,939$ a valid marriage license is a reEuisite of marriage$Aii+,2- and the absence thereof$ sub'ect to certain eAce)tions$ Aiii+,4renders the marriage void ab initio!Aiv+, In the case at bar$ there is no Euestion that the marriage of )etitioner and the deceased does not fall within the marriages eAem)t from the license reEuirement! . marriage license$ therefore$ was indis)ensable to the validity of their marriage! This notwithstanding$ the records reveal that the marriage contract of )etitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number and$ as certified by the Docal "ivil Registrar of San :uan$ Betro Banila$ their office has no record of such marriage license! In Republic /* Court of Appeals $Av+,1- the "ourt held that such a certification is adeEuate to )rove the non/issuance of a marriage license! .bsent any circumstance of sus)icion$ as in the )resent case$ the certification issued by the local civil registrar en'oys )robative value$ he being the officer charged under the law to *ee) a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license! Such being the case$ the )resumed validity of the marriage of )etitioner and the deceased has been sufficiently overcome! It then became the burden of )etitioner to )rove that their marriage is valid and that they secured the reEuired marriage license! .lthough she was declared in default before the trial court$ )etitioner could have sEuarely met the issue and eA)lained the absence of a marriage license in her )leadings before the "ourt of .))eals and this "ourt! (ut )etitioner conveniently avoided the issue and chose to refrain from )ursuing an argument that will )ut her case in 'eo)ardy! @ence$ the )resumed validity of their marriage cannot stand! It is beyond cavil$ therefore$ that the marriage between )etitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased$ having been solemni6ed without the necessary marriage license$ and not being one of the marriages eAem)t from the marriage license reEuirement$ is undoubtedly void ab initio! It does not follow from the foregoing disEuisition$ however$ that since the marriage of )etitioner and the deceased is declared void ab initio$ the %death benefits& under scrutiny would now be awarded to res)ondent Susan ?ee! To reiterate$ under .rticle ;

of the Family "ode$ for )ur)oses of remarriage$ there must first be a )rior 'udicial declaration of the nullity of a )revious marriage$ though void$ before a )arty can enter into a second marriage$ otherwise$ the second marriage would also be void! .ccordingly$ the declaration in the instant case of nullity of the )revious marriage of the deceased and )etitioner Susan Nicdao does not validate the second marriage of the deceased with res)ondent Susan ?ee! The fact remains that their marriage was solemni6ed without first obtaining a 'udicial decree declaring the marriage of )etitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased void! @ence$ the marriage of res)ondent Susan ?ee and the deceased is$ li*ewise$ void ab initio! One of the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage is the se)aration of the )ro)erty of the s)ouses according to the a))licable )ro)erty regime! Avi+,3- "onsidering that the two marriages are void ab initio$ the a))licable )ro)erty regime would not be absolute community or con'ugal )artnershi) of )ro)erty$ but rather$ be governed by the )rovisions of .rticles , 8 and , 7 of the Family "ode on %Pro)erty Regime of Cnions Iithout Barriage!& Cnder .rticle , 7 of the Family "ode$ which refers to the )ro)erty regime of bigamous marriages$ adulterous relationshi)s$ relationshi)s in a state of concubine$ relationshi)s where both man and woman are married to other )ersons$ multi)le alliances of the same married man$Avii+,8- /
%!!! ;O<nly the properties ac,uired by both of the parties through their actual =oint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be o#ned by them in common in proportion to their respecti/e contributions !!!&

In this )ro)erty regime$ the )ro)erties acEuired by the )arties through their a$%ua& 'o()% $o)%r(bu%(o) shall belong to the co/ownershi)! Iages and salaries earned by each )arty belong to him or her eAclusively! Then too$ contributions in the form of care of the home$ children and household$ or s)iritual or moral ins)iration$ are eAcluded in this regime!Aviii+,7"onsidering that the marriage of res)ondent Susan ?ee and the deceased is a bigamous marriage$ having been solemni6ed during the subsistence of a )revious marriage then )resumed to be valid <between )etitioner and the deceased=$ the a))lication of .rticle , 7 is therefore in order! The dis)uted P, 3$;;;!;; from B(.I +.FP Butual (enefit .ssociation$ Inc!-$ N.POD"OB$ "ommutation$ Pag/ibig$ and P""CI$ are clearly renumerations$ incentives and benefits from governmental agencies earned by the deceased as a )olice officer! Cnless res)ondent Susan ?ee )resents )roof to the contrary$ it could not be said that she contributed money$ )ro)erty or industry in the acEuisition of these monetary benefits! @ence$ they are not owned in common by res)ondent and the deceased$ but belong to the deceased alone and res)ondent has no right whatsoever to claim the same! (y intestate succession$ the said %death benefits& of the deceased shall )ass to his legal heirs! .nd$ res)ondent$ not being the legal wife of the deceased is not one of them! .s to the )ro)erty regime of )etitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased$ .rticle , 8 of the Family "ode governs! This article a))lies to unions of )arties who are legally ca)acitated and not barred by any im)ediment to contract marriage$ but whose marriage

