Partosa-Jo vs. CA Ong vs.


 The petitioner, Prima Jo, is the legal wife of Jose Jo, herein  William Ong and Lucita Ong were married and had 3 children.
private respondent. Wherein the husband admitted to have  Later on, Lucita filed a complaint for legal separation under Art
cohabited with 3 women and fathered 15 children. 55 (1) of FC on grounds of physical violence, threats, intimidation
 Prima filed a complaint against the husband for judicial and grossly abusive conduct of petitioner. And the RTC granted
separation of conjugal property in addition to an earlier action prayer for legal separation.
for support which was consolidated.  CA upheld RTC’s decision when herein petitioner, the husband,
 RTC decision was a definite disposition of the complaint for filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
support but none of that for the judicial separation of conjugal  In fact, when the respondent asked petitioner to bring their son
property. back from Bacolod which turned into a violent quarrel with the
 Jose elevated an appeal to CA which affirmed rulings of the trial petitioner hitting the respondent on the head, left cheek, eye,
court. The complaint on the separation of property was stomach, arms, and ultimately pointing a gun at respondent’s
dismissed for lack of cause of action on the ground that head asking her to leave the conjugal house.
separation by agreement was not covered in Art. 178 of the Civil  Many more instances of indisputable physical and verbal abuse
Code. where committed by the husband towards his wife. He also said
 The wife contested that the agreement between her and Jose that such legal separation would label him as a wife-beater and
was for her to temporarily live with her parents during the initial child abuser.
period of her pregnancy and for him to visit and support her, and  Issue is WON CA erred in upholding the RTC’s decision granting
that they never agreed to be separated permanently. She even legal separation to Lucita when she herself has given ground for
returned to him but the latter refused to accept her. legal separation when abandoned her family.
 Issue is WON there is abandonment on the part of Jose Jo to  Ruling: No. It is true that a decree of legal separation should not
warrant judicial separation of conjugal property. be granted when both parties have given ground for legal
 Ruling: SC believes that respondent court should have made the separation (Art 56 (4) FC). However, the abandonment referred
necessary modification instead of dismissing the case filed. to in the Family Code is abandonment without justifiable cause
 For abandonment to exist, there must be an absolute cessation for more than one year.
of marital relations, duties and rights, with the intention of  But in this case, it was established that Lucita left William due to
perpetual separation. his abusive conduct which does not constitute the abandonment
 The fact that Jo did not accept her demonstrates that he had no contemplated in the said provision.
intention of resuming their conjugal relationship. In fact, the  Thus, petition of husband was denied for lack of merit because
husband refused to provide financial support to Prima. Hence, the wife’s ground for legal separation was indisputable, while
the physical separation of the parties, coupled with the refusal the husband’s petition against his wife, where he said that she
by the private respondent to give support to the petitioner, herself has given ground for legal separation, did not fly with the
sufficed to constitute abandonment as a ground for the judicial court.
separation of their conjugal property.
 Thus, the petition was granted and in favor of the petitioner and
that the court ordered the conjugal property of the spouses be
divided between them, share and share alike.
 The division will be implemented after the determination of all
the properties pertaining to the said conjugal partnership
including those that may have been illegally registered in the
name of the persons.

Petitioner reported the incident at the police station husband and (lesser issue:) WON there has been an abused of of Bugallon.500 that was given personally by take into consideration the Decision of the National Appellate the defendant or the witness himself. (2) In its Decision dated February 23. Pangasinan. (5) Whether omissions prejudicial to the latter. Dela Cruz vs. Matrimonial Tribunal. as testified by the marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under manager of one of their businesses. his authority as administrator of the conjugal partnership. but separation of their properties. and Severino. without provocation. with another man whenever he came home. or not credence ought to be given to the conclusion of Psychologist Cristina R. There must be real abandonment and and she appealed the RTC Decision and Resolution to the CA. respondent was PI to comply with the essential marital visited the conjugal home and had provided support for the obligations of the marriage: (1) that respondent was jobless and family despite his frequent absences when he was in Manila to was not exerting effort to find a job at the time of marriage. (2) Whether or not the CA failed to monthly allowance of P1. (3) that respondent would Texboard Factory although he paid short visits in the conjugal quarrel with petitioner and falsely accuse her of having an affair home.  Petitioner claimed that at the time of the celebration of  On the other hand. the wife suspected that her husband had a smoking marijuana and drinking. monthly financial support as admitted by the wife.S. family. but not the annulment of their one must have willfully and with intention of not coming back marriage. hence. In fact. the CA apparently did not have the opportunity to consider the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal. (3) Whether or not the evidence of  On the 2nd issue: SC held that lower court erred in holding that petitioner proved the root cause of the psychological incapacity mere refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the of respondent. and took to  Furthermore. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. 2004. Likewise. (4) Whether or not the factual basis of the conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is business constitutes abuse of administration. This negates  Issue is: (1) Main issue: whether or not the totality of petitioner’s the intention of coming home to the conjugal abode. Najera  Estrella. They were married but are childless. there must be a willful and utter disregard of the interest evidence submitted before the trial court and therefore the of the partnership evidenced by a repetition of deliberate acts or same conclusion ought to be rendered by the Court. the defendant were married  Petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Petition for Declaration of in Bacolod and begotten 6 children. Nevertheless. and abandoned the  Issue is WON there has been abandonment on the part of the petitioner. 2004 when it resolved petitioner’s . (4) that while he was quarreling mistress named Nenita Hernandez. acquired several parcels of land and were engage in various with Application for Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite businesses.  RTC rendered a Decision that decreed only the legal separation  To be legally declared as to have abandoned the conjugal home. The husband has never desisted in Psychologist Cristina R. which was affirmed by Estrella. respondent did not give not slept in the conjugal dwelling instead stayed in his office at petitioner sufficient financial support. The evidence was able to prove that respondent is psychologically plaintiff even testified that the husband “paid short visits” incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of implying more than one visit. Severino contended that he had always marriage. During their marriage. and (5) squander and dispose the conjugal assets in favor of the after the said incident respondent left the family home. Pangasinan. the plaintiff. also mismanaged their conjugal properties.000-1. along all their personal belongings. respondent is presently living in the United States of America  She further alleged that her husband aside from abandoning her. Gates on her interview with her the fulfillment of his marital obligations and support of the concluding the PI of the husband. CA not mere separation. (U. Petitioner alleged that she  The plaintiff filed an action against her husband for the and respondent are residents of Bugallon. of the petitioner and respondent. they Nullity of Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal Separation. and perpetual separation. In order for abuse practically the same set of facts established by petitioner’s to exist. it is clear that the CA considered the Matrimonial Tribunal’s decision in its Resolution dated August 5. the husband never failed to give affirmed the Decision of the RTC.  Ruling: (1) The evidence presented by petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of respondent toward petitioner and respondent’s abandonment of petitioner without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. he inflicted physical separation of property for the fear that her husband might violence upon her and attempted to kill her with a bolo. of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains. he had that while employed as a seaman. the wife has been drawing a Article 36 of the Family Code. Since 1955. Gates as an expert in Psychology.A). Dela Cruz Najera vs. taking concubine.  Petitioner presented the psychological conclusions made by  Ruling: On the first issue: No. (2) supervise the expansion of their business. the urgency of the with petitioner.

 HELD: Yes. rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. upon appeal. Charge for bigamy culminated in the conviction of (4) Even if.  The accused should have been acquitted of the crime of concubinage. 344 of the RPC. abduction. complainant herein sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or instituted two actions against the accused.the defense of bigamy for which he was convicted facts relayed to her by petitioner and was not based on her and that of concubinage for which he stood trial in the court are two personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent. "consent" must have been intended agreeably with its ordinary usage. in this case. By such agreement. thus. correctly found that petitioner failed to prove with certainty that offense against civil status which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state. Moreover. a woman who is not his wife. The document executed by and between the accused and the complainant in which they agreed.  Prior consent is as effective as subsequent consent to bar the offended party from prosecuting the offense. hence. the accused w/o leaving the Philippines secured a divorce decree from civil court of Mexico. seduction. the accused interposed the plea of double jeopardy and the case was basis of the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial initially dismissed. within the plain language and manifest policy of the law. the CA held the dismissal before trial to Tribunal confirming the decree of nullity of marriage by the court be premature and without deciding the question of double jeopardy. for in both instances as the offended party has chosen to compromise with his/her dishonor. to the facts established by petitioner before the trial court. respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity was not  Because of the nullity of the divorce decree.  As the term "pardon" unquestionably refers to the offense after its commission.motion for reconsideration. but the second paragraph of imprudence. while illegal for the purpose for which it was executed. while CONCUBINAGE: mere cohabitation by the husband with the alleged personality disorder of respondent was incurable. respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with  The husband contracted another marriage with co-accused Julia Medel the essential obligations of marriage. The TC ruled a quo is not the third paragraph of Canon 1095 which mentions the accused was convicted of concubinage through reckless causes of a psychological nature. the factual basis of the accused. The root cause of before the justice of the peace of Malabon. the trial court  BIGAMY: celebration of second marriage while the first is still existing. submitted by petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove that  Late on. operates. finding is unscientific and unreliable. one for bigamy and another clinically permanent or incurable. the Court sees this to be a narrow view. constitutes nevertheless a valid consent to the act of concubinage within the meaning of Art. decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is similar  Meanwhile. In the said Resolution. he/she becomes unworthy to come to court and invoke its aid in the vindication of the wrong. remanded the case to the trial court for trial on the merits. her distinct offenses in the law. concubinage. to bar the offended party from prosecuting the offense. Psychologist’s conclusion that Rodolfo. offense against chastity and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. .  Previously. However. Judgment is reversed. respondent was psychologically incapacitated was based on  No double jeopardy . to refer to the offense prior to its commission. each party clearly intended to forego the illicit acts of the other. before the trial for the charge of concubinage commenced. The agreement constituted a consent given by Elena to (5) As found by the CA. as contended by petitioner. No logical difference can indeed be perceived between prior and subsequent consent. An agreement of the tenor entered into between the parties herein. the court held that the consent which bars the offended party from instituting a criminal prosecution in cases of adultery. after 7 years (due to incompatibility of characters) they agreed to live (3) SC agrees with the CA that the totality of the evidence separately from each other. the CA took People vs Schnekenburger cognizance of the very same issues now raised before this Court and correctly held that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration  Accused Rodolfo married the complainant Elena Ramirez Cartagena and was devoid of merit. Canon 1095 which refers to those who suffer from a grave lack  Issue is WON the accused should be acquitted of concubinage in view of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial of the agreement executed by Rodolfo and Elena upon their separation. rape and acts of lasciviousness is that which has been given expressly or impliedly after the crime has been committed. for concubinage. Rodolfo should be acquitted.

She also averred that during the course Ginez that may serve as a ground for dismissal of the action. Rosa and the other son Alfred flew to Davao separation. informing him of leaving. house as husband and wife – all these facts have no other meaning than that a reconciliation between them was effected Specifically to dispose of that issue. She confronted her husband but he claimed ignorance of the Dagupan to study in a local college. Sometime in 1997. stage. before which were not produced at the hearing. 100 of the Civil Code states that the legal the addresses of the alleged mistresses so that they could be served separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse. Rosa finally learned of Alfredo’s extra-marital she merely packed up and left which he took as a confirmation relationships. Alfredo claimed innocence. Art. Alfredo physically and verbally abused her and her family. have 2 children.  Petitioner then began receiving letters from Valeriana Polangco. before the Office of the Ombudsman against her husband. The next day.Y. Alfredo is the Chief of Hospital. since Rosa could still amend her . Ombudsman issued herein assailed Resolution. Alfredo opposed. an agreement that Ginez would stay with his sisters who later Alfredo. Later on. Alfredo denied all accusations. their marriage turned sour. and where the preliminary investigation since Rosa can just re-file her complaint. (2) violation the marriage. the counsel for Rosa was directed to submit to this Office  Furthermore. which states that the short cut procedure would delay the proceedings is misplaced. In October 2005. However. communications. Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao  Benjamin Bugayong. Davao Regional Hospital. together in their own house. The parties live in the same house. Rosa learned that a certain Emy Sia (Sia) in the house of the defendant’s godmother. a serviceman in the US Navy was married Private respondent Rosa S. Alfredo took his gun and pointed alleged acts of infidelity of his wife. after she left the conjugal home. He tried to verify with Leonila the truth on the information he received but instead of answering. She gathererd and consolidated information  ISSUE: WON there was condonation between Bugayong and of her husband’s sexual affairs. The act of Benjamin in persuading Leoniza to come along with him. Alfredo opposed the Ombudsman’s ruling to simply amend the complaint and implead the alleged mistresses. Robert and the housekeepers executed a joint affidavit to of the acts of infidelity. (plaintiff’s sister-in-law) and some from anonymous writers. other Pangasinan to reside with her mother and later on moved to women. furious with Rosa’s pressing. it is presumed that they live on doctrine of res judicata does not apply in the preliminary investigation terms of matrimonial cohabitation. The office of the Ombudsman explained that single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties the position of Alfredo would just prolong the conduct of the ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation. and Robert. The couple came to Code. the procedural issue of Rosa’s failure to implead went with him and consented to be brought to the house of his Sia and de Leon as respondents cropped up. Rosa completed the requirements. actively searched for his wife in Pangasinan naturally. However. existence of such letters. Alfred department. When Rosa asked Alfredo. Rosa provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the submitted an Ex-Parte Manifestation on the last known addresses of adultery or concubinage. In their subsequent exchange of  Ruling: Yes. A their respective counsels. Bugayong vs. They met medicine. nurse at the Regional Hospital. they slept the maids’ quarters. she left the dwelling of the sisters. he said that the house of Pedro. and Benjamin Bugayong. Robert eventually returned to Davao City to study  Bugayong went to Pangasinan and looked for his wife. He admitted that his wife it at Rosa’s temple. He filed his Comment to the Provincial Prosecutor praying for the dismissal of the complaint for failure to implead the two mistresses. the Ombudsman scheduled a clarificatory hearing where both Rosa and Alfredo were represented by and that there was condonation of the wife by the husband. Alfredo insisted that Rosa’s cousin and together slept there as husband and wife and the complaint ought to be dismissed for failure to implead his alleged further fact that in the second night they slept together in their concubines as respondents. Nonetheless. Immediately after Concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code. They moved in Manila. and love letters addressed to Alfredo from. They proceeded to was living at their conjugal home. There was condonation because the husband. Rosa maintained Alfredo’s culpability. Alfredo was only staved off because Rosa’s mother informed him by letter that a certain Eliong kissed her. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children). Ginez Busuego vs. An opportunity to work as nurse in N. prompted him to seek the advice of the Navy Chaplain who asked him to consult with the navy legal Rosa went to the US and was eventually joined by her 2 children. disposing of the procedural issues. Busuego (Rosa) filed a complaint for: (1) with Leonila Ginez while on furlough leave. She saw in-law and informed her husband by letter that she had gone to photographs of. they lived with the sisters of Bugayong in said of Republic Act No. responsive pleadings. cousin of the plaintiff where they stayed for Sia. was just in a sorry plight and was allegedly raped by Rosa’s brother-in-law so he allowed her to sleep at 1 day and 1 night as husband and wife. All these arrived at the couple’s house. Julie de Leon and Emy Sia (alleged mistresses. without informing Alfredo. Sia and de Leon did not submit their respective counter-affidavits. Hence. with the Order directing them to file their counter-affidavits. USA. and (3) Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal municipality before he went back to duty. He then filed a complaint for legal support Rosa’s allegations. of the marriage. and the fact that she In the course thereof.) Ombudsman issued a Joint Order4 impleading Sia and de Leon as party- respondents in the complaint for Concubinage and directing them to submit their respective counter-affidavits within a period of time.

