The 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.
Facts: Annabelle and Reinel were married. Annabelle filed a petition for support against Reinel, claiming he had not given support to her and their child. In his answer, Reinel alleged that their marriage is not valid, the Affidavit they executed in lieu of a marriage license being a falsity as they never cohabited with each other five years before their marriage, hence they were not exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. He also denied parentage of the child. The trial court ruled that the marriage between Reinel and Annabelle is void for lack of a marriage license. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that since the case is for support, the court cannot attack collaterally the marriage, so that a proper judicial declaration should be resorted to in order to declare the marriage of Reinel and Annabelle as void for lack of a marriage license.
Issue: May the trial court declare the marriage between Reinel and Annabelle even though the case before it is for support? In other words, may the marriage be attacked collaterally?
Held: The trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent. The validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked. Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, we held:
However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the 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 connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.”
Likewise, in Nicdao Cario v. Yee Cario, the Court ruled that it is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of two marriages despite the main case being a claim for death benefits. Reiterating Nial, we held that the Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. However, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity. [De Castro vs De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008]
Likewise, in Nicdao Cario v. Yee Cario, the Court ruled that it is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of two marriages despite the main case being a claim for death benefits. Reiterating Nial, we held that the Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. However, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity. [De Castro vs De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008]
