Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CD 4 - Ninal v. Bayadog, GR. No. 133778, March 14, 200
CD 4 - Ninal v. Bayadog, GR. No. 133778, March 14, 200
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
GR No. 133778, March 14, 2000
ENGRACE NIÑAL for herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID
NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL and PEPITO NIÑAL, JR, petitioners,
V
NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.
Facts:
Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting
in her death on April 24,198.
On December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadof got married without any marriage license. On
February 19, Pepito died in a car accident.
After their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and
Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. The case was filed under the
assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner’s successional rights.
Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among
the persons who could file an action for “annulment of marriage”
Issue:
Whether or not the second marriage of plaintiff’ deceased father with defendant is null and void ab initio.
Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action against defendant in asking for the declaration of the nullity of
marriage of their deceased father, Pepito G. Niñal, with her specially so when at the time of the filing of this instant
suit, their father Pepito G. Niñal is already dead.
Ruling:
At that time that Pepito and respondents marriage, 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 that Pepito’s marriage was
dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent, only about twenty months had elapsed. Even assuming that
Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and respondent had already started living
with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact that their five-year period cohabitation was not the
cohabitation contemplated by law. Pepito had subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with
respondent. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from his
lawful spouse. The subsistence of marriage even when there was actual severance of the filial companionship
between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as “husband
and wife.”
Having determined that the second marriage involved in this case is not covered by the exception to the
requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element.
The code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. Void and voidable marriages
are not identical. 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 death of either, in which case the
parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid.