You are on page 1of 2

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
URSULA SANSANO and MARCELO RAMOS, defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-37720 Marc 27, !"33
DOCTRINE# Criminal action for adultery may not prosper if the offended spouse CONSENTED to the
adulterous acts of the offending spouse.
FACTS#
1. Ursula Sansano and Mariano Ventura were married in 1919 and had one child
. !fter the "irth of their child, Mariano Ventura left his wife to go Cagayan where he remained for #
years without writing to his wife or sending her anything for the support of herself and their son.
#. Ursula Sansano was poor and illiterate and had no relatives to rely on.
$. She struggled for an e%istence for herself and her son until a fatal day when she met the accused
Marcelo &amos who too' her and the child to live with him.
(. )n 19$, the hus"and returned* Mariano Ventura filed a co$%&a'n( )or ad*&(+r, against Sansano
and &amos. + GUILT-.
,. !fter completing her sentence, Sansano left her paramour &amos.
-. Sansano "egged for the pardon of her hus"and and promised to "e a faithful wife it he would ta'e
care her "ac'.
.. Mariano Ventura refused to pardon her to live with her and said she could go where she wished,
that he would have nothing more to do with her, and she could do as she pleased.
9. A/andon+d )or (+ 2nd ('$+, she and her child went "ac' to her co-accused Marcelo &amos
and they have lived with him ever since.
1/. 0he hus"and, 'nowing that she resumed living with her co-defendant, did nothing to interfere with
their relations or to assert his rights as hus"and.
11. 1e later on left for 1awaii where he remained for seven years completely a"andoning his said
wife and child.
1. Upon his return, he presented the second charge of adultery here involved with the sole purpose,
as he declared, of "eing a"le to o"tain a divorce under the provisions of !ct 2o. -1/.
ISSUE# 342 Mariano Ventura5s complaint for adultery against wife may prosper despite the fact that 617
he did nothing to interfere with the e%tra-marital affairs of his wife and had, instead, a"andoned them for -
years
HELD# 28* 617 )t cannot prosper* Mariano consented to the adultertous acts of his wife
!part from the fact that the hus"and in this case was assuming a mere pose when he signed the
complaint as the 9offended9 spouse, we have come to the conclusion that the evidence in this case and
his conduct warrant the inference that + con0+n(+d (o (+ ad*&(+ro*0 r+&a('on0 e%isting "etween the
accused and therefore he is no( a*(or'1+d /, &a2 (o 'n0('(*(+ ('0 cr'$'na& %roc++d'n3.
3e cannot accept the argument of the !ttorney-:eneral that the seven years of ac;uiescence on his part
in the adultery of his wife is e%plained "y his a"sence from the <hilippine )slands during which period it
was impossi"le for him to ta'e any action against the accused. 0here is no merit in the argument that it
was impossi"le for the hus"and to ta'e any action against the accused during the said seven years.