Atilano v.
Chua Ching Beng
Legal Separation: Effects on Personal Relations | No. L-11086 | March 29, 1958 | Justice Alfonso Felix |
Gorgeous
FACTS:
Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were married in
May 1951 in Zamboanga City before sailing to
Manila to establish residence with the husband’s
parents. They later returned to Zamboanga City in
October to visit Atilano’s parents, where he was
convinced to return to Manila alone, with the
promise that his wife would follow him later on;
she, however, failed to do so.
In September 1953, petitioner Atilano filed a
complaint for support against her husband asking
for a monthly allowance, alleging that they had
been estranged and living separately since October
1952 due to incessant marital quarrelling and his
inability to provide a home separate from his
parents.
Defendant Chua Ching Beng argued that he was
willing to fulfill his duty as husband (Article 111, old
Civil Code) only if she were in Manila with him and
that he, as husband, had the right to fix their
residence, and even to establish a conjugal dwelling
in Manila separate from his parents.
Petitioner then filed a petition for alimony
pendente lite granting her a monthly allowance.
Defendant then filed a petition electing to fulfill his
obligation to support his wife by receiving and
maintaining her at his residence in Pasay, on the
condition that should she refuse to receive support
under that set-up, then he would no longer be
under any compulsion to remit allowance to her at
Zamboanga City. His petition was denied, thus
being brought before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES AND RATIO:
1.) WON a wife is entitled to receive support
from her husband when she refused to live
with him on account of some
misunderstandings she had with the
husband’s immediate relatives.
NO: Defendant is required by Article 111
of the old Civil Code to maintain and
support his wife and the rest of the family.
However, under Article 299 of the same
code, he is given the option to fulfill his
duty by either (1) paying the allowance as
fixed by the court, or (2) receiving and
maintaining the person entitled thereto
to his house. Defendant contends that he
elects to perform his obligation under the
second means.
The second option may not be availed of
only when there is a moral or legal
obstacle to it, which was not sufficiently
proven in this case, and that the
differences between the spouses was
traced to disagreements with their in-laws.
In giving the husband to option of how to
fulfill his duty, the law does not prevent
him from establishing their conjugal
dwelling at his parents’ home, especially if
he is not able to meet his obligation as
head of the family without their aid.
Furthermore, the wife is not compelled to
live with her husband where even without
legal justification, she established a
residence apart from that which he
provided. Thus, there is no plausible
reason why she should be allowed any
support.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
1.) Petition MODIFIED, giving defendant the
option of supporting his wife at their
conjugal dwelling apart from the home of
the parents of the husband. Should
plaintiff refuse to abide by the terms of the
decision, then defendant shall be
considered relieved from the obligation of
giving any support. Without
pronouncement as to costs.
PROVISIONS:
Article 111, (Old) Civil Code
The husband is responsible for the support of the
wife and the rest of the family. These expenses shall
be met first from the conjugal property, then from
the husband's capital, and lastly from the wife's
paraphernal property. In case there is a separation
of property, by stipulation in the marriage
settlements, the husband and wife shall contribute
proportionately to the family expenses. (n)
Article 299, Civil Code
The person obliged to give support may, at his
option, fulfill his obligation either by paying the
allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in
his house the person who has a right to receive
support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of
in case there is a moral or legal obstacle
thereto. (149a)