The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower court's decision. It held that while Nicdao's marriage was void due to lack of a marriage license, Yee's subsequent marriage was also void as bigamous since it occurred during the subsistence of Nicdao's marriage, which was presumed valid at the time. As such, Article 148 applies and wages are split exclusively between each party. Therefore, Nicdao is entitled to the full 146k in death benefits as the legal spouse under Article 147, with the remaining amount going to Santiago's children from the first marriage.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower court's decision. It held that while Nicdao's marriage was void due to lack of a marriage license, Yee's subsequent marriage was also void as bigamous since it occurred during the subsistence of Nicdao's marriage, which was presumed valid at the time. As such, Article 148 applies and wages are split exclusively between each party. Therefore, Nicdao is entitled to the full 146k in death benefits as the legal spouse under Article 147, with the remaining amount going to Santiago's children from the first marriage.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the lower court's decision. It held that while Nicdao's marriage was void due to lack of a marriage license, Yee's subsequent marriage was also void as bigamous since it occurred during the subsistence of Nicdao's marriage, which was presumed valid at the time. As such, Article 148 applies and wages are split exclusively between each party. Therefore, Nicdao is entitled to the full 146k in death benefits as the legal spouse under Article 147, with the remaining amount going to Santiago's children from the first marriage.
SUSAN Presumed validity of Nicdao’s marriage w/ the
YEE CARIÑO, respondent. deceased cannot stand as there is no marriage license, burden of proof of validity was w/ her. It FACTS: SPO4 Santiago Carino contracted 2 does not follow however, that since the marriage of marriages during his lifetime. The first was on June petitioner and the deceased is declared void ab 20, 1969 with Susan Nicdao-Carino, the petitioner initio, the “death benefits” would now be awarded of the case at bar with whom he had 2 children and to Yee. As stated earlier, for purposes of remarriage, the second was on November 10, 1992 with Susan there must first be a prior judicial declaration of the Yee-Carino, the respondent, with whom he had no nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before children. Santiago has been cohabiting with Susan a party can enter into a second marriage, otherwise, Yee since 1983 but became bedridden in 1988 and the second marriage would also be void. died 13 days after the second wedding. Both Susans Considering then that the marriage of Yee and the filed for monetary benefits and financial assistance. deceased is a bigamous marriage, having been Nicdao was able to collect 146K while Yee was able solemnized during the subsistence of a previous to collect 21K. On December 14, 1993, Yee filed an marriage then presumed to be valid, the application instant case for collection of sum of money against of Article 148 is therefore in order. As to the Nicdao. Yee wanted at least half of the 146K. Nicdao property regime of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the failed to file her answer and was declared in default. deceased, Article 147 of the Family Code governs as Yee admitted that her marriage to Santiago took they were both legally capacitated. The difference place during the subsistence of, and without first bet 147 and 148 is that wages and salaries earned obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of, the by either party during the cohabitation period will marriage between petitioner and the deceased. She, be split equally between them even if only one however, claimed that she had no knowledge of the party contributed in 147, whereas in 148 wages and previous marriage and that she became aware of it salaries earned by each party belong to him or her only at the funeral of the deceased, where she met exclusively. So under Art 147, Susan Nicdao is petitioner who introduced herself as the wife of the entitled to half of the remunerations and the other deceased. To bolster her action for collection of half belong to the legal heirs of Santiago, who are sum of money, respondent contended that the in this case, the children of Susan Nicdao marriage of petitioner and the deceased is void ab initio because the same was solemnized without The petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the the required marriage license. In support thereof, Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51263 which respondent presented: 1) the marriage certificate of affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of the deceased and the petitioner which bears no Quezon City ordering petitioner to pay respondent marriage license number and 2) a certification the sum of P73,000.00 plus attorney’s fees in the dated March 9, 1994, from the Local Civil Registrar amount of P5,000.00, is REVERSED and SET of San Juan, Metro Manila, which summarily stated ASIDE. The complaint in Civil Case No. Q-93- that there was no record of a marriage license The 18632, is hereby DISMISSED. trial court ruled in favor of Susan Yee. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court
ISSUE: WON the absolute nullity of marriage may be
invoked to settle claims to death benefits
HELD: Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. In such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void.