People v.

Pitoc

Facts:

Herein accused had an illicit relationship with a certain Marciana del Basco for several years prior to his
marriage. In a short time after marriage, defendant together with his wife went to Calumpit, Bulacan to
reside. However, defendant returned to Manila and left his, wife but promised to return which did not
happen. Subsequently her wife looked for him and she found her residing with the same woman he was
having illicit relationship with several years ago which led to the filing of concubinage. Accused was
found guilty which led to the appeal of the case, the accused contended that he did not keep a mistress
in the conjugal dwelling and that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that he kept his mistress under
scandalous circumstances at any other place.

Issue:
Whether the accused is guilty of concubinage.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled to convict the accused. The Supreme Court ratiocinated that Sec. 1 of Act No.
2716 amending Art. 437 added a third ground which is “to cohabit with a woman who is not his wife”.
Hence, it is not limited anymore to keep a mistress in his conjugal dwelling or keep a mistress elsewhere
under scandalous circumstances. The Supreme Court construed “cohabit” as to mean to dwell or live
together as husband and wife; to live together as husband and wife together although not legally
married; to live together in the same house, claiming to be married’; to live together at bed and board.

The fact that his wife found defendant living in the same house and under the same roof with his former
paramour, staying around her store and keeping company with her, under circumstances strongly tend
to show that they had resumed their former illicit relations.