Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

133778 March 14, 2000 ENGRACE NIAL for !r"!#f a$% a" G&ar%'a$ ad Litem of (h! )'$or" *A*+LINE NIAL, INGRI, NIAL, ARC IE NIAL - PEPITO NIAL, .R., petitioners, vs. NORMA *A+A,OG, respondent. +NARES/SANTIAGO, J.: Ma the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullit of his !arria"e after his death# Pepito Ni$al %as !arried to Teodulfa &ellones on Septe!ber '(, )*+,. Out of their !arria"e %ere born herein petitioners. Teodulfa %as shot b Pepito resultin" in her death on -pril ',, )*./. One ear and . !onths thereafter or on Dece!ber )), )*.(, Pepito and respondent Nor!a &ada o" "ot !arried %ithout an !arria"e license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Nor!a e0ecuted an affidavit dated Dece!ber )), )*.( statin" that the had lived to"ether as husband and %ife for at least five ears and %ere thus e0e!pt fro! securin" a !arria"e license. On Februar )*, )**+, Pepito died in a car accident. -fter their father1s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullit of the !arria"e of Pepito to Nor!a alle"in" that the said !arria"e %as void for lac2 of a !arria"e license. The case %as filed under the assu!ption that the validit or invalidit of the second !arria"e %ould affect petitioner1s successional ri"hts. Nor!a filed a !otion to dis!iss on the "round that petitioners have no cause of action since the are not a!on" the persons %ho could file an action for 3annul!ent of !arria"e3 under -rticle ,+ of the Fa!il 4ode. 5ud"e Ferdinand 5. Marcos of the Re"ional Trial 4ourt of Toledo 4it , 4ebu, &ranch /*, dis!issed the petition after findin" that the Fa!il 4ode is 3rather silent, obscure, insufficient3 to resolve the follo%in" issues6 7)8 9hether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action a"ainst defendant in as2in" for the declaration of the nullit of !arria"e of their deceased father, Pepito :. Ni$al, %ith her speciall so %hen at the ti!e of the filin" of this instant suit, their father Pepito :. Ni$al is alread dead; 7'8 9hether or not the second !arria"e of plaintiffs1 deceased father %ith defendant is null and void ab initio; 7<8 9hether or not plaintiffs are estopped fro! assailin" the validit of the second !arria"e after it %as dissolved due to their father1s death. ) Thus, the lo%er court ruled that petitioners should have filed the action to declare null and void their father1s !arria"e to respondent before his death, appl in" b analo" -rticle ,+ of the Fa!il 4ode %hich enu!erates the ti!e and the persons %ho could initiate an action for annul!ent of !arria"e. ' =ence, this petition for revie% %ith this 4ourt "rounded on a pure >uestion of la%. This petition %as ori"inall dis!issed for non?co!pliance %ith Section )), Rule )< of the )**+ Rules of 4ivil Procedure, and because 3the verification failed to state the basis of petitioner1s aver!ent that the alle"ations in the petition are 3true and correct3.3 It %as thus treated as an unsi"ned pleadin" %hich produces no le"al effect under Section <, Rule +, of the )**+ Rules. < =o%ever, upon !otion of petitioners, this 4ourt reconsidered the dis!issal and reinstated the petition for revie%. , The t%o !arria"es involved herein havin" been sole!ni@ed prior to the effectivit of the Fa!il 4ode 7F48, the applicable la% to deter!ine their validit is the 4ivil 4ode %hich %as the la% in effect at the ti!e of their celebration. / valid !arria"e license is a re>uisite of !arria"e under -rticle /< of the 4ivil 4ode, ( the absence of %hich renders the !arria"e void ab initio pursuant to -rticle .A7<8 + in relation to -rticle /.. . The re>uire!ent and issuance of !arria"e license is the State1s de!onstration of its involve!ent and participation