Compared to Vda Consuegerra (1971)
The petitioner, the first wife of SPO4 Santiago Carino, filed against the second wife on the grounds that she is not entitled to the death benefits because they obtained marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. Second wife’s defense is that the first wife was void ab initio because of the absence of marriage license.
| Petitioner Susan Nicdao Carino | Respondent Susan Yee Carino |
| • Yee’s marriage is invalid since it’s during subsistence of first marriage | • First marriage was invalid due to absence of marriage license |
RTC: Favored Susan Yee (Half of P146k)
CA: Favored Susan Yee (Half of P146k)
SC: Petition granted.
Ruling: 1/2 of death benefits go to first wife, Susan Nicdao, 1/2 to legal heirs which are the children of Susan Nicdao
Ratio:
(1) Article 147, Rules of Co-ownership without legal impediments, applies to the void first marriage. For purposes of settlement of estate, property regime, evidence must be adduced. The first wife failed to prove that there was a marriage license, and therefore it is presumed that the first marriage was invalid. However, this does not automatically grant the death benefits to the second wife, because the first marriage, though no longer valid, falls under Article 147 which is cohabitation without legal impediments. And therefore, the salaries and wages will be split equally between them. Because they have both capacity to marry
The disputed P146,000 belong to the deceased SPO4 and therefore would go to the legal heirs, which is the first cohabitation partner under as governed by Article 147.
(2) For the second marriage, Article 148 applies because it was a marriage without judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage. Hence, marriage between Santiago and Susan Yee is considered cohabitation with legal impediments and the salaries of both parties belong exclusive to each of the parties.
Forfeiture is not applicable because both spouses married in good faith.
English