the investigation of such cases. Notably. Therefore the Court sustain the Ombudsman’s decision. 9262 and Grave Threats. The Ombudsman merely facilitated the amendment of the complaint to cure the defect pointed out by Alfredo. the respondent Ombudsman may. the respective heads of said offices came up with OMB- DOJ Joint Circular No. city apply. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate offenses involving public officers or employees is concurrent . No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan. The Ombudsman merely followed the provisions of its Rules of Procedure. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Section 2 and paragraphs d and f. the Ombudsman stood pat on its ruling. Nonetheless. Alfredo filed a Motion for Reconsideration excepting to the and state prosecutors. respondent DOJ Panel is not precluded from conducting comes to us on petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion any investigation of cases against public officers involving violations of in the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict him and Sia for penal laws but if the cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Concubinage. investigation. at that stage. albeit concurrent with the DOJ. without regard to its commission in relation to office. with the jurisprudential declarations that the Ombudsman and the DOJ have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct preliminary RULING: Yes. Sandiganbayan. or to act at all in contemplation of law. Section 4 of Rule II. Thus. 95-001 for the proper guidelines of their The Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination respective prosecutors in the conduct of their investigations. to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes involving public officers. the issue having been insisted upon by Alfredo. Rosa’s complaint contained not just the Concubinage charge. it deemed it fit to hold a clarificatory hearing to discuss the applicability of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. but other charges: violation of Republic Act No. of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. Alfredo now In other words. do not give to the Ombudsman exclusive jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed by public officers or employees. Thus. had long been settled in Sen. petitioner failed to demonstrate the Ombudsman's abuse. take over. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. This is the reason why judicial review of the resolution of the Ombudsman in the exercise WHEREFORE the petition is DISMISSED.complaint and re-file the case for the doctrine of res judicata will not with other government investigating agencies such as provincial. of discretion. declared that the Partial Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. the complaint was supported by affidavits corroborating Rosa’s accusations. from any investigating agency of the government. or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases. while the Ombudsman found no reason for outright dismissal. as amended. in the exercise of its Ombudsman’s ruling on the automatic inclusion of Sia as respondent in primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. the Ombudsman. as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. of its power and duty to investigate and prosecute felonies and/or offenses of public officers is limited to a determination of whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction. Surely the procedural sequence of referral of the complaint to respondent for comment and thereafter the holding of a clarificatory hearing is provided for in paragraph b. the Ombudsman properly referred the complaint to Alfredo for comment. In this regard. However. in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage. at any stage. may the complaint and their indictment for the crime of Concubinage. ISSUE: WON the Ombudsman has full discretionary authority in the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation. Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law. Courts are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Ombudsman. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of DOJ. Nonetheless. Upon the Ombudsman’s perusal. The Constitution. Honasan II v. which the Court have at the outset underscored. much less grave abuse.

