Ninal vs.

Bayadog 328 SCRA 122

March 14, 2000

Fact of the Case:

Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa on September 26, 1974. On April 24, 1985

he shot and killed her. After 20 months he remarried Norma Badayog, the respondent

herewith. After Pepito died, his heirs by his first marriage filed a petition for declaration

of nullity on the marriage of their father with Norma Badayog on the ground of lack of

marriage license. Norma Badayog contends that the ground have no legal basis for her

marriage to Pepito according to Article 34 of the Family Code no marriage license is

necessary for person who have cohabited for atleast five years. The respondent also

contends that petitioners are not among those allowed by the law to file a suit for

declaration of nullity of her marriage to Pepito.

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent on the ground that indeed the

Family Code is silent as to situation. The Petition should have been filed before the death

of Pepito and not after his death. Thus, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the respondent is right to contend that no need of marriage

license was necessary for Pepito and her have cohabited for at least five years.

(2) Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito valid.

Held:
Pepito and Norma could not have possibly be legally cohabited for atleast five

years since Pepito was still married to Teodulfa counting backwards from the time he and

Norma celebrated their marriage. A period of cohabitation is characterized by exclusivity

and continuity. There should be no legal impediment on either party to marry. Pepito’s

previous marriage to Teodulfa is a legal impediment disqualifying him to the exception

of a marriage license. Thus, his second marriage should have a marriage license to be

valid. In this case, the marriage of Pepito and Norma lacking the formal requisite of a

marriage licese is therefore void.