ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA v.

JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA

G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916
EN BANC, Trent, J.

Facts:

After contracting the marriage on 7 January 1915, Jose Campos demanded

Eloisa to perform lascivious acts on his penis. Eloisa did not want to hence, she
was maltreated by word and physical harm prompting her to leave the conjugal
abode. When Eloisa left, she filed a case against her husband for support outside
of the conjugal domicile. The defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that the
plaintiff was not able to state a cause of action.

Issue:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to support.

Held: Yes.

And articles 143 and 149 of the Civil Code are as follows:

“ART. 143. The following are obliged to support each other reciprocally to the whole
extent specified in the preceding article.

1. The consorts.
xxx xxx xxx

ART. (149) 49. The person obliged to give support may, at his option, satisfy it,
either by paying the pension that may be fixed or by receiving and maintaining in
his own home the person having the right to the same.”

While the law provides that living together is a pre-requisite for support, the
rule is not absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate
his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from the conjugal
home because of his wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was forced to
leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of the
husband, she can therefore claim support from the husband for separate
maintenance even outside the conjugal home.