and Marcelo Ramos for adultery and both were sentenced  In 1955. It is to be noted that appellant did not even press this or to assert his rights as husband. For failure to agree on how they should live as wife to go to the Province of Cagayan where he remained for husband and wife. Poor and illiterate." generally reputed as such in the community. knowing that she resumed living with her January. we have come to the conclusion that the license to commit the ground for legal separation which is evidence in this case and his conduct warrant the inference that admittedly illegal. and the second part — that which becomes a "offended" spouse. he filed a charge against his wife arising from our separation. . she came to they have lived with him ever since. She instituted the complaint only on April 24. the husband of the accused has been child of said defendant. abandonment and concubinage. from after the date when cause occurred. He refused to pardon her or to provides that “an action for legal separation cannot be filed live with her and said she could go where she wished. as he declared. having abandoned Asuncion deported themselves as husband and wife and were her as he did. plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement. plaintiff is now undeserving of the court's sympathy. the couple agreed to live separately from three years without writing to his wife or sending her anything each other. and she could do as plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years she pleased. Having condoned and/or consented in writing. The  Rule: Apart from the fact that the husband in this case was first part having to do with the act of living separately which he assuming a mere pose when he signed the complaint as the claims to be legal.”  Abandoned for the second time. stating without relatives upon whom she could call. defendant began cohabiting with one Asuncion arresto mayor. Sesano and Ramos Matubis vs. At the house of the Praxedes. Shortly thereafter he left for matter in her brief. she and her child went back to  The complaint was filed outside the periods provided for by the her co-accused Marcelo Ramos (this was in the year 1924) and above Article. By the very admission of plaintiff. of being able to to the adultery or concubinage. obtain a divorce. stated the following: "In Rebulado who gave birth to a child. who was recorded as the the opinion of the court. On his return to the legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent these Islands.  We cannot accept the argument of the Attorney-General that the seven years of acquiescence on his part in the adultery of his wife is explained by his absence from the Philippine Islands during which period it was impossible for him to take any action against the accused. People vs. the Territory of Hawaii where he remained for seven years  On Condonation: Article 100 of the new Civil Code provides that completely abandoning his said wife and child. It was shown also that defendant and somewhat cruel in his treatment of his wife. (b) That both without any the accused Marcelo Ramos who took her and the child to live interference by any of us. he presented the second charge of adultery here spouse. she struggled for an the following: (a) that both of us relinquish our right over the existence for herself and her son until a fatal day when she met other as legal husband and wife.  The agreement between the spouses is divided in two parts. the this criminal proceeding. plaintiff Socorro Matubis filed She thereupon appealed to the municipal president and the with the CFI of Camarines Sur a complaint for legal separation justice of the peace to send for her husband so that she might and changed of surname against her husband defendant Zoilo ask his pardon and beg him to take her back. provided there has been no condonation of or consent involved with the sole purpose. Alleging  After completing her sentence. in its decision. president she begged his pardon and promised to be a faithful  Held: On the Prescription: Article 102 of the new Civil Code wife if he would take her back. which status remained unchanged until the present. Shortly after the birth of this child. other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or suit  On the return of the husband. the husband left his Camarines Sur. for the support of herself and their son. nor either of us can prosecute the with him. he consented to the adulterous relations existing between the  The condonation and consent here are not only implied but accused and therefore he is not authorized by law to institute expressed. child. that he except within one year from and after the date on which the would have nothing more to do with her. There is no merit in the argument that it was impossible for the husband to take any action against the accused during the said seven years. 1955. know the ground (concubinage) for the legal separation in  The husband. The court.  Later. Praxedes  Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married and had one  Plaintiff and defendant were legally married in at Iriga. did nothing to interfere with their relations 1956. codefendant in 1924. the accused left her paramour.

