You are on page 1of 2

Tenchavez v. Escano (1966: Manila) was not proven.

In the present case the charge of cruelty was also not
1st: Pastor Tenchavez & Vicenta Escaño were married in 1948. In 1950, defendant proven but the Aurelia also accused her husband of infidelity and that charge
Escaño obtained a foreign divorce in Nevada. She further sought papal dispensation has been proven (repeated acts of conjugal infidelity) and the husband
of the marriage but no document was presented. appears to be a recurrent, if not incurable offender. This fact gives the wife
2nd: Escaño’s marriage to American Rusell Leo Moran in the US in 1954, which was an undeniable right to relief.
later blessed with 3 children.  Goita vs. Campos Rueda – husband cannot by his own wrongful acts,
relieve himself from the duty to support his wife. When he drives his wife
ISSUES: from the domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure to
(1) WON divorce is valid abrogate the law applicable to the marital relations and repudiate his duties.
(2) WON Court may then compel Escaño to cohabit with Tenchavez
Issue: WON she is entitled to P750 monthly allowance
RATIO: (1) Divorce is invalid for a foreign divorce decree cannot be recognized in the Held: No
Phils especially if it was granted by court of the place which was not the parties’ bona Court granted allowance of P500 a month. P750 would be excessive since the living
fide domicile and on a ground not recognized by our law, which does not allow quarters that she uses are part of the conjugal estate.
absolute divorce. Even in private international law, foreign decrees (esp those
confirming or dissolving a marriage) cannot be enforced or recognized if they Issue: WON the custody of the children should be transferred to the father
contravene public policy. Held: No
(2) No. It is not within the province of courts to attempt to compel one of the sps to Ratio: Custody of the 2 minor children shall remain with Aurelia. The children are
cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to the other. However, a sp who unjustifiable currently living with her and her custody will not be disturbed.
deserts the conjugal abode can be denied support.
CIPRIANA GARCIA vs. ISABELO SANTIAGO AND ALEJO SANTIAGO
Dadivas de Villanueva v. Villanueva Appeal from Nueva Ecija COFI dismissing complaint
Appeal from the judgement of the Four of First Instance in Manila
FACTS
Facts: • April 8, 1910 – Cipriana Garcia & Isabelo Santiago were married
 July 16, 1905 – Aurelia Dadivas de Villanuevas married Rafael Villanueva • Feb. 3, 1925 – Cipriana compelled to leave the conjugal dwelling due to:
and they had three children. (18, 10, 9) 1. continued family dissensions
 May 27, 1927 Aurelia filed a case for separate maintenance due to infidelity 2. Alejo, Isabelo’s son by his first wife seduced Prisca Aurelio, Cipriana’s
and cruelty. 10 years prior to the institution of the case, Rafael was guilty of daughter by her first husband. Prisca gave birth to a child. Isabelo, instead of
repeated acts of infidelity with four different women. Even after the requiring his son to marry Prisca, refused to interfere & he seemed to
institution of the case it was shown that he have had an illicit relations with tolerate the illicit relationship.
another woman. 3. Isabelo has conveyed/been conveying their conjugal properties to Alejo to
 The incorrigible nature of the defendant in his relations with other women foster latter’s whims & caprices and thus, damaging & prejudicing her rights.
coupled with his lack of consideration and even brutality caused Aurelia to Some of these properties include lands acquired during their marriage with
leave the conjugal home and for her to establish her own abode. Their final money belonging to the conjugal partnership. Land annually produces 4,500
separation occurred on April 20, 1947. cavanes of palay at P4.00/cavan.
 There was no sufficient evidence to establish the cruelty of the husband but • Other allegations of Cipriana/Prayers to the Court:
there were sufficient evidence to establish the infidelity of the husband. 1. Their separation is necessary to avoid personal violence. She could not live
Issue: WON the wife is entitled for separate support from her husband. in the conjugal dwelling due to the illicit relationship of Alejo & Prisca
Held: Yes tolerated by Isabelo.
Ratio: 2. She is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite monthly pension from conjugal
 In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate partnership. However, Isabelo refused to provide for her support despite her
maintenance from the husband it is not necessary that the husband should demands.
bring a concubine into the home. Perverse and illicit relations with women 3. She should be in-charge of the administration of the property of their
outside the conjugal home are sufficient grounds. conjugal partnership because Isabelo is unfit to do so. He exhibits immoral
 Ruling in Arroyo vs. Vasquez de Arroyo is not applicable because in the conduct & acts by publicly maintaining an illicit relationship with Geronima
Arroyo case the only grounds that were alleged was cruelty and that charge Yap.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690023.doc
Page 1 of 2
• Isabelo: answered with a general denial. Held: Decision appealed from is modified by giving the defendant husband the option
• COFI: dismissed petition. of supporting his wife at their conjugal dwelling apart from the home of the parents of
ISSUES & RATIO (as per Cipriana’s appeal): the husband. Should the plaintiff refuse, then the defendant is relieved from the
1. WON their separation is unjustified obligation of giving support.
NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to the frequent fights. Ratio: The court found that while the wife strongly wanted to be separated from the
Isabelo ordered her to leave the house & threatened to ill-treat her if she returned. husband, the husband was open to fix the problem, acknowledging his obligation to
Prisca’s situation is embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo caused support her and even expressing his willingness to abide by her wishes to have a
Prisca’s pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead to further quarrels. conjugal dwelling apart from his parents, although this might be financially taxing for
him to sustain. The defendant acknowledges that the Art. 111, CC imposes on the
2. WON transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal husband the responsibility of maintaining and supporting his wide and family but he
NO. Failed to prove that property was community property. Documentary evidence insists that under Art. 209, CC he is given the option to fulfill said duty either by
even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage. paying the allowance as fixed by the Court or by receiving and maintaining the person
entitled thereto in his house. He has thus elected to perform his obligation by the
3. WON Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance second means allowed by the law. The law affords moral and legal obstacle as a
NO. That’s too much. P50.00 would be enough. ground to compel husband to provide separate maintenance for the wife. However,
4. WON Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property misunderstanding with in-laws is not a valid moral and legal obstacle. Art. 110 does
NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right. not preclude the husband from fixing the conjugal residence at the patriarchal home,
nor is it against any recognized norm of morality.
5. WON Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorney’s fees Although the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
NO. respect and fidelity and render mutual help and assistance, and that the wife is
entitled to be supported, our laws contain no provision compelling the wife to live with
HOLDING: Judgment modified. Separation is allowed. Isabelo ordered provide her husband where even without legal justification she establishes her residence
Cipriana with a P50.00 monthly allowance to be paid within the first 10 days of the apart from that provided for by the former. But there is no reason why she should be
month. No costs allowed. allowed any support from the husband.

Atilano vs. Chua Ching Beng Del Rosario v. Del Rosario (1949: Manila)
Facts: Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were married in Zamboanga after which On May 9, 1940, plaintiff Genoveva D.R. (widow w/ 2 kids) and defendant Teoderico
they went to Manila and established their residence with Chua’s parents. Afterwards, D.R. (mechanic, widower w/ a son) were married. They lived together in the house of
at Chua’s initiative, they went to Zamboanga to visit Pilar’s parents. It seems that he defendant's mother. Because of petty quarrels, plaintiff left the conjugal home in
was prevailed upon by the wife’s parents to return to Manila leaving her behind, with 1942.
the understanding that she would follow him later. She didn’t. About two years later,
Pilar filed with the Zamboanga CFI a complaint for support against her husband, ISSUE: WON plaintiff is justified in leaving and is entitled to support
alleging that they’ve been living separately for two years, and that their marriage had
been unharmonious. It appears that the wife is involved in a domestic controversy, RATIO: Yes. As the marriage vow does not include making sacrifices for the in-laws,
being pitted against her husband’s immediate relatives and making marital life there is legal justification for W’s refusal to live with H, taking into account the
difficult. She demanded for support. Defendant refuted the allegations and prayed traditional hatred between W and her mother-in-law (hahaha). It is true that W is
that the complaint be dismissed. Meanwhile, the plaintiff files a petition for alimony obliged to follow her H wherever he wishes to establish the residence (Art 58 CC), but
pendente lite which defendant opposed. Based on a stipulation of facts agreed upon this right does not include compelling W to live with mo-in-law, if they cannot get
by the parties, the court rendered judgment granting the wife’s allowance. The along together. Alimony will be set according to H’s ability to pay.
defendant filed a petition electing to fulfill his obligation as thus fixed by the court by
receiving and maintaining plaintiff at his residence in Pasay, and that if the plaintiff
refuses, the defendant will not be compelled to remit allowance to her in Zamboanga.
This petition was denied and therefore, the defendant brought the case to the CA who
certified the case to the SC.
Issue: WON a wife is entitled to receive support from her husband where she refused
to live with him on account of some misunderstandings she had with the husband’s
immediate relatives.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4690023.doc
Page 2 of 2