Matubis v.

Praxedes

Facts:
Petitioner and respondent agreed to separate.  Petitioner filed a complaint for legal separation and change of
surname.  In January 1955, respondent begun cohabitating with another. Petitioner instituted the complaint in April
1956.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the action had not yet prescribed.
2. Assuming it had not yet prescribed, WON the agreement amounts to consent precluding the action for legal
separation.

Held:
1. No, it aready prescribed.

Article 102 of the new Civil Code provides:

An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff
became cognizant of the cause and within five years from after the date when cause occurred.

2. Yes, there was are already an express consent.

The condonation and consent here are not only implied but expressed. The law (Art. 100 Civil Code), specifically
provides that legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation
of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Having condoned and/or consented in writing, the plaintiff is now
undeserving of the court's sympathy (People vs. Scheneckenburger, 73 Phil., 413).