so that its . Neither was said testimony rendered inadmissible by the  During the cross-examination of the plaintiff by Assistant City constitutional provision on the right to remain silent and the Fiscal Rafael Jose. if collusion nor an investigating officer conducting a custodial investigation. his wife engaged in adulterous relations with reconsideration or new trial contending that a pardon had been a certain Carlos Field of whom she begot a baby girl. Brown had incurred a questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions misconduct of similar nature that barred his right of action under from respondent-accused.e. This decision was affirmed by the invaders from 1942 to 1945 at the University of Santo Tomas Court of Appeals. the SC said that it was legitimate for the fiscal to bring to light any circumstances that could give rise to the inference that the wife’s default was calculated. petition for legal separation prescribing. No. that it is a social institution in which the state is vitally interested.  1. exists between the parties.  The SC also said that the requirement of intervention of the state attorney in case of uncontested proceedings for legal separation (and of annulment of marriages). The wife later filed a motion for internment camp. who defaulted? Court). in pursuance of agreement to defend divorce proceedings”  In the case at bar.  RATIONALE: ISSUE #1: According to the Supreme Court. while investigation. Manila on the ground of adultery. or by failure. before the Court of First Instance of Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioner and the wife. Neri's testimony as he was a competent granted? witness.  The fact that there was evidence of misconduct on the part of the husband and the failure of the wife to set it up by way of defense. Rule 129. Jr. because Juanita Yambao failed to file her answer to the  YES. the trial court declared her in default and adulterous conduct made by the wife to her husband is ordered the City Fiscal to represent the state and investigate. vs CA Brown vs. Brown said extended by her husband. is to emphasize that marriage is more than a mere contract. while he was interned by the Japanese had sex with petitioner Arroyo. Yambao  A criminal complaint for adultery was filed by Dr. Collusion in matrimonial cases is defined as “the act of married of persons in procuring a divorce by mutual consent. Decision appealed from affirmed.  DECISION: No.  Now. After trial. testifying against his wife in criminal cases for a crime committed  ISSUES: (1) WON the court erred in allowing Assistant Fiscal by one against the other (Section 22. Article 100 of the new Civil Code. i. thereafter. for custody of the children issued of the marriage. to enable the appellant to obtain the decree of legal separation that he sought without regard to the legal merits of his case. In short. the trial court  The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an denied the petition for legal separation on the ground that. in evidence. The husband's testimony relating to the admission of petition in due time. the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not Whether or not the petition for legal separation should be err in admitting Dr. it was found out that after the liberation. The husband was neither a peace officer accordance with Article 101 of the New Civil Code. based. Brown filed a petition for legal separation from his against Ruby (wife) and Arroyo (petitioner)." begotten children by her. Juanita Yambao. Because of this fact. The husband is not precluded under the Rules of Court from the decision of the lower court before the Supreme Court. and that there had been consent and connivance in addition to Brown’s action for filing a  2. Brown is now appealing  Yes. in admissible in evidence. Revised Rules of Rafael Jose to act as counsel for the defendant. whether by pre-concerted commission by one of a matrimonial offense. when the investigating officer starts to ask his wife’s adultery was established. among others on the wife's admission to her husband that she  According to Brown. the wife. right to counsel of a "person under investigation for the Brown had lived martially with another woman and had commission of an offense. or agreed upon.  Brown is now praying for the confirmation of their liquidation ISSUES/RULINGS: agreement. Whether the admission of adulterous conduct by the wife to and that the defendant be declared disqualified to succeed the her husband without the presence of her counsel is admissible plaintiff and for other remedy as might be just and equitable. The husband filed a manifestation that he learned of his wife’s misconduct only in 1945 upon his praying for the dismissal of the case as he had "tacitly release from internment and that they have lived separately consented" to his wife's infidelity.. Neri (husband)  William H. were proper subject of inquiry as they may justifiably be considered circumstantial evidence of collusion between the spouses. Whether the husband is a competent witness against his wife. Arroyo.

continuation or interruption cannot be made to depend upon the parties themselves. the courts can take cognizance thereof.  ISSUE #2: In the case at bar. This misconduct bars him from claiming legal separation in accordance with the express provision of Article 100 of the new Civil Code.  Another reason why the petition for legal separation cannot be granted is that the action for legal separation in the case at bar has already prescribed. involve public interest. the SC said that the petition for legal separation should not be granted it being evident that Brown is also guilty of co-habiting with a woman other than his wife. or annulment of marriage.  It is consonant with this policy that the inquiry by the Fiscal should be allowed to focus upon any relevant matter that may indicate whether the proceedings for separation or annulment are fully justified or not. Nevertheless. because actions seeking a decree of legal separation. since Brown did not institute the proceeding until 10years after he learned of his wife’s adultery in 1945 (he filed it on 1955) and Article 102 of the new Civil Code states that “an action for legal separation cannot be filed except within 1year from and after the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within 5years from and after the date when such cause occurred”  [It is true that the wife has not interposed prescription as a defense. and it is the policy of our law that no such decree be issued if any legal obstacles thereto appear upon the record] .