CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE

NUMBER/DAT
E
BENJAMIN Benjamin Whether Single ART. 100. The FELIX, J.
BUGAYONG, Bugayong, the sleeping with voluntary act legal
plaintiff- husband while his wife even of marital separation
appellant, working in the after learning intercourse may be
vs. US Navy about her between the claimed only
G.R. No. L- LEONILA learned from infidelity parties by the
10033 GINEZ, his sister in constitutes ordinarily is innocent
December 28, defendant- law that his condonation. sufficient to spouse,
1956 appellee. wife, Leonila constitute provided there
Gilez herein condonation, has been no
appellee, and where the condonation of
Florencio committed parties live in or consent to
Dumapias for acts of the same the adultery or
appellant. infidelity. house, it is concubinage.
Numeriano Upon presumed that Where both
Tanopo, Jr. for returning, he they live on spouses are
appellee. slept with his terms of offenders, a
wife but after matrimonial legal
asking her if cohabitation; separation
she really had hence legal cannot by
an affair, she separation either of them.
left him. So, was not Collusion
he filed a case granted to between the
of legal Benjamin parties to
separation Bugayong obtain legal
against his separation
wife but his shall cause the
wife denied his dismissal of
allegations. the petition.
Now, his wife’s
lawyer filed a
motion to
 dismiss the
case because
the fact that
he slept with
him wife even
after learning
about her
infidelity
means he
condoned her
acts.

CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE

NUMBER/DAT
E
MARIANO B. Dolores Whether a Court reversed Matrimonial STREET, J.
ARROYO, Vasquez de wife who was the decision of Causes Act
plaintiff- Arroyo, the forced to leave the trial judge. (1884)
appellant, wife, left the the Mere austerity abolished the
vs. conjugal home matrimonial of remedy of
G.R. No. L- DOLORES C. so Mariano home because temper, imprisonment;
17014 August VASQUEZ DE Arroyo , the of husband’s petulance of though a
11, 1921 ARROYO, husband, cruelty could manners, decree for the
defendant- instituted a compel the rudeness of restitution of
appellee. case to husband to language, a conjugal rights
compel her to support her want of civil can still be
return home and whether attention and procured,
Fisher & and live as a the court accommodatio and in case of
DeWitt for dutiful wife. could compel n, even disobedience
appellant. The wife the wife to occasional may serve in
Powell & Hill averred that return what sallies of appropriate
for appellee. she left home constitutes passion, if cases as the
because of his cruelty if there they do not basis of an
cruel is any home threaten order for the
treatment and and. bodily periodical
demanded for harm, do not payment of a
a decree of amount to stipend in the
separation, legal cruelty. character of
liquidation of It was alimony.
their declared that
properties and Dolores
for her Vasquez de
allowance and Arroyo has
support. The absented
trial judge herself from
favored the the marital
wife so home without
Mariano sufficient
Arroyo cause; and she
appealed the is admonished
case to the that it is her
supreme duty to return.
court. If wife will not
obey the
court, she will
not be
imprisoned for
contempt
however she
will not enjoy
her rights of
support and of
use and
control over
their conjugal
properties.
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DAT
E
AGUEDA Agueda Whether Court held Law 8, title 2, WILLARD, J.
BENEDICTO, Benedicto filed divorce could that neither partida 4, as
plaintiff- a divorce suit be granted party is follows:
appellee, against her when both of entitled to For the sin of
vs. husband, them judgment each one of
ESTEBAN DE Esteban De la committed of divorce them is of
G.R. No. L-1056 LA RAMA, Rama with adultery. against the itself a bar to
December 8, defendant- grounds of other; that an accusation
1903 appellant. abandonment judgment be against the
and adultery. entered that other.
Lower court the plaintiff
favored the take nothing
Jovito Yusay plaintiff but by her action
and Ledesma husband or the
and Sumulong appealed on defendant by
for appellant. the ground his cross
Aylett R. that the facts demand, and
Cotton and were not that neither
Lionel D. justified by the party recover
Hargis for evidence and of the other
appellee. that wife also any costs.
committed
adultery.

CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE

NUMBER/DA
TE
WILLIAM H. William Brown Whether the It is true that ART. 100. The REYES,
BROWN, plaintiff- filed a suit to power of the the wife has legal J.B.L., J.
appellant, obtain legal prosecuting not interposed separation
vs. separation officer is prescription may be
JUANITA YAMBAO, from his wife, limited on as a defense. claimed only
G.R. No. L- defendant- Juanita finding out Nevertheless, by the
10699 appellee. Yambao. He whether the courts innocent
October 18, alleged that collusion can take spouse,
1957 while he was exists or not cognizance provided there
Jimenez B. Buendia interned by and whether thereof, has been no
for appellant. the Japanese the court because condonation
Assistant City invaders, his could invoke actions or of consent
Fiscal Rafel A. Jose wife had prescription seeking a to the
for appellee. adulterous of the crime decree of adultery or
relationship even if the legal concubinage.
and even had wife did not separation, or Where both
a child pose it as a annulment of spouses are
however he defense. marriage, offenders, a
filed it after involve public legal
10 years from interest and it separation
discovery. is the policy of cannot be
The wife our law that claimed by
failed to no such either of
respond so decree be them.
the fiscal issued if any Collusion
intervened in legal between the
behalf of the obstacles parties to
state. Court thereto obtain legal
found out that appear upon separation
Brown himself the record. shall cause
is living with Since court the dismissal
someone found out that of the petition.
else. the appellant
also ART. 102 An
committed action for
adultery not legal
to mention separation
that the crime cannot be
has filed except
prescribed, within one
therefore year from
 legal and after the
separation date on which
was not the
granted to plaintiff
them. became
cognizant of
the cause and
within
five years
from and after
date when
such cause
occurred.

CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE

NUMBER/DA
TE
CARMEN LAPUZ SY, Carmen Whether the Court held Art. 106. The REYES J.B.L.
represented by her Lapuz Sy died legal that the death decree of
substitute during the separation of the plaintiff legal
MACARIO LAPUZ, pendency of case could BEFORE a separation
G.R. No. L- petitioner her legal still prosper decree of shall have the
30977 January appellant, separation with the legal following
31, 1972 vs. proceeding death of one separation effects:
EUFEMIO S. with her of the parties. abates such (1) The
EUFEMIO alias husband, action. Also spouses shall
EUFEMIO SY UY, Eufemio S. under the be entitled to
respondent- Eufemio. So Rules of court, live separately
appellee. the husband an action for from each
moved to legal other, but the
dismiss the separation or marriage
petition with annulment of bonds shall
Jose W. Diokno for grounds of marriage is not be
petitioner- her death and not one which severed; .
appellant. the marriage survives the (2) The
D. G. Eufemio for is void ab death of conjugal
respondent- initio but the spouse. The partnership of
appellee. deceased liquidation of gains or the
counsel any conjugal absolute
moved to partnership conjugal
substitute the that might community of
deceased have resulted property shall
with her from such be dissolved
father/heir, voidable and
Macario marriage liquidated, but
Lapuz. must be the offending
carried out "in spouse shall
the testate or have no right
intestate to any share
proceedings. of the profits
earned by the
partnership or
community,
without
prejudice to
the provisions
of article 176;
(3) The
custody of the
minor children
shall be
awarded to
the innocent
spouse, unless
otherwise
directed by
the court in
the interest of
 said minors,
for whom said
court may
appoint a
guardian;
(4) The
offending
spouse shall
be disqualified
from
inheriting
from the
innocent
spouse by
intestate
succession.
Moreover,
provisions in
favor of the
offending
spouse made
in the will of
the innocent
one shall be
revoked by
operation of
law.
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DA
TE
FROILAN C. Froilan Whether civil The court Rules of Court PADILLA, J.
G.R. No. GANDIONCO, Gandionco action could dismissed on criminal
79284 petitioner, was ordered prosper when petitioner’s procedure, to
November -versus- by the criminal petition. wit:
27,1987 HON. SENEN C. respondent case related Sec. 1. Rules
PEÑARANDA, as judge for to the case is A civil action governing civil
Presiding Judge of support still pending. for legal actions arising
the Regional Trial pendente lite, separation, from
Court of pending a based on offenses.-
Misamis Oriental, decision for concubinage, Except as
Branch 18, legal may proceed otherwise
Cagayan de Oro separation ahead of, or provided by
City, and TERESITA with grounds simultaneousl law, the
S. of y with, a following rules
GANDIONCO, concubinage criminal shall he
respondents. filed by his action for observed:
wife, Teresita concubinage, (a) When a
Gandioco. because said criminal action
Petitioner civil action is is instituted,
contends that not one "to the civil action
the civil enforce the for recovery of
action for civil liability civil
legal arising from liability arising
separation the offense" from the
and the even if both offense
incidents the civil and charged is
consequent criminal impliedly
thereto, such actions arise instituted with
as, from or are the criminal
application for related to the action, unless
support same offense. the offended
pendente A decree of party
lite,should be legal expressly
suspended in separation, on waives the
view of the the ground of civil action or
criminal case concubinage reserves his
for may be issued right to
concubinage upon proof of institute it
filed against preponderanc separately;
him. e of evidence (b) Criminal
in the action and civil
for LS. No actions arising
criminal from the same
proceeding or offense may
conviction is be instituted
necessary. separately,
but after the
criminal action
has been
commenced
the civil action
can
not be
instituted until
final judgment
has been
rendered in
the criminal
action;
(c) After a
criminal action
has been
commenced,
no civil action
arising from
the
same offense
can be
prosecuted
and the same
shall be
suspended in
whatever
stage it may
be found until
final judgment
in the criminal
proceeding
 has been
rendered
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DA
TE
ANTONIO Antonio Whether Court held Art. 106. The MAKASIAR, J.
G.R. No. L- MACADANGDANG, Macadangdan decree of that decree of decree of
38287 petitioner, g was found legal legal legal
October 23, vs. guilty of separation separation separation
1981 THE COURT OF concubinage had become had become shall have the
APPEALS; so the court final and final and following
HONORABLE issued a executory. executory and effects:
ALEJANDRO E. decree of the law on 1) The
SEBASTIAN, in his legal intestate spouses shall
capacity as separation succession be entitled to
Presiding Judge, and assigned should take live separately
Court of First an over in the from each
Instance of Davao, administrator disposition of other, but the
16th Judicial of their whatever marriage
District, conjugal remaining bonds shall
Sala 1, Tagum, properties. properties not be
Davao del Norte; Petitioner have been severed;
FILOMENA died while the allocated to 2) The
GAVIANA, decree of petitioner. conjugal
MACADANGDANG; legal partnership of
and separation gains or the
ROLANDO RAMA, was still on absolute
respondents. appeal in the conjugal
Court of community of
Appeals. property shall
be dissolved
and liquidated
but the
offending
spouse shall
have no right
 to any share
of the profits
earned by the
partnership or
community,
without
prejudice to
the provisions
of article 176;
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DA
TE
LEOUEL SANTOS, Leouel Whether The factual Art. 1. VITUG, J
petitioner, Santos, the Julia’s settings in the Marriage is a
vs. husband, filed absence case at special
THE HONORABLE for an constitute bench, in no contract of
G.R. No. COURT OF annulment Psychological measure at permanent
112019 APPEALS AND JULIA suit against incapacity. all, can come union
January 4, ROSARIO BEDIA- his wife, Julia close to the between a
1995 SANTOS, Rosario standards man a woman
respondents. Santos for the required entered into in
grounds of to decree a accordance
psychological nullity of with law for
incapacity. marriage. the
They Undeniably establishment
frequently and of conjugal
had understandabl and family
disagreement y, Leouel life. It
s over stands is the
everything aggrieved, foundation of
when they even the family and
were together desperate, in an inviolable
and when his present social
wife went to situation. institution
