Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 500 views

    Ninal Vs Bayadog - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ron Man
    The document summarizes a case, Niñal vs. Bayadog, where Pepito Niñal married Norma Bayadog without obtaining a marriage license. Petitioners, Pepito's children from his first marriage, argued the marriage was void. The court ruled that for a common law marriage to be valid under Article 76, the spouses must have lived together exclusively and continuously as husband and wife for at least 5 years prior without any other relationships. Since Pepito and Norma only lived together for 20 months after Pepito's first marriage ended, their marriage without a license was void.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ninal Vs Bayadog - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ron Man
    500 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case, Niñal vs. Bayadog, where Pepito Niñal married Norma Bayadog without obtaining a marriage license. Petitioners, Pepito's children from his first marriage, argued the marriage was void. The court ruled that for a common law marriage to be valid under Article 76, the spouses must have lived together exclusively and continuously as husband and wife for at least 5 years prior without any other relationships. Since Pepito and Norma only lived together for 20 months after Pepito's first marriage ended, their marriage without a license was void.

    Original Description:

    pfr

    Original Title

    Ninal vs Bayadog_digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a case, Niñal vs. Bayadog, where Pepito Niñal married Norma Bayadog without obtaining a marriage license. Petitioners, Pepito's children from his first marriage, argued the marriage was void. The court ruled that for a common law marriage to be valid under Article 76, the spouses must have lived together exclusively and continuously as husband and wife for at least 5 years prior without any other relationships. Since Pepito and Norma only lived together for 20 months after Pepito's first marriage ended, their marriage without a license was void.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    500 views2 pages

    Ninal Vs Bayadog - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ron Man
    The document summarizes a case, Niñal vs. Bayadog, where Pepito Niñal married Norma Bayadog without obtaining a marriage license. Petitioners, Pepito's children from his first marriage, argued the marriage was void. The court ruled that for a common law marriage to be valid under Article 76, the spouses must have lived together exclusively and continuously as husband and wife for at least 5 years prior without any other relationships. Since Pepito and Norma only lived together for 20 months after Pepito's first marriage ended, their marriage without a license was void.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sunday, September 16, 2012

    Ninal vs. Bayadog Case Digest


    Nial vs. Bayadog 328 SCRA 122 Facts: Pepito Nial was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born herein petitioners. Pepito resulting to her death on April 24, 1985 shot Teodulfa. One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 24, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadog got married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. After Pepitos death on February 19, 1997, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. Issue: What nature of cohabitation is contemplated under Article 76 of the Civil Code (now Article 34 of the Family Code) to warrant the counting of the 5-year period in order to exempt the future spouses from securing a marriage license. Ruling: The 5-year common law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity-meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity is unbroken. Any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void, subject only to the exception in cases of absence or where the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. In this case, at the time Pepito and respondents marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least 5 years prior to their wedding day. From the time Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent, only about 20 months had elapsed. Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with respondent. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even where there is was actual severance of the filial companionship between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as husband and wife.

    Having determined that the second marriage involve in this case is not covered by the exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element.

    You might also like