Niñal v. Bayadog (2000): Five Years of Living Together

The children's father married his first wife in 1974. She died in April 1985. About one year and eight months later, in December 1986, he married Norma Bayadog without a marriage license. Instead of a license, the couple signed an affidavit saying they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, so they were exempt from the license requirement.

The father died in a car accident in 1997. His children from the first marriage, led by Engrace Niñal for herself and as guardian of the minor children, then asked the court to declare his marriage to Norma void for lack of a marriage license. They filed the case because the validity of that marriage could affect their rights as heirs.

Norma asked the court to dismiss the case. She said the children were not among the persons allowed to file an action for annulment under Article 47 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Cebu, agreed and dismissed the case. It reasoned by analogy with Article 47 that the action should have been filed before the father died. The children went directly to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law.

Two questions were decided. First, was the second marriage covered by the exception that allows couples who have lived together for five years to marry without a license? Second, may the children of a deceased spouse file a petition to declare his marriage void after his death?

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the trial court's order and ordered the case reinstated.

The law at the time of the wedding applies. Both marriages took place before the Family Code took effect, so the Court applied the Civil Code. Under it, a marriage license was required, and a marriage without one was void from the beginning, except in marriages of an exceptional character. One exception was Civil Code Article 76, for a man and a woman who had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The decision notes that this rule is now Article 34 of the Family Code.

The five years must be a union that would have been lawful. The Court said the five-year period "should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage." It must be continuous, with no break, and exclusive, with no third party involved at any time. The only thing missing during those years must be the marriage itself. Otherwise, the Court said, the law would put couples who lived together while one of them was still married on the same footing as those who lived faithfully with their spouse.

This couple did not qualify. Only about twenty months passed between the death of the first wife and the second wedding. Even if the father and Norma had lived together for five years, he was still married to his first wife for most of that time. It made no difference that he may have been separated in fact from her. The second marriage did not fall under the exception, so it was void from the beginning for lack of a license.

Article 47 does not apply to void marriages. Article 47 lists who may file an action to annul a voidable marriage, and when. It says nothing about void marriages. The Court explained the difference:

• A voidable marriage is valid until a court annuls it. It can be attacked only in a direct case, and only while both parties are alive.
• A void marriage is treated as if it never took place. It can be questioned in any case where the marriage matters, and even after the death of either party. The action or defense of nullity does not prescribe.

Death ended nothing. The trial court said the father's death dissolved the marriage bond. The Supreme Court said this was wrong: a void marriage creates no bond, so his death "extinguished nothing."

When a court declaration is needed. For remarriage, Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring the earlier marriage void. For other purposes, such as heirship, the legitimacy of a child, the settlement of an estate or a criminal case, the Court said a court may rule on whether a marriage was void even in a case not filed for that purpose, as long as the question is needed to decide the case.

The five years of living together that excuse a couple from getting a marriage license must be the five years right before the wedding, continuous and exclusive, during which the couple could have married each other; a marriage without a license that does not meet this test is void from the beginning, and a void marriage may be questioned even after the death of either party.

Some couples marry with an affidavit of cohabitation instead of a marriage license. Niñal shows the limit of that shortcut. If one partner was still married to someone else during part of the five years, the affidavit does not save the marriage, and the marriage is void. Article 34 of the Family Code, which applies to marriages celebrated today, now says this in its own words: the couple must have lived together for at least five years "and without any legal impediment to marry each other."

The case also explains why the difference between a void and a voidable marriage matters. See annulment vs. nullity vs. legal separation, is a marriage without a license valid and marriage license requirements.

The Supreme Court also has a court rule for nullity and annulment cases, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. As the Court quoted it in Quirit-Figarido v. Figarido (2024), a petition to declare a void marriage "may be filed solely by the husband or the wife." Who may file in a given case depends on the facts and the law that governs the marriage.

Made-up illustration: Rico and Tess have lived together for six years, but Rico's first wife died only two years ago. They want to marry with an affidavit instead of a license. Under Niñal, they cannot count the four years when Rico was still married, so they do not meet the five-year rule. A wedding without a license would be void (see Article 35).

Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a question about a real marriage, see where to find legal help.