Cariño v. Cariño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño contracted two marriages: the first on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño, with whom he had two children; and the second on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cariño. The deceased fell ill in 1988 and passed away on November 23, 1992, under the care of Susan Yee, who defrayed his medical and burial expenses. Both wives filed claims for the deceased's death benefits. Petitioner Susan Nicdao collected P146,000.00, while respondent Susan Yee received P21,000.00. Procedural History: Respondent Susan Yee filed a collection case against petitioner Susan Nicdao, praying for the return of at least half of the P146,000.00 in death benefits. Petitioner failed to file an answer and was declared in default. Respondent claimed her marriage to the deceased was valid, asserting ignorance of the prior marriage until the funeral. She presented the marriage certificate of the deceased and petitioner, which lacked a marriage license number, and a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, confirming no record of a marriage license. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay P73,000.00 plus attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in applying Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS and equity instead of the Family Code, and that Vda. de Consuegra was modified by the Family Code.
Issue(s)
Whether a prior judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary to determine entitlement to death benefits. Whether the marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño is void ab initio. Whether respondent Susan Yee is entitled to a share of the death benefits collected by petitioner Susan Nicdao.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. Petitioner is not ordered to pay respondent any amount.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of a prior judicial declaration of nullity: The Court clarified that under Article 40 of the Family Code, a prior judicial declaration of nullity is an indispensable prerequisite solely for the purpose of remarriage. For other purposes, such as determining entitlement to death benefits or resolving civil claims, a court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even after the death of the parties, provided that evidence is adduced to prove the grounds for nullity. The Court held that the RTC and CA erred in requiring a prior judicial declaration of nullity for the purpose of determining the rightful claimant to the death benefits. On the nullity of the marriage between petitioner and the deceased: The Court found that the marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, solemnized in 1969, was void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license. The marriage certificate bore no license number, and the Local Civil Registrar certified that no record of such license existed. The Court held that this certification, absent any suspicion, has probative value. The presumed validity of the marriage was overcome, and petitioner failed to present evidence to prove the existence of a valid marriage license. Therefore, the marriage was declared void ab initio. On the entitlement to death benefits: The Court ruled that since both the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased, and the marriage of respondent Susan Yee and the deceased, were void ab initio, the property regime would be governed by Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code, pertaining to unions without marriage. Specifically, Article 148 applies to bigamous marriages. Under Article 148, only properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common. The death benefits in question were remunerations earned by the deceased as a police officer, and respondent Susan Yee did not present proof of her contribution to their acquisition. Thus, these benefits belong to the deceased alone and pass by intestate succession to his legal heirs, who are his children with Susan Nicdao. The Court also noted that the second marriage of the deceased with respondent Susan Yee was also void ab initio because it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage without a prior judicial declaration of nullity, as required by Article 40 for remarriage.
Main Doctrine
A prior judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage is not necessary for purposes other than remarriage, such as the determination of entitlement to death benefits, provided that evidence is adduced to prove the nullity of the marriage. However, for remarriage, a judicial declaration of nullity is an indispensable prerequisite.