PILAPIL v IBAY-SOMERA 174 SCRA 653 FACTS: On September 7, 1979, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipina and the

respondent to the case, and Erich Geiling, a German national, were married at Friedenweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. After about three and a half years of marriage, Geiling initiated a divorce proceeding against Pilapil in Germany in January 1983 while Pilapil filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before RTC of Manila in January 23, 1983 where it is still pending as a civil case. On January 15, 1986, the local Court of Germany promulgated a divorce decree on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child,Isabella Pilapil Geiling, was granted to petitioner. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery alleging that, while still married to respondent, petitioner had an affair with a certain William Chia and Jesus Chua sometime in 1982 and 1983 respectively. The respondent city fiscal approved a resolution directing the filing of two complaints for adultery against petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to suspend further proceedings thereon. Respondent judge merely reset the date of the arraignment but before such scheduled date, petitioner moved for the suspension of proceedings. On September 8, 1987, respondent judge denied the motion to quash and also directed the arraignment of both accused. Petitioner refused to be arraigned and thus charged with direct contempt and fined. ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent’s adultery charges against the petitioner is still valid given the fact that both had been divorced prior to the filing of charges. HELD: The law provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should only be the offended spouse. The fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country in 1983, is admitted. According to Article 15 of the Civil Code, with relation to the status of Filipino citizens both here and abroad, since the legal separation of the petitioner and respondent has been finalized through the courts in Germany and the RTC in Manila, the marriage of the couple were already finished, thus giving no merit to the charges the respondent filed against the petitioner. Private respondent, being no longer married to petitioner holds no legal merit to commence the adultery case as the offended spouse at the time he filed suit in 1986. The temporary restraining order issued in this case was made permanent.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.