Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rights & Obligations of Sps - Fixing the Domicile

Rights & Obligations of Sps - Fixing the Domicile

Ratings: (0)|Views: 350|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Published by: Sui on Aug 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Tenchavez v. Escano (1966: Manila)
: Pastor Tenchavez & Vicenta Escaño were married in 1948. In 1950, defendantEscaño obtained a foreign divorce in Nevada. She further sought papal dispensationof the marriage but no document was presented.2
: Escaño’s marriage to American Rusell Leo Moran in the US in 1954, which waslater blessed with 3 children.
(1)WON divorce is valid(2)WON Court may then compel Escaño to cohabit with Tenchavez
: (1) Divorce is invalid for a foreign divorce decree cannot be recognized in thePhils especially if it was granted by court of the place which was
not the parties’ bonafide domicile
and on a ground not recognized by our law, which does not allowabsolute divorce. Even in private international law, foreign decrees (esp thoseconfirming or dissolving a marriage) cannot be enforced or recognized if theycontravene public policy.(2) No. It is not within the province of courts to attempt to compel one of the sps tocohabit with, and render conjugal rights to the other. However, a sp who unjustifiabledeserts the conjugal abode can be denied support.
Dadivas de Villanueva v. Villanueva
 Appeal from the judgement of the Four of First Instance in Manila
July 16, 1905 – Aurelia Dadivas de Villanuevas married Rafael Villanuevaand they had three children. (18, 10, 9)
May 27, 1927 Aurelia filed a case for separate maintenance due to infidelityand cruelty. 10 years prior to the institution of the case, Rafael was guilty of repeated acts of infidelity with four different women. Even after theinstitution of the case it was shown that he have had an illicit relations withanother woman.
The incorrigible nature of the defendant in his relations with other womencoupled with his lack of consideration and even brutality caused Aurelia toleave the conjugal home and for her to establish her own abode. Their finalseparation occurred on April 20, 1947.
There was no sufficient evidence to establish the cruelty of the husband butthere were sufficient evidence to establish the infidelity of the husband.
: WON the wife is entitled for separate support from her husband.
: Yes
In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separatemaintenance from the husband it is not necessary that the husband shouldbring a concubine into the home. Perverse and illicit relations with womenoutside the conjugal home are sufficient grounds.
Ruling in Arroyo vs. Vasquez de Arroyo is not applicable because in theArroyo case the only grounds that were alleged was cruelty and that chargewas not proven. In the present case the charge of cruelty was also notproven but the Aurelia also accused her husband of infidelity and that chargehas been proven (repeated acts of conjugal infidelity) and the husbandappears to be a recurrent, if not incurable offender. This fact gives the wifean undeniable right to relief.
Goita vs. Campos Rueda – husband cannot by his own wrongful acts,relieve himself from the duty to support his wife. When he drives his wifefrom the domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure toabrogate the law applicable to the marital relations and repudiate his duties.
WON she is entitled to P750 monthly allowance
NoCourt granted allowance of P500 a month. P750 would be excessive since the livingquarters that she uses are part of the conjugal estate.
: WON the custody of the children should be transferred to the father 
Custody of the 2 minor children shall remain with Aurelia. The children arecurrently living with her and her custody will not be disturbed.
 Appeal from Nueva Ecija COFI dismissing complaint 
April 8, 1910 – Cipriana Garcia & Isabelo Santiago were married
Feb. 3, 1925 – Cipriana compelled to leave the conjugal dwelling due to:1.continued family dissensions2.Alejo, Isabelo’s son by his first wife seduced Prisca Aurelio, Cipriana’sdaughter by her first husband. Prisca gave birth to a child. Isabelo, instead of requiring his son to marry Prisca, refused to interfere & he seemed totolerate the illicit relationship.3.Isabelo has conveyed/been conveying their conjugal properties to Alejo tofoster latter’s whims & caprices and thus, damaging & prejudicing her rights.Some of these properties include lands acquired during their marriage withmoney belonging to the conjugal partnership. Land annually produces 4,500cavanes of palay at P4.00/cavan.
Other allegations of Cipriana/Prayers to the Court:1.Their separation is necessary to avoid personal violence. She could not livein the conjugal dwelling due to the illicit relationship of Alejo & Priscatolerated by Isabelo.2.She is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite monthly pension from conjugalpartnership. However, Isabelo refused to provide for her support despite her demands.3.She should be in-charge of the administration of the property of their conjugal partnership because Isabelo is unfit to do so. He exhibits immoralconduct & acts by publicly maintaining an illicit relationship with GeronimaYap.
 TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A4690023.docPage 1 of 2

Activity (19)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Max Arce liked this
veoyen liked this
Jerome Tobias liked this
Glai Delos Reyes liked this
em quinto liked this
Zapphire Zamudio liked this
Ehna Daguplo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->