Rep., petitioner, v. Dayot, respondent.

[G.R No. 150758, February 18, 2004]

Case Digest

Facts:
Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones, on September 26, 1974. Out of their
marriage were born herein Babyline Ninal, Ingrid Ninal, Archie Ninal, and Pepito Ninal, Jr, all were
minors.

Bellones was shot by Pepito Ninal resulting her death on April 24, 1985.

One year and 8 months later, Pepito Ninal contracted marriage with Badayog without marriage
license. They both executed and affidavit stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license.

Pepito Ninal died in a car accident. After their father’s death, Engrace Ninal as the Guardian ad litem
of the petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging
that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that Engrace Ninal have no legal standing since they are not among the persons who could file
an action for “annulment of marriage” under Article 47 of Family Code.

The two marriages involved in the case were contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code, the
applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of
the celebration of marriage.

Under the Civil Code, a Valid Marriage is a requisite.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage between Pepito and Norma valid?

Ruling:
NO.
It cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior
to their wedding day. From the time Pepito’s marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with
Bayadog, only about 20months had elapsed. Even assuming that Pepito and his first wife were
separated in fact, the five-year cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law.it should be
in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence
of the marriage contract.

Thus, the second marriage involved in the case is not covered by the exception to the requirement of a
marriage license; it is Void Ab Initio because of absent of such element.