Brown v.

Yambao
G.R. No. L-10699. 18 October 1957
Reyes, J.

FACTS: William H. Brown filed a suit to obtain legal separation from his wife Juanita
Yambao on 1955. He alleged while interned by the Japanese invaders at the UST internment
camp, respondent had adulterous relation with Carlos field of whom she had a baby with
and only upon his release from internment on 1945, Brown learned of his wife’s
misconduct. Upon knowing, they lived separately and later executed a document (Annex A)
liquidating their conjugal partnership.

The wife failed to answer in due time despite service of summon, thus the Court of
First Instance of Manila declared in accordance with Article 101 of the Civil Code, to
determine within 15 days if there is a collusion between the parties. Also the City Fiscal or
his representative is directed to intervene in the case in behalf of the State.

Assistant City Fiscal Rafael Jose then appeared at the trial and cross-examined the
petitioner, finding out that Brown had lived martially with another woman and had children
with her. Therefore, the court denied the legal separation on the ground both had incurred
adulterous relationships and under Article 100, the legal separation may only be claimed by
the innocent spouse.

ISSUE: W.O.N CFI erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint

RULING: NO. Brown agrues that in his cross-examination, the prosectution should have
limited to finding out if there is a collusion, and stop if there is none. And the truth is, the
prosecution intervenes for Juanita Yambao, who is a private citizen and far from being the
state. The argument is refutable.

Collusion in matrimonial cases is the act of procuring divorce by mutual consent by the
married persons, by the commission of one matrimonial offense, or by failure. The Fiscal
acted within his legitimate exercise of duty to give light in any circumstances that brought
about the legal separation. One such circumstance is obviously the fact of Brown's
cohabitation with a woman other than his wife, since it bars him from claiming legal
separation by express provision of Article 100 of the new Civil Code. Hence, evidence of
such misconduct is within the proper subject of inquiry as they may be justifiably considered
circumstantial evidence of collusion.

The policy of Article 101 of the new Civil Code, calling for the intervention of the state
attorneys in proceeding for legal separation (and annulment of marriages) is to emphasize
marriage is more than a mere contract; it is a social institution which the state is interested
and continuation and interruption are governed by law. Under Article 102, action for legal
separation can not be filed except within one (1) year from and after the plaintiff became
cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when such cause
occurred. But since Brown filed the petition 10 years after, the action had been prescribed.

Though the respondent has not interposed prescription as a defense, nevertheless, the
courts can take cognizance thereof, because actions seeking a decree of legal separation,
or annulment of marriage involves public interest and in accordance with the law, no such
petition shall be granted if legal obstacles are present.