the US, she Regrettably, whose nature,
only called neither law consequences
him once and nor society , and incidents
did not bother itself can are governed
to contact always by law and not
him anymore provide all the subject to
even though specific stipulation,
he attempted answers to except
to locate her every that marriage
when he went individual settlements
to the US. problem. may fix the
Wife denied Article 36 of property
the the Family relations
allegations Code cannot during the
through her be taken and marriage
counsel and construed within the
then filed a independently limits
manifestation of, but must provided by
that she stand this Code.
would neither in conjunction
appear not with, existing Art. 36. A
submit precepts in marriage
evidence. our law on contracted by
marriage. any party
Thus who, at the
correlated, time of the
"psychological celebration,
incapacity" was
should refer psychologicall
to no less y
than a mental incapacitated
(not physical) to comply with
incapacity the essential
that causes a marital
party to be obligations of
truly marriage,
incognitive shall likewise
of the basic be void even if
 marital such
covenants incapacity
that becomes
concomitantly manifest only
must be after its
assumed and solemnization.
discharged by
the parties to
the
marriage
which, as so
expressed by
Article 68 of
the Family
Code, include
their mutual
obligations to
live
together,
observe love,
respect and
fidelity and
render help
and support.
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DA
TE
JOSE DE OCAMPO, Jose De Whether legal Court granted ART. 100.— BENGZON, J.
petitioner, Ocampo, the separation legal The legal
vs. husband could still be separation to separation
SERAFINA having found granted even the husband. may be
FLORENCIANO, out his wife’s though Two decisions claimed only
respondent. infidelity sent husband are cited by the
G.R. No. L- her to Manila seemed wherein from innocent
13553 to finish her condoned apparently spouse,
February 23, Joselito J. Coloma beauty wife’s acts. similar provided there
1960 for petitioner. course. After circumstances has been no
finishing her , this Court condonation
course, the inferred of or consent
wife left the the husband's to the
husband and consent to or adultery or
since then condonation concubinage.
they have of his wife's Where both
been living misconduct. spouses are
separately. However, offenders, a
On one upon careful legal
occasion, examination, separation
plaintiff, a vital cannot be
surprised his difference will claimed by
wife being be found: in either of
caught on act both them.
of illicit instances, the Collusion
relations so husband had between the
the husband abandoned parties to
brought up his wife; here obtain legal
his intention it was the wife separation
of legal who "left" her shall cause
separation. husband. the dismissal
The wife of the petition.
agreed ART. 101.—No
provided she decree of
will not be legal
charged with separation
adultery. shall be
promulgated
upon a
stipulation of
facts or by
confession of
judgment.
In case of non-
appearance of
 the defendant,
the court shall
order the
prosecuting
attorney to
inquire
whether or
not a collusion
between the
parties exists.
If there is no
collusion, the
prosecuting
attorney shall
intervene for
the State in
order to take
care
that the
evidence for
the plaintiff is
not fabricated.
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DA
TE
CONSUELO Luis Vasquez Whether Court held Rule 17 of the AQUINO, J.
MADRIGAL- filed a legal earnest that notice of Rules of Court
VAZQUEZ, separation efforts dismissal of
petitioner, against his towards a complaint Section 1.
vs. wife, compromise rendered this Dismissal
G.R. No. L- JUDGE CORAZON J. Consuelo had case moot upon notice
32219 AGRAVA, as Judge Madrigal. been made by and by plaintiff. —
February 25, of the Juvenile and Instead of the parties Academic. A complaint
1982 Domestic Relations responding, Consuelo may be
Court of Manila, wife filed a Madrigal dismissed by
and LUIS motion to obtained the the plaintiff by
VAZQUEZ, dismiss on relief which filing a notice
respondents. the she had of dismissal at
grounds of sought by any time
lack of cause means of her before service
of action and motion to of the answer
that no dismiss. or of a motion
earnest for summary
efforts judgment.
towards a Upon such
compromise notice being
had filed, the court
been made by shall issue an
the parties. order
Lower court confirming the
denied it so dismissal.
she appealed Unless
it in the otherwise
supreme stated in the
court. While notice, the
case was dismissal is
pending, without
husband filed prejudice,
a notice of except that a
withdrawal of notice
complaint. operates as
Counsel of an
the petitioner adjudication
opposed the upon the
withdrawal on merits when
the ground filed by a
that the lower plaintiff who
court has once
could not act dismissed in a
on it because competent
of the writ of court an
preliminary action based
 injunction on or
issued by this including the
Court same claim.
(1a)
CASE PARTIES FACTS ISSUE DECISION LEGAL BASIS PONENTE
NUMBER/DA
TE
IMELDA In 1995 Whether or Court set Art. 110. — KAPUNAN, J.
ROMUALDEZ- Elections, not the aside The husband
MARCOS, former First petitioner has Comelec’s shall fix the
G.R. No. petitioner, Lady Imelda lost her resolutions residence of
119976 -versus- Romualdez- domicile and allowed the family. But
September 18, COMMISSION ON Marcos based on the Marcos to sit the court may
1995 ELECTIONS and filed her foregoing in Congress. exempt
CIRILO ROY certificate of facts to be a For purposes the wife from
MONTEJO,responde candidacy for ground for of election, living with the
nts. Congress disqualifying residency and husband if he
person of the her for the domicile are should live
1st District of congressional synonymous abroad unless
Leyte, which election. to each other. in the service
encompasses It is only of the
the city of in Civil Law Republic.
Tacloban and that we keep
the towns of the distinction
the between the
northeastern two.
Leyte,
including
Tolosa, versus
the
incumbent
Cirilo Roy
Montejo In
her COC,
petitioner
stated that
she had been
a resident of
Tolosa for
7 months
prior to the
election.
Montejo
moved for her
disqualificatio
n, arguing
that Marcos’
residency fell
short of the 1-
year
residency
requirement.
Marcos
sought to
amend her
COC entry to
“since birth”
but Comelec
did not allow
her and
disqualified
her. Petitioner
appealed to
the Supreme
Court, on the
contention
that she did
not lose her
residency
even when
she went to
Manila,
married then
Congressman
Marcos, lived
in
Malacanang
and fled to
Hawaii, since
she was only
following the
residence of
her husband,
who under
the Civil Code
then in force,
had sole
authority to
determine the
family
residence.