Topic: ​Mutual Guilt and Prescription

WILLIAM H. BROWN vs. JUANITA YAMBAO

G.R. No. L-10699 October 18, 1957

FACTS:

William H. Brown filed suit to obtain legal separation from his lawful wife Juanita Yambao on ​July
14, 1955​ on the grounds that ​while interned by the Japanese invaders, from 1942 to 1945,​ his wife
engaged in adulterous relations with one Carlos Field of whom she begot a baby girl. Brown alleged
that he learned of his wife’s misconduct only in ​1945​, upon his release from internment and ​that they
have lived separately thereafter.

They later executed a document liquidating their conjugal partnership and assigning certain
properties to the erring wife as her share. ​Brown prayed for the confirmation of the liquidation
agreement; for custody of the children issued of the marriage; that the defendant be declared
disqualified to succeed the plaintiff; and for their remedy as might be just and equitable.

The court subsequently declared Juanita Yambao in default, for failure to answer in due time,
despite service of summons and directed the City Fiscal or his representatives to investigate, in
accordance with ​Article 101 of the Civil Code​, if collusion exists between the parties. ​(Art. 60 of
Family Code)

During the cross-examination of the plaintiff by Assistant City Fiscal Rafael Jose, it was found out
that after the liberation, Brown had lived maritally with another woman and had begotten children by
her. Thereafter, the court rendered judgment ​denying the legal separation asked, on the ground
that, while the wife’s adultery was established, Brown had incurred in a misconduct of similar nature
that ​barred his right of action under Article 100 of the new Civil Code, and ​because Brown's
action had prescribed under Article 102 of the same Code since the evidence showed that the
learned of his wife's infidelity in 1945 but only filed action in 1945. ​(Art. 56 of Family Code)

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition for legal separation should be granted provided that Brown filed suit 10
years after learning his wife’s adultery?

Whether or not the petition for legal separation should be granted provided that both spouses
committed the same violation to their marriage?

RULING:

On the first issue at bar, the court denies the petition for legal separation since Brown did not file a
petition for legal separation proceedings until ten years after learning his wife's adultery, under
Article 102 of the new Civil Code (Art. 56 section 6, and Art. 57 of FC), 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.

On the second issue at bar, the court denies the petition for legal separation pursuant to ​Article 100
of the Civil Code ​(Article 56 section 4 of FC​) which provides that:“The legal separation may be
claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the
adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be claimed
by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal
of the petition.”

It is true that the wife 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, involve public interest and it is the policy of our law that no such decree be issued if any
legal obstacles thereto appear upon the record.