in ever !arria"e, in the !aintenance of %hich the "eneral public is interested. * This interest proceeds fro! the constitutional !andate that the State reco"ni@es the sanctit of fa!il life and of affordin" protection to the fa!il as a basic 3autono!ous social institution.3 )A Specificall , the 4onstitution considers !arria"e as an 3inviolable social institution,3 and is the foundation of fa!il life %hich shall be protected b the State. )) This is %h the Fa!il 4ode considers !arria"e as 3a special contract of per!anent union3 )' and case la% considers it 3not Bust an adventure but a lifeti!e co!!it!ent.3 )< =o%ever, there are several instances reco"ni@ed b the 4ivil 4ode %herein a !arria"e license is dispensed %ith, one of %hich is that provided in -rticle +(, ), referrin" to the !arria"e of a !an and a %o!an %ho have lived to"ether and e0clusivel %ith each other as husband and %ife for a continuous and unbro2en period of at least five ears before the !arria"e. The rationale %h no license is re>uired in such case is to avoid e0posin" the parties to hu!iliation, sha!e and e!barrass!ent conco!itant %ith the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid !arria"e due to the publication of ever applicant1s na!e for a !arria"e license. The publicit attendin" the !arria"e license !a discoura"e such persons fro! le"iti!i@in" their status. )/ To preserve peace in the fa!il , avoid the peepin" and suspicious e e of public e0posure

and contain the source of "ossip arisin" fro! the publication of their na!es, the la% dee!ed it %ise to preserve their privac and e0e!pt the! fro! that re>uire!ent. There is no dispute that the !arria"e of petitioners1 father to respondent Nor!a %as celebrated %ithout an !arria"e license. In lieu thereof, the e0ecuted an affidavit statin" that 3the have attained the a"e of !aBorit , and, bein" un!arried, have lived to"ether as husband and %ife for at least five ears, and that %e no% desire to !arr each other.3 )( The onl issue that needs to be resolved pertains to %hat nature of cohabitation is conte!plated under -rticle +( of the 4ivil 4ode to %arrant the countin" of the five ear period in order to e0e!pt the future spouses fro! securin" a !arria"e license. Should it be a cohabitation %herein both parties are capacitated to !arr each other durin" the entire five? ear continuous period or should it be a cohabitation %herein both parties have lived to"ether and e0clusivel %ith each other as husband and %ife durin" the entire five? ear continuous period re"ardless of %hether there is a le"al i!pedi!ent to their bein" la%full !arried, %hich i!pedi!ent !a have either disappeared or intervened so!eti!e durin" the cohabitation period# 9or2in" on the assu!ption that Pepito and Nor!a have lived to"ether as husband and %ife for five ears %ithout the benefit of !arria"e, that five? ear period should be co!puted on the basis of a cohabitation as 3husband and %ife3 %here the onl !issin" factor is the special contract of !arria"e to validate the union. In other %ords, the five? ear co!!on?la% cohabitation period, %hich is counted bac2 fro! the date of celebration of !arria"e, should be a period of le"al union had it not been for the absence of the !arria"e. This /? ear period should be the ears i!!ediatel before the da of the !arria"e and it should be a period of cohabitation characteri@ed b e0clusivit C !eanin" no third part %as involved at an ti!e %ithin the / ears and continuit C that is unbro2en. Other%ise, if that continuous /? ear cohabitation is co!puted %ithout an distinction as to %hether the parties %ere capacitated to !arr each other durin" the entire five ears, then the la% %ould be sanctionin" i!!oralit and encoura"in" parties to have