G.R. No. 132529.

February 2, 2001
SUSAN NICDAO CARIO, petitioner,
vs.
SUSAN YEE CARIO, respondent.
TOPIC: Effects of Final Judgment declaring nullity
Art. 40. 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.
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and
salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to
have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.
For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any
property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired
during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of
their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the
co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or
all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective
surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In
all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a)
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by
both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by
them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary,
their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption
shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the
absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad
faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last
paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. (144a)
ISSUES:
WON the absolute nullity of marriage may be invoked to claim presumptive legitimes.
Which article should apply to the case at bar, 147 or 148?
FACTS:
In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Carino married Susan Nicdao Carino. He had 2 children with her -
Sahlee and Sandee Cario.
On November 10, 1992, SPO4 Santiago contracted another marriage with respondent Susan Yee
Cario.
Both marriages have no valid marriage licenses
On November 23, 1992, Santiago passed away. Respondent spent for his medical and burial
expenses.
Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance
pertaining to the deceased from various government agencies. Petitioner Susan Nicdao was able
to collect a total of P146,000.00 from MBAI, PCCUI, Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-ibig,

3
while respondent Susan Yee received a total of P21,000.00 from GSIS Life, Burial (GSIS) and
burial (SSS).
On December 14, 1993, respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case for collection of sum of
money against petitioner Susan Nicdao praying, inter alia, that petitioner be ordered to return to
her at least one-half of the one hundred forty-six thousand pesos (P146,000.00) collectively
denominated as death benefits which she (petitioner) received from MBAI, PCCUI,
Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-ibig. Despite service of summons, petitioner failed to file
her answer, prompting the trial court to declare her in default.
On August 28, 1995, RTC rendered its decision in favour of the respondent and hereby ordered
to pay the plaintiff the sum of P73,000.00, half of the amount which was paid to her in the form of
death benefits arising from the death of SPO4 Santiago S. Cario, plus attorneys fees in the
amount of P5,000.00, and costs of suit.
CA affirmed RTCs decision, hence, this appeal.
RULING: Yes. CA decision reversed and set aside.
For purposes other than to remarry, like for filing a case for collection of sum of money anchored
on a marriage claimed to be valid, no prior and separate judicial declaration of nullity is
necessary. All that a party has to do is to present evidence, testimonial or documentary, that
would prove that the marriage from which his or her rights flow is in fact valid. Domingo V CA.
[T]he court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question
the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to
any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of
nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause on the basis of a
final judgment declaring such previous marriage void in Article 40 of the Family Code connoted
that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage. Ninal V Bayadog
Although both marriages were declared void ab initio, SC ruled that Yee has no right to the
benefits earned by SPO4 as a policeman for their marriage is void due to bigamy; she is only
entitled to properties, money owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. Wages and salaries earned by each party shall belong to him or her exclusively
(Art. 148 of FC).Nicdao is entitled to the full benefits earned by SPO4 as a cop even if their
marriage is likewise void the 2 were capacitated to marry each other for there were no
impediments but their marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license; in their situation,
their property relations is governed by Art 147 of the FC which provides that everything they
earned during their cohabitation is presumed to have been equally contributed by each party
this includes salaries and wages earned by each party notwithstanding the fact that the other may
not have contributed at all.