is nonetheless void for other reasons$ li*e the absence of a marriage license! .rticle , 8 of the Family "ode reads /
Art* '86* 2hen a man and a #oman #ho are capacitated to marry each other, li/e e>clusi/ely #ith each other as husband and #ife #ithout the benefit of marriage or under a /oid marriage, their #ages and salaries shall be o#ned by them in e,ual shares and the property ac,uired by both of them through their #or? or industry shall be go/erned by the rules on co@ o#nership* In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties ac,uired #hile they li/ed together shall be presumed to ha/e been obtained by their =oint efforts, #or? or industry, and shall be o#ned by them in e,ual shares* 4or purposes of this Article, a party #ho did not participate in the ac,uisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to ha/e contributed =ointly in the ac,uisition thereof if the former9s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household*

>>>

>>>

>>>

2hen only one of the parties to a /oid marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co@o#nership shall be forfeited in fa/or of their common children* In case of default of or #ai/er by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each /acant share shall belong to the respecti/e sur/i/ing descendants* In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party* In all cases, the forfeiture shall ta?e place upon termination of the cohabitation*

In contrast to .rticle , 7$ under the foregoing article$ wages and salaries earned by either )arty during the cohabitation shall be owned by the )arties in eEual shares and will be divided eEually between them$ even if only one )arty earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto!AiA+,9- "onformably$ even if the dis)uted %death benefits& were earned by the deceased alone as a government em)loyee$ .rticle , 8 creates a co/ ownershi) in res)ect thereto$ entitling the )etitioner to share one/half thereof! .s there is no allegation of bad faith in the )resent case$ both )arties of the first marriage are )resumed to be in good faith! Thus$ one/half of the sub'ect %death benefits& under scrutiny shall go to the )etitioner as her share in the )ro)erty regime$ and the other half )ertaining to the deceased shall )ass by$ intestate succession$ to his legal heirs$ namely$ his children with Susan Nicdao! In affirming the decision of the trial court$ the "ourt of .))eals relied on the case of Ada* de Consuegra /* Go/ernment Ser/ice Insurance System, AA+2;- where the "ourt awarded one/half of the retirement benefits of the deceased to the first wife and the other half$ to the second wife$ holding thatF
B*** ;S<ince the defendant9s first marriage has not been dissol/ed or declared /oid the con=ugal partnership established by that marriage has not ceased* Nor has the first #ife lost or relin,uished her status as putati/e heir of her husband under the ne# Ci/il Code, entitled to share in his estate upon his death should she sur/i/e him* Conse,uently, #hether as con=ugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such putati/e heir she has an interest in the husband9s share in the property here in dispute****C And #ith respect to the right of the second #ife, this Court obser/ed that although the second marriage can be presumed to be /oid ab initio as it #as celebrated #hile the first marriage #as still subsisting, still there is need for =udicial declaration of such nullity* And inasmuch as the con=ugal partnership formed by the second marriage #as dissol/ed before =udicial declaration of its nullity, B;t<he only =ust and e,uitable solution in this

case #ould be to recogniDe the right of the second #ife to her share of one@half in the property ac,uired by her and her husband, and consider the other half as pertaining to the con=ugal partnership of the first marriage*CAAi+2,-

It should be stressed$ however$ that the aforecited decision is )remised on the rule which reEuires a )rior and se)arate 'udicial declaration of nullity of marriage! This is the reason why in the said case$ the "ourt determined the rights of the )arties in accordance with their eAisting )ro)erty regime! In "omingo /* Court of Appeals$AAii+22- however$ the "ourt$ construing .rticle ; of the Family "ode$ clarified that a )rior and se)arate declaration of nullity of a marriage is an all im)ortant condition )recedent only for )ur)oses of remarriage! That is$ if a )arty who is )reviously married wishes to contract a second marriage$ he or she has to obtain first a 'udicial decree declaring the first marriage void$ before he or she could contract said second marriage$ otherwise the second marriage would be void! The same rule a))lies even if the first marriage is )atently void because the )arties are not free to determine for themselves the validity or invalidity or their marriage! @owever$ for )ur)oses other than to remarry$ li*e for filing a case for collection of sum of money anchored on a marriage claimed to be valid$ no )rior and se)arate 'udicial declaration of nullity is necessary! .ll that a )arty has to do is to )resent evidence$ testimonial or documentary$ that would )rove that the marriage from which his or her rights flow is in fact valid! Thereu)on$ the court$ if material to the determination of the issues before it$ will rule on the status of the marriage involved and )roceed to determine the rights of the )arties in accordance with the a))licable laws and 'uris)rudence! Thus$ in Ni1al /* Eayadog$AAiii+24- the "ourt eA)lainedF
;T<he court may pass upon the /alidity of marriage e/en 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 pre=udice to any issue that may arise in the case* 2hen such need arises, a final =udgment of declaration of nullity is necessary e/en if the purpose is other than to remarry* The clause Bon the basis of a final =udgment declaring such pre/ious marriage /oidC in Article 8& of the 4amily Code connoted that such final =udgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage*

