Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of

Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of
TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera divorce was already issued.
CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653

HELD:
FACTS:
The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and
Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be
respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the the offended spouse and nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared
Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid
Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20, divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said
1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so
eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration and
against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and
January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the
support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
23, 1983.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the
ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child
was granted to the petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery
before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to
Imelda, latter “had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and
another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”.

ISSUE: