G.R. No. 132529 . February 2, 2001
SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO, respondent.

FACTS

The late SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño contracted two marriages. The first was with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño on June 20, 1969, with whom he had two children. The second was with respondent Susan Yee Cariño on November 10, 1992, after cohabiting since 1982, and with whom he had no children. The deceased passed away in November 1992. Both women filed claims for his death benefits from various government agencies. Susan Nicdao collected P146,000.00, while Susan Yee received P21,000.00.
Susan Yee subsequently filed a collection case against Susan Nicdao to recover half of the P146,000.00. She admitted her marriage to the deceased was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage but claimed she was unaware of it. To support her claim, she argued the first marriage was void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license, presenting a marriage certificate with no license number and a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan confirming no record of such a license. The trial court declared Susan Nicdao in default and ruled in favor of Susan Yee, ordering her to pay half of the benefits received. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the first marriage of the deceased to Susan Nicdao is void for lack of a marriage license, thereby affecting the rightful entitlement to his death benefits.

RULING

Yes, the first marriage is void ab initio. The Court clarified that while a final judgment declaring a marriage void is required for purposes of remarriage under Article 40 of the Family Code, no such judicial declaration is necessary for other purposes, such as the settlement of claims to death benefits. In such cases, evidence can be presented to prove the existence of grounds for nullity.
Applying the Civil Code, which governed the 1969 marriage, a valid marriage license is a requisite for marriage, and its absence renders the marriage void, unless an exception applies. The evidence, including the marriage certificate and the Local Civil Registrar’s certification, conclusively proved the absence of the required license for the first marriage. No applicable exception was present. Consequently, the first marriage was void from the beginning.
Since the first marriage was void, Susan Nicdao was not the legal wife of the deceased. The death benefits, which are intended for the legitimate spouse and dependents, could not be awarded to her. The deceased’s subsequent marriage to Susan Yee, though also bigamous and void, does not validate the first void marriage. The proper action is for the benefits to be awarded to the deceased’s legitimate children from the first void union. However, as the children were not parties to the case and Susan Nicdao had already collected the funds, the Court applied equity. It upheld the appellate decision ordering Susan Nicdao to give half of the benefits to Susan Yee, who cared for the deceased during his illness and bore his burial expenses, as a form of reimbursement, without prejudice to the rights of the legitimate children.