co!!on la% relationships and placin" the! on the sa!e footin" %ith those %ho lived faithfull %ith their spouse. Marria"e bein" a special relationship !ust be respected as such and its re>uire!ents !ust be strictl observed. The presu!ption that a !an and a %o!an deportin" the!selves as husband and %ife is based on the appro0i!ation of the re>uire!ents of the la%. The parties should not be afforded an e0cuse to not co!pl %ith ever sin"le re>uire!ent and later use the sa!e !issin" ele!ent as a pre?conceived escape "round to nullif their !arria"e. There should be no e0e!ption fro! securin" a !arria"e license unless the circu!stances clearl fall %ithin the a!bit of the e0ception. It should be noted that a license is re>uired in order to notif the public that t%o persons are about to be united in !atri!on and that an one %ho is a%are or has 2no%led"e of an i!pedi!ent to the union of the t%o shall !a2e it 2no%n to the local civil re"istrar. )+ The 4ivil 4ode provides6 -rt. (<6 . . . This notice shall re>uest all persons havin" 2no%led"e of an i!pedi!ent to the !arria"e to advice the local civil re"istrar thereof. . . . -rt. (,6 Dpon bein" advised of an alle"ed i!pedi!ent to the !arria"e, the local civil re"istrar shall forth%ith !a2e an investi"ation, e0a!inin" persons under oath. . . . This is reiterated in the Fa!il 4ode thus6 -rt. )+ provides in part6 . . . This notice shall re>uest all persons havin" 2no%led"e of an i!pedi!ent to the !arria"e to advise the local civil re"istrar thereof. . . . -rt. ). reads in part6 . . . In case of an i!pedi!ent 2no%n to the local civil re"istrar or brou"ht to his attention, he shall note do%n the particulars thereof and his findin"s thereon in the application for a !arria"e license. . . . This is the sa!e reason %h our civil la%s, past or present, absolutel prohibited the concurrence of !ultiple !arria"es b the sa!e person durin" the sa!e period. Thus, an !arria"e subse>uentl contracted durin" the lifeti!e of the first spouse shall be ille"al and void, ). subBect onl to the e0ception in cases of absence or %here the prior !arria"e %as dissolved or annulled. The Revised Penal 4ode co!ple!ents the civil la% in that the contractin" of t%o or !ore !arria"es and the havin" of e0tra!arital affairs are considered felonies, i.e., bi"a! and concubina"e and adulter . )* The la% sanctions !ono"a! . In this case, at the ti!e of Pepito and respondent1s !arria"e, it cannot be said that the have lived %ith each other as husband and %ife for at least five ears prior to their %eddin" da . Fro! the ti!e Pepito1s first !arria"e %as dissolved to the ti!e of his !arria"e %ith respondent, onl about t%ent !onths had elapsed. Even assu!in" that Pepito and his first %ife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and respondent had started livin" %ith each other that has alread lasted for five ears, the fact re!ains that their five? ear period cohabitation %as not the cohabitation conte!plated b la%. It should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the la% but rendered i!perfect onl b the absence of the !arria"e contract. Pepito had a subsistin" !arria"e at the ti!e %hen he started cohabitin" %ith respondent. It is i!!aterial that %hen the lived %ith each other, Pepito had alread been separated in fact fro! his la%ful spouse. The subsistence of the !arria"e even %here there %as actual severance of the filial co!panionship bet%een the spouses cannot !a2e an cohabitation b either spouse %ith an third part as bein" one as 3husband and %ife3. =avin" deter!ined that the second !arria"e involved in this case is not covered b the e0ception to the re>uire!ent of a !arria"e license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such ele!ent.

