V. G. 1.

h Niñal vs Badayog
NIÑAL VS BADAYOG

WHO CAN INVOKE NULLITY

Engrace Niñal for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors Babyline Niñal, Ingrid Niñal,
Archie Niñal & Pepito Niñal Jr. petitioners vs. Norma Badayog, respondent
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Legal Action: Petition for review on certiorari of lower court decision

Facts:
Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones, the petitioners are their children. In
1985, Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death. On December 11, 1986 – 1 year
and 8 months after Teodulfa died, Pepito married respondent Norma Badayog without any
marriage license, claiming in an affidavit that they have been living together as husband and
wife for at least 5 years, thus exempting them from securing a marriage license.
In 1997, Pepito dies, petitioners file a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage
of Pepito to Norma on grounds that it was void due to the lack of marriage license.
Petitioners are of the view that the validity/invalidity of the second marriage will affect their
succesional rights. Petitioners are petitioning for the second marriage to be rendered void
for lack of marriage license.
Respondent file a motion to dismiss on grounds that petitioners have no cause of
action since they were not among the persons who can file an action for “annulment of
marriage” under Art. 47 of FC. RTC ruled in favor of respondent and thus this petition. This
case happened before FC so Civil Code applies.

ISSUE HELD RATIO

Whether or not the
cohabitation of Pepito and
Norma is pursuant to the
nature of cohabitation that is
contemplated under Art. 76 of
the Civil Code to warrant the
counting of five years period
in order to exempt future
spouses from securing a
marriage license.
NO The nature of cohabitation contemplated
under Art 76, the five year period, which
counted back from date of celebration of
marriage, must be a period of legal union
had it not been for the absence of marriage.
It should be in the nature of a perfect union
that is valid under the law rendered
imperfect only by absence of marriage
contract, and characterized by exclusivity –
meaning no third party was involved at any
time within the 5 years and continuity – that
is unbroken.

Pepito and Norma’s cohabitation is not

 covered by the exemption on requirement of
marriage license due to the fact that his
marriage with Teodulfa was still subsisting
when he was cohabiting with Norma.

Second marriage is rendered void ab initio.

Whether or not petitioners YES
have the personality to
declare their father’s marriage
void after his death.
Art 47 of FC cannot be applied, the Civil Code
will apply.
The Code is silent as to who can file a petition
to declare nullity of marriage. Void marriages,
such as deceased’s marriage to Badayog, can
be questioned despite death of one party.
Action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible.

DECISION: Petition is GRANTED.

Notes:

Art. 53 of Civil Code (Now Art 3 of FC)

No marriage shall be solemnized unless the requisites are complied with:

1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; their consent freely given;

2) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and

3) A marriage license, except in marriage of exceptional character.

Art. 76 of Civil Code (Now Art 34 of FC)

Art 47 of FC