G.R. No. 133778; March 14, 2000
ENGRACE NIÑAL, et al., petitioners, vs. NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.

FACTS

Pepito Niñal was first married to Teodulfa Bellones in 1974, with whom he had children (petitioners). Teodulfa died in 1985. In December 1986, Pepito married respondent Norma Bayadog without a marriage license. Instead, they executed an affidavit stating they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, claiming exemption from the license requirement under the Civil Code. Pepito died in a car accident in February 1997. Subsequently, his children from his first marriage filed a petition to declare Pepito’s marriage to Norma null and void for lack of a marriage license, asserting this would affect their successional rights. Norma moved to dismiss, arguing the petitioners lacked a cause of action as they were not among the persons authorized to file for annulment under the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, holding the Family Code was silent on whether heirs could file such an action after the death of a spouse and suggesting the action should have been filed before Pepito’s death.

ISSUE

May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners, as heirs, have the legal standing to seek a declaration of nullity of their father’s subsequent marriage even after his death. The action is not one for annulment but for declaration of absolute nullity. A void marriage, such as one contracted without a required marriage license, is considered null from the beginning (void ab initio) and can be impugned at any time, even after the death of the parties, by any person with a direct and material interest in the matter. The Court clarified that the restrictions under Article 47 of the Family Code, which specify who may file an action for annulment and within what period, apply only to voidable marriages. They do not apply to void marriages, which produce no legal effects. Since the petitioners’ successional rights are directly affected by the validity or invalidity of their father’s second marriage, they possess the requisite interest to file the petition. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the factual issue of whether the five-year cohabitation required for the license exemption under the Civil Code existed, noting that such cohabitation must be one where the parties were legally capacitated to marry each other throughout the entire period.