The ne0t issue to be resolved is6 do petitioners have the personalit to file a petition to declare their father1s !arria"e void after his death# 4ontrar to respondent Bud"e1s rulin", -rticle ,+ of the Fa!il 4ode 'A cannot be applied even b analo" to petitions for declaration of nullit of !arria"e. The second "round for annul!ent of !arria"e relied upon b the trial court, %hich allo%s 3the sane spouse3 to file an annul!ent suit 3at an ti!e before the death of either part 3 is inapplicable. -rticle ,+ pertains to the "rounds, periods and persons %ho can file an annul!ent suit, not a suit for declaration of nullit of !arria"e. The 4ode is silent as to %ho can file a petition to declare the nullit of a !arria"e. Voidable and void !arria"es are not identical. - !arria"e that is annulable is valid until other%ise declared b the court; %hereas a !arria"e that is void ab initio is considered as havin" never to have ta2en place ') and cannot be the source of ri"hts. The first can be "enerall ratified or confir!ed b free cohabitation or prescription %hile the other can never be ratified. - voidable !arria"e cannot be assailed collaterall e0cept in a direct proceedin" %hile a void !arria"e can be attac2ed collaterall . 4onse>uentl , void !arria"es can be >uestioned even after the death of either part but voidable !arria"es can be assailed onl durin" the lifeti!e of the parties and not after death of either, in %hich case the parties and their offsprin" %ill be left as if the !arria"e had been perfectl valid. '' That is %h the action or defense for nullit is i!prescriptible, unli2e voidable !arria"es %here the action prescribes. Onl the parties to a voidable !arria"e can assail it but an proper interested part !a attac2 a void !arria"e. Void !arria"es have no le"al effects e0cept those declared b la% concernin" the properties of the alle"ed spouses, re"ardin" co?o%nership or o%nership throu"h actual Boint contribution, '< and its effect on the children born to such void !arria"es as provided in -rticle /A in relation to -rticle ,< and ,, as %ell as -rticle /), /< and /, of the Fa!il 4ode. On the contrar , the propert re"i!e "overnin" voidable !arria"es is "enerall conBu"al partnership and the children conceived before its annul!ent are le"iti!ate. 4ontrar to the trial court1s rulin", the death of petitioner1s father e0tin"uished the alle"ed !arital bond bet%een hi! and respondent. The conclusion is erroneous and proceeds fro! a %ron" pre!ise that there %as a !arria"e bond that %as dissolved bet%een the t%o. It should be noted that their !arria"e %as void hence it is dee!ed as if it never e0isted at all and the death of either e0tin"uished nothin". 5urisprudence under the 4ivil 4ode states that no Budicial decree is necessar in order to establish the nullit of a !arria"e. ', 3- void !arria"e does not re>uire a Budicial decree to restore the parties to their ori"inal ri"hts or to !a2e the !arria"e void but thou"h no sentence of avoidance be absolutel necessar , et as %ell for the sa2e of "ood order of societ as for the peace of !ind of all concerned, it is e0pedient that the nullit of the !arria"e should be ascertained and declared b the decree of a court of co!petent Burisdiction.3 '/ 3Dnder ordinar circu!stances, the effect of a void !arria"e, so far as concerns the conferrin" of le"al ri"hts upon the parties, is as thou"h no !arria"e had ever ta2en place. -nd therefore, bein" "ood for no le"al purpose, its invalidit can be !aintained in an proceedin" in %hich the fact of !arria"e !a be !aterial, either direct or collateral, in an civil court bet%een an parties at an ti!e, %hether before or after the death of either or both the husband and the %ife, and upon !ere proof of the facts renderin" such !arria"e void, it %ill be disre"arded or treated as non?e0istent b the courts.3 It is not li2e a voidable !arria"e %hich cannot be collaterall attac2ed e0cept in direct proceedin" instituted durin" the lifeti!e of the parties so that on the death of either, the !arria"e cannot be i!peached, and is !ade "ood ab initio. '( &ut -rticle ,A of the Fa!il 4ode e0pressl provides that there !ust be a Budicial declaration of the nullit of a previous !arria"e, thou"h void, before a part can enter into a second !arria"e '+ and such absolute nullit can be based onl on a final Bud"!ent to that effect. '. For the sa!e reason, the la% !a2es either the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullit of !arria"e i!prescriptible. '* 4orollaril , if the death of either part %ould e0tin"uish the cause of action or the "round for defense, then the sa!e cannot be considered i!prescriptible. =o%ever, other than for purposes of re!arria"e, no Budicial action is necessar to declare a !arria"e an absolute nullit .1wphi1 For other purposes, such as but not li!ited to deter!ination of heirship, le"iti!ac or ille"iti!ac of a child, settle!ent of estate, dissolution of propert re"i!e, or a cri!inal case for that !atter, the court !a pass upon the validit of !arria"e even in a suit not directl instituted to >uestion the sa!e so lon" as it is essential to the deter!ination of the case. This is %ithout preBudice to an issue that !a arise in the case. 9hen such need arises, a final Bud"!ent of declaration of nullit is necessar even if the purpose is other than to re!arr . The clause 3on the basis of a final Bud"!ent declarin" such previous !arria"e void3 in -rticle ,A of the Fa!il 4ode connotes that such final Bud"!ent need not be obtained onl for purpose of re!arria"e. 9=EREFORE, the petition is :R-NTED. The assailed Order of the Re"ional Trial 4ourt, Toledo 4it , 4ebu, &ranch /*, dis!issin" 4ivil 4ase No. T?(<*, is REVERSED and SET -SIDE. The said case is ordered REINST-TED. 1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Pardo, J., on official business abroad. 0oo($o(!"

