1.

ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors BABYLINE
NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR., petitioners, vs.
NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.

G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000

TOPIC: Imprescriptibility of Action or Defense

I. FACTS
 Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones and gave birth to the petitioners
therein.
 Pepito shot Teodulfa resulting to her death.
 Thereafter, Pepito and Norma Bayadog got married without any marriage license,
but executed an affidavit stating that they had lived together as husband and wife
for at least five years.
 Pepito died in a car accident.
II. ARGUMENTS
 Petitioners (Won)
o Under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the marriage of
Pepito and Norma would affect the petitioners’ successional rights, they
filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of the said marriage alleging
that it was void for lack of a marriage license.
 Respondent (Lost)
o Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petitioners have no
cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an
action for “annulment of marriage.”
III. ISSUES
 Whether or not the cohabitation of Pepito and Norma warrants their exemption
from securing a marriage license.
 Whether or not the petitioners have the personality to file a petition to declare
their father’s marriage void after his death.
IV. RULING OF THE LOWER COURT (RTC)
 The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition on the basis that the petitioners
should have filed the action to declare null and void their father’s second marriage
before his death.
V. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT (SC)
 The SC granted the petition and reversed the decision of the RTC.
VI. RULE
 The 5-year period of cohabitation should be the years immediately before the day
of the marriage and it should be characterized by exclusivity.
o Any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first
spouse shall be illegal and void.
 The Family Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a
marriage. But voidable and void marriages are not identical.
o A marriage that is voidable is valid until otherwise declared by the court;
whereas a marriage that is void is considered as having never taken place.
 Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the
death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only
during the lifetime of the parties and not after the death of either.
 Thus, the action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable
marriages where the action prescribes.
o A judicial decree of nullity of a marriage does not legally dissolve a
marriage because such a marriage is void ab initio and, being non-existent,
cannot be dissolved.
VII. APPLICATION
 It cannot be said that Pepito and Norma have lived with each other as husband
and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day. Therefore, their
marriage is void ab initio.
o From the time Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved to the time of his
marriage with respondent, only about twenty months had elapsed.
 Pepito as well had a subsisting marriage at the time when he
started cohabiting with Norma.
 The petition was granted because the law makes either the action or defense for
the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage imprescriptible.
o The marriage of Pepito and Norma was void ab initio and is deemed as if
it never existed.
 “A void marriage does not require a judicial decree to restore the
parties to their original rights or to make the marriage void.”
VIII. CONCLUSION
 One can file a petition to declare the marriage void because it is imprescriptible.