Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Engrace Nina,Archie Nina and Jose Ninal Ruling:

Jr., petitioners
Petition GRANTED. The 2nd marriage is void
vs Norma Badayog, respondent for lack of marriage license. They cannot
claim exemption even though they instituted
Facts: an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for
at least 5 years because from the time of the
Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa
1st wife’s death, only about 20 months had
Bellones on September 26, 1974. Petitioners
elapsed. The five-year period should be
herein are the children of Pepito and
computed on the basis of cohabitation as
Teodulfa. On 1985, Pepito shot his first wife
“husband and wife” where the only missing
resulting in her death.
factor is the special contract of marriage to
One year and eight months, Pepito and validate the union. It should be a period of
respondent Norma Badayog got married cohabitation characterized by exclusivity—
without any marriage license. They executed meaning no third party was involved at any
an affidavit on December 11 , 1986 stating time within the five years, and continuity—that
that they lived together as husband and wife is, unbroken.
for 5 years and thus exempt from securing
The Code is silent as to who can file a petition
marriage license.
to declare the nullity of a marriage.
Some years after, Pepito died in a car Consequently, void marriages unde Family
accident. After their father’s death, petitioners Code can be questioned even after the death
filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of of either party but voidable marriages can be
their father’s 2nd marriage alleging that the assailed only during the lifetime of the parties
said marriage was VOID for lack of a and not after death of either, in which case
marriage license. The case was filed under the parties and their offspring will be left as if
the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the marriage had been perfectly valid. Void
the second marriage would affect petitioner’s marriages are deemed to have not taken
successional rights. The second wife filed a place and cannot be the source of rights. It
motion to dismiss on the ground that can be questioned even after the death of
petitioners have no cause of action since they one of the parties and any proper interested
are not among the persons who could file an party may attack a void marriage.
action for annulment of marriage under Article
47 of the Family Code.

Issue: Whether or not the heirs of the

deceased Pepito can file a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage after his
Republic vs. Jose A. Dayot that his consent to the marriage was secured
through fraud.
The RTC denied the husband’s petition.
Facts: The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. The
CA observed that the circumstances
On November 24, 1986, Jose and Felisa got
constituting fraud as a ground for annulment
married at Pasay City Hall. In lieu of a
of marriage under Article 86 of the Civil Code
marriage license, they executed a sworn
did not exist in the marriage between the
affidavit that they are of legal age, unmarried
parties. Further, it ruled that the action for
and they had lived together for at least 5
annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud
was filed beyond the prescriptive period
In Jose’s complaint: he only met provided by law as it should be commenced
Felisa in 1986 where he lived as a by said party within four (4) years after the
boarder on Felisa’s boarding house discovery of the fraud and within four (4)
and 3 weeks later was asked by Felisa years from the time the force or intimidation
to accompany her in the City Hall to ceased.
claim the package from her brother in
Issue: Whether or not Jose’s marriage with
Saudi Arabia; a man bearing 3 folded
Felisa is valid considering that they executed
paper approached him and was told to
a sworn affidavit in lieu of the marriage
sign it so that the package would be
license requirement?
released, Jose refused but Felisa
cajoled him that his refusal could get Ruling:
both of them killed by her brother who
learned their relationship, Jose signed The SC held that the falsity of an affidavit of
the paper; on February 1987, Jose marital cohabitation, where the parties have
saw a copy of their marriage contract in truth fallen short of the minimum five-year
on Felisa’s table, the latter denied requirement, effectively renders the marriage
VOID AB INITIO for lack of a marriage
In Felisa’s opposing complaint: she license. If this Court is to protect the fabric of
denied Jose’s allegation and defended the institution of marriage, we must be wary
validity of their marriage, she of deceptive schemes that violate the legal
contended that they maintained their measures set forth in our laws. It is
relationship since 1980. indubitably established that Jose and Felisa
have not lived together for five years at the
Jose contracted a second marriage with
time they executed their sworn affidavit and
Rufina Pascual, his co-employee at the
contracted marriage. A strict but reasonable
National Statistics and Coordinating Board.
construction of Article 76 leaves us with no
Felisa then filed an action for bigamy against
other expediency but to read the law as it is
Jose and an administrative complaint with the
plainly written. The exception of a marriage
Office of the Ombudsman. On the other
license under Article 76 applies only to
hand, Jose filed an action for annulment
those who have lived together as husband
and/or declaration of nullity of his 1st
and wife for at least five years and desire
marriage where he contended that his
to marry each other.
marriage was a sham as no marriage
ceremony was celebrated between the
parties; that he did not execute the sworn
affidavit stating that they had lived as
husband and wife for at least five years; and