*+ R FOR $ the )etition is 0R.NTHD$ and the decision of the "ourt of .))eals in "./0!R! "V No! 1,234 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial "ourt of 5ue6on "ity ordering )etitioner to )ay res)ondent the sum of P84$;;;!;; )lus attorneyJs fees in the amount of P1$;;;!;;$ is RHVHRSHD and SHT .SIDH! The com)laint in "ivil "ase No! 5/94/,7342$ is hereby DISBISSHD! No )ronouncement as to costs! SO ORD R D. "a/ide, $r*, C*$* (Chairman , Fapunan, and 5ardo, $$*, concur! 5uno $*, on official leave!

i+,-

Rollo$ ))! 4/ 8! Rollo$ ))! 9/11! HAhibit %F&$ Records$ )! 47! Ibid!

ii+2-

iii+4iv+ v+1-

HAhibit %D/,&$ Records$ )! 43 HAhibit %H&$ Records$ )! 48! Rollo$ )! 11! Rollo$ )! ,7!

vi+3-

vii+8-

viii+7iA+9-

Domingo /! "ourt of .))eals$ 223 S"R. 182$ 189 +,994-! Ni#al$ et al!$ v! (ayadog$ 0!R! No! ,44887$ Barch , $ 2;;;! Domingo /! "ourt of .))eals$ supra! .RT! 14! No marriage shall be solemni6ed unless all these reEuisites are com)lied withF Degal ca)acity of the contracting )arties> Their consent$ freely given> .uthority of the )erson )erforming the marriage> and . marriage license$ eAce)t in a marriage of eAce)tional character!

A+,;-

Ai+,,-

Aii+,2-

<,= <2= <4= < =

Aiii+,4-

.RT! 17! Save marriages of an eAce)tional character authori6ed in "ha)ter 2 of this Title$ but not those under .rticle 81$ no marriage shall be solemni6ed without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the munici)ality where either contracting )arty habitually resides!
Aiv+, -

.RT! 7;! The following marriages shall be void from the beginningF AAA AAA

AAA <4= AAA

Av+,1-

Those solemni6ed without a marriage license$ save marriages of eAce)tional character> AAA AAA

243 S"R. 218$ 23,/232> citing the Rules of "ourt$ Rule ,42$ Section 29!

Avi+,3-

.rt! 1;! The effects )rovided for in )aragra)hs <2=$ <4=$ < = and <1= of .rticle 4 and in .rticle shall also a))ly in )ro)er cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final 'udgment under .rticles ; and 1! The final 'udgment in such cases shall )rovide for the liEuidation$ )artition$ and distribution of the )ro)erties of the s)ouses$ the custody and su))ort of the common children$ and the delivery of their )resum)tive legitimes$ unless such matters had been ad'udicated in )revious 'udicial )roceedings! AAA AAA AAA

.rt! 4! The termination of the subseEuent marriage referred to in the )receding .rticle shall )roduce the following effectsF AAA AAA AAA

<2= The absolute community of )ro)erty or the con'ugal )artnershi)$ as the case may be$ shall be dissolved and liEuidated$ but if either s)ouse contracted said marriage in bad faith$ his or her share of the net )rofits of the community )ro)erty or con'ugal )artnershi) )ro)erty shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or$ if there are none$ the children of the guilty s)ouse by a )revious marriage or$ in default of children$ the innocent s)ouse> AAA AAA AAA

.rt! ! If both s)ouses of the subseEuent marriage acted in bad faith$ said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dis)ositions made by one in favor of the other are revo*ed by o)eration of law!

Avii+,8-

Sem)io/Diy$ @andboo* on the Family "ode of the Phili))ines$ )! 244/24 <,991=! Id!$ )! 24 !

Aviii+,7AiA+,9AA+2;-

Id*, )! 24;!

48 S"R. 4,3 +,98,-! Id*, )! 423! Supra! Supra*

AAi+2,-

AAii+22-

AAiii+24-