The dispositive portion of the Order dated March '+, )**. issued b 5ud"e Ferdinand 5. Marcos of Re"ional Trial 4ourt 7RT48 C &ranch /*, Toledo 4it , reads6 39=EREFORE, pre!ises considered, defendant1s !otion to dis!iss is hereb "ranted and this instant case is hereb ordered dis!issed %ithout costs.3 7p. (; Rollo, p. ')8. ' Order, p. ,; Rollo, p. )*. < Minute Resolution dated 5ul )<, )**.; Rollo, p. <*. , Minute Resolution dated October +, )**.; Rollo, p. /A. / Ta!ano v. Orti@, '*) S4R- /., 7)**.8. ( No% -rticle <, Fa!il 4ode. -rt. /<. No !arria"e shall be sole!ni@ed unless all the re>uisites are co!plied %ith6 7)8 Fe"al capacit of the contractin" parties; their consent, freel "iven; 7'8 -uthorit of the person perfor!in" the !arria"e; and 7<8 - !arria"e license, e0cept in a !arria"e of e0ceptional character. + No% -rticle ,, Fa!il 4ode. -rt. .A. The follo%in" !arria"es shall be void fro! the be"innin"6 000 000 000 7<8 Those sole!ni@ed %ithout a !arria"e license, save !arria"es of e0ceptional character. 000 000 000 . -rt. /.. Save !arria"es of an e0ceptional character authori@ed in 4hapter ' of this Title, but not those under article +/, no !arria"e shall be sole!ni@ed %ithout a license first bein" issued b the local civil re"istrar of the !unicipalit %here either contractin" part habituall resides. * Perido v. Perido, (< S4R- *+ 7)*+/8. )A Sec. )', -rticle II, )*.+ 4onstitution; =ernande@ v. 4-, :.R. No. )'(A)A, Dece!ber ., )***; See also Tuason v. 4-, '/( S4R- )/. 7)**(8. )) Sec. ', -rticle GV 7The Fa!il 8, )*.+ 4onstitution. )' -rt. ), a!il" Code provides6 3Marria"e is a special contract of per!anent union bet%een a !an and a %o!an entered into in accordance %ith la% for the establish!ent of conBu"al or fa!il life. . . . )< Santos v. 4-, /. S4-D )+ 7)**/8; <)A Phil. '), ,) 7)**/8. ), No% -rticle <,, Fa!il 4ode. -rt. +(. No !arria"e license shall be necessar %hen a !an and a %o!an %ho have attained the a"e of !aBorit and %ho, bein" un!arried, have lived to"ether as husband and %ife for at least five ears, desire to !arr each other. The contractin" parties shall state the fore"oin" facts in an affidavit before an person authori@ed b la% to ad!inister oaths. The official, priest or !inister %ho sole!ni@ed the !arria"e shall also state in an affidavit that he too2 steps to ascertain the a"es and other >ualifications of the contractin" parties and that he found no le"al i!pedi!ent to the !arria"e. )/ Report of the 4ode 4o!!ission, p. .A. )( Rollo, p. '*. )+ -rt. (< and (,, 4ivil 4ode; -rticle )+ and )., Fa!il 4ode. ). -rt. .<, 4ivil 4ode provides 3-n !arria"e subse>uentl contracted b an person durin" the lifeti!e of the first spouse of such person %ith an person other than such first spouse shall be ille"al and void fro! its perfor!ance, unless6 7)8 the first !arria"e %as annulled or dissolved; or 7'8 the first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive ears. . . . -rt. ,) of the a!il" Code reads6 3- !arria"e contracted b an person durin" the subsistence of a previous !arria"e shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subse>uent !arria"e, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive ears. . .3 )* -rts. <<< and <<,, Revised Penal 4ode. 'A -rt. ,+. The action for annul!ent of !arria"e !ust be filed b the follo%in" persons and %ithin the periods indicated herein6 7)8 For causes !entioned in nu!ber ) of -rticle ,/ b the part %hose parent or "uardian did not "ive his or her consent, %ithin five ears after attainin" the a"e of t%ent ?one; or b the parent or "uardian or person havin" le"al char"e of the !inor, at an ti!e before such part has reached the a"e of t%ent ?one; 7'8 For causes !entioned in nu!ber ' of -rticle ,/, b the sane spouse, %ho had no 2no%led"e of the other1s insanit ; or b an relative or "uardian or person havin" le"al char"e of the insane, at an ti!e before the death of either part , or b the insane spouse durin" a lucid interval or after re"ainin" sanit ; 7<8 For causes !entioned in nu!ber < of -rticle ,/, b the inBured part , %ithin five ears after the discover of the fraud; 7,8 For causes !entioned in nu!ber , of -rticle ,/, b the inBured part , %ithin five ears fro! the ti!e the force, inti!idation or undue influence disappeared or ceased; For causes !entioned in nu!bers / and ( of -rticle ,/, b the inBured part , %ithin five ears after the !arria"e. ') Sunta v. 4oBuanco?Sunta , <AA S4R- +(A 7)**.8; People v. Retire!ent &oard, '+' III. -pp. /* cited in I Tolentino, 4ivil 4ode, )**A ed. p. '+).

''

In re 4on@a1s Estate, )+( III. )*'; Miller v. Miller, )+/ 4al. +*+, )(+ Pac. <*, cited in I Tolentino, 4ivil 4ode, )**A ed., p. '+). '< -rt. ),.?),*, Fa!il 4ode; -rticle ),,, 4ivil 4ode. ', Oda at v. -!ante, ++ S4R- <<. 7)*++8; 9ei"el v. Se!pio?D , ),< S4R- ,** 7)*.(8; People v. Mendo@a, */ Phil. .,/ 7)*/,8; /A O.:. 7)A8 ,+(+ cited in People v. -ra"on, )AA Phil. )A<< 7)*/+8; /< O.:. <+,*. '/ </ -!. 5ur. ')*?''A. '( ). R4F ,,(?+; </ -! 5ur. ''). '+ -pia" v. 4antero, <</ Phil. /)) 7)**+8; '(. S4R- ,+ 7)**+8; -tien@a v. 5ud"e &rillantes, 5r., (A S4-D ))*; <)' Phil. *<* 7)**/8. '. Do!in"o v. 4-, ''( S4R- /+' 7)**<8. '* -rt. <*, Fa!il 4ode as a!ended b E.O. 'A* and ''+ s. )*.+ and further a!ended b R.-. No. ./<< dated Februar '<, )**.. The Fa%phil ProBect ? -rellano Fa% Foundation