GOITIA VS.

CAMPOS-RUEDA Doctrine: This is an action by the wife against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile. From a judgment sustaining the defendants demurrer upon the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of action GANDIOCO VS. PENERANDA Facts: Teresita Gandioco, legal wife of petitioner, Froilan Gandioco, filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint against petitioner for legal separation on the ground of concubinage with a petition for support and payment of damages. Teresita also filed a complaint for concubinage against petitioner with the MTC of General Santos City. And again, for the application for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite. The respondent judge KALAW VS. FERNANDEZ Doctrine: In the case, there are grounds for legal separation but not for psychological incapacity under FC36 Facts: Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met 1973

Married in Hong Kong on November 4, 1976 Tyrone had extramarital affair with Jocelyn who gave birth to his son in March 1983 May 1985: Malyn left conjugal home and her four children to Tyrone. Tyrone started living with Jocelyn who bore him more children (3) 1990: Tyrone went to US together with Jocelyn and their children He left his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde with only a househelp and a driver. Nine years since de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Gates and a catholic canon law expert, Fr. Healy to testify Dr. Gates: Malyn may suffer from psychological incapacity due to evidence (madjong, frequent nights out), reflect a narcissistic personality disorder, based her diagnosis on facts revealed in interviews with Tyrone, Trinidad Kalaw (sister-in-law) and their son Fr. Healy: her psych inc. is totes grave and incurable: based his opinion on interview with Tyrone, trial transcripts as well as reports from Dr. Dayan, Malyns expert witness; clarified that he did not verify the truthfulness of

the factual allegations regarding Malyns habits, because he believed it was the duty of the court to do so ISSUE: W o N Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malyn suffers from psych inc? HELD: No. Burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff. He must prove that it existed at the time of marriage and must be grave and incurable. Pet. Failed to prove that res suffers from psych inc. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioners experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of respondents constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioners experts opined that respondents alleged habits, when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD.

But petitioners allegations, which served as the bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not actually proven. In fact, respondent presented contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the petitioner. What transpired between the parties is acrimony and, perhaps, infidelity, which may have constrained them from dedicating the best of themselves to each other and to their children. There may be grounds for legal separation, but certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a marriage. Grounds for legal sep which may be present in the case: 1) sexual infidelity, 2)physical abuse

REPUBLIC VS. QUINTOS ALMELOR VS. RTC CAMPOS VS. CAMPOS LAPUZ VS. EUFEMIO MATUBIS VS. PRAXEDES PEOPLE VS. ZAPATA ARANETA VS. CONCEPCION

DE OCAMPO VS. FLORENCIANO Doctrine: No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated

upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. This case is about an action for legal separation by Jose de Ocampo against his wife Serafina, on ground of adultery. The court of Nueva Ecija dismissed the petition. CA affirmed holding that there was confession of judgment, plus condonation or consent to the adultery and prescription. This present petition for certiorari was granted to consider the application of articles 100 and 101 of the NCC. NCC 100: Legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided that there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition. NCC 101: No decree of legal separation 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 collusion between the parties exists. If there is no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to Facts:

take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated.

1938- marriage of Serafina and Jose March 1951- adultery of Serafina to Jose Arcalas June 1955- adultery with Nelson Orzame Defendant made no answer to the allegations against her, court defaulted her, and pursuant to Art. 101 above, directed the provincial fiscal to investigate presence of collusion between parties, fiscal said there was no collusion, plaintiff presented his evidence thru testimony of Vicente Medina, Ernesto Ocampo, Cesar Enriquez, Mateo Damo, Jose de Ocampo, and Capt. Serafin Gubat. CA: o Evidence presented by plaintiff showed that they did marry (Plaintiff and Defendant) on 1938, on 1951, plaintiff found out on several occasions of his wifes infidelity o June 1951: sent her to Manila to study o 1952: lived separately o 1955: plaintiff surprised and caught his wife in the act of having illicit relations with husband, p signified his intention of filing a petition for legal

separation, to which d manifested her agreeance provided she need not be charged criminally o CA said that husbands right to legal sep has prescribed, action was not filed a year after March 1951, when p first discovered her infidelity (NCC 102) o As to 2nd infidelity (with Nelson Orzame), 1955: husband upon finding out illicit connection, expressed his wish to file for legal sep and defendant readiy agreed to such filing. And when she was questioned by the fiscal upon orders of the court, she admitted to having sexual relations with Nelson Orzame, this was interpreted as a judicial confession ISSUE: W o N her confession constitutes a confession of judgment disallowed by the law. HELD: Florencianos admission to the investigating fiscal that she committed adultery, in the existence of evidence of adultery other than such confession, is not the confession of judgment disallowed by NCC 102. What is prohibited is a confession of judgment in done in court or through a pleading. Where there is evidence of the adultery independent of the defendants

statement agreeing to the legal separation, the decree of separation should be granted since it would not be based on confession but upon evidence presented by plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a judgment based exclusively on defendants confession. Petition should be granted because action for second adultery has not prescribed.

SAMOSA VS. VAMENTA PACETE VS. CARIAGA DE LA VINA VS. VILLAREAL SABALONES VS. CA YANGCO VS. RHODE RAMOS VS. VAMENTA LERMA VS. CA PEOPLE VS. SANSANO PEOPLE VS. SCHNECKENBERGER GINEZ VS. BUGAYONG BROWN VS. YAMBAO REPUBLIC VS. CA MATUTUE VS. MACADAEG QUIAO VS. QUIAC LAPERAL VS. REPUBLIC MACADANGDANG VS. CA REPUBLIC VS. MOLINA ARROYO VS. VASQUEZ-ARROYO

CUADERNO VS. CUADERNO ILUSORIO VS. BILDNER ABELLA VS. COMELEC SSS VS. DE LOS SANTOS SSS VS. FAVILA CALDERON VS. ROXAS YASIN VS. SHARIAH COURT SHARICA MARI GO TAN VS. SPOUSES TAN SAN DIEGO VS. RTC