G.R. No.

133778 March 14, 2000

ENGRACE NINAL, for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors BABYLINE NINAL, INGRID NINAL,
ARCHIE NINAL & PEPITO NINAL, JR., petitioners,

vs.

NORMA BADAYOG, respondent.

DOCTRINE/TOPIC: ARTICLE 40 OF THE FAMILY CODE: Juridical Declaration of Nullity

Marriages exempt from the License Requirement

FACTS:

Petitioners seeks the nullification of the marriage between their deceased father, Pepito Ninal,
and his second wife, Norma Badayog on the grounds that their marriage is void since they were not able
to secure a marriage license at the time of their union. Norma and Pepito got marriage one year and eight
months after Pepito and the petitioners’ mother was shot by Pepito himself resulting in her death on April
24, 1985.

On December 11, 1986 Norma and Pepito presented an affidavit stating their exemption from
securing a marriage license since they had already been living for at least five years. After Pepito’s death
from a car accident on February 19, 1997, the petitioners proceeded to file the invalidity of Pepito and
Norma’s marriage assuming it would affect the petitioner’s successional rights. Norma then filed a motion
to dismiss stating that the petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who
could file an action for “annulment of marriage” under Article 47 of the Family Code.

The lower court dismissed the petitioners’ case ruling that they should have filed the action for
nullification before their father’s death, applying by analogy Article 47 that enumerates the time and the
persons who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage. The petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration hence the Court reinstated the petition for review.

ISSUE:

1. WON the marriage of Norma and Pepito was valid from the beginning, invoking Article 76 of
the Family Code.
2. WON the petitioners can file on behalf of the spouse who is already dead

RULING:

1. No. Contemplating the nature of cohabitation that occurred between the two to legally classify
their marriage as valid, the Court rules that the five-year common-law cohabitation period should
be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation
characterized by exclusivity (no third parties were involved).
 More importantly, Article 63 and 64 of the Civil Code, as well as Articles 17 and 18 in the Family Code
calls for any of the parties to report any knowledge known to be an impediment of the upcoming
union between the two to the Civil Registrar. In this case, the death of Pepito’s first wife should have
been presented to the Civil Registrar before he proceeded to marry Norma. From the time Pepito’s
first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent, only about twenty months
have elapsed, deeming Pepito to have a subsisting marriage at the time he cohabitated with Norma.

Hence, the Court declares Pepito and Norma’s marriage as void ab initio and cannot invoke Article
76.

2. Yes. The Court rules that Article 47 of the Family Code cannot be applied even by analogy to
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. Article 47 pertains to the grounds, periods and
persons who can file an annulment suit, not a suit for the declaration of nullity of marriage. The
Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage. Furthermore, void
and voidable marriages are not identical. Since the marriage between the two is void, it is
therefore imprescriptible (rights cannot be taken away by prescription or lapse of time) and can
be questioned even after Pepito’s death. Void marriages have no legal effects except those
declared by law concerning the properties of the alleged spouses claiming co-ownership and its
effect on children born out of void marriages.

The Court also notes that a void marriage should be ascertained and declared by the Court
concerning the material facts and legal rights upon the parties involved and maintain its invalidity.

The Court GRANTS their petition, REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the RTC’s initial order and lastly,
REINSTATES their case for nullity of marriage.

NOTES:

VOID- Void ab initio

- The marriage is considered to not have existed from the very beginning (was never valid from the
start)
- Cannot be a source of rights
- Can be questioned even after the death of either party

VOIDABLE

- The Court recognizes its validity and can be rendered void if there is a cause of action
- Can only be assailed during the lifetime of the parties and not after the death of either, in which
case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid.