Case Name Goitia v Campos-Rueda

GR No. | Date GR No. 11263| November 2, 1916

Topic Nature of marriage in Philippine law
Doctrine If the woman leaves the marital home as a result of the husband's wrongdoing, the law does
not allow him to escape or end his duty to provide for her.
Parties involved ELOISA GOITIA Y DE LA CAMARA, plaintiff-appellant
JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appellee.

Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Socias for appellant.

Sanz, Opisso & Luzuriaga for appellee.
Ponente TRENT, J.
General Summary On January 7, 1915, Jose Campos Rueda and Eloisa Goitia De La Camara, a married couple,
reside in the City of Manila where they lived together for about a month. Living together, the
respondent, Campos-Rueda, allegedly demanded the plaintiff, Goitia, to engage in “lewd and
lascivious” behavior on his genital parts. The plaintiff, Goitia, left their house and sought
refuge in her parents’ home.

Goitia filed a complaint against the defendant, Campos-Rudea, for support outside the
conjugal home. The CFI ruled in favor of the defendant and held that the defendant cannot be
compelled to support the plaintiff, except in his own house, unless it is by virtue of a judicial
decree granting her a divorce or separation from the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

Facts
● On January 7, 1915, the parties were legally married in the city of Manila and established their residence at 115
Calle San Marcelino and lived there for a month
● One month after marrying and living with each other, the defendant demanded the plaintiff to perform “lewd
and lascivious” acts on his genitalia
● The plaintiff refused to comply with the defendant's demands and would only engage in “valid and legal
cohabitation”
● The defendant continually demands the plaintiff to do the acts but she always refuses, hence, the defendant
started maltreating her by “word and deed and inflict injuries upon her lips, her face and different parts of her
body”
● The plaintiff was forced to leave the conjugal home and seek sanctuary in her parents' house because she was
unable to convince the defendant to quit his “repugnant desires” and stop abusing her

Issue/s
● W/n Goitia can compel her husband, Campos-Rueda, for support outside of the conjugal domicile/home

Ruling
● Yes. “The wife, who is forced to leave the conjugal abode by her husband without fault on her part, may maintain
an action against the husband for separate maintenance when he has no other remedy, notwithstanding the
provisions of article 149 of the Civil Code giving the person who is obliged to furnish support the option to satisfy
it either by paying a fixed pension or by receiving and maintaining in his own home the one having the right to
the same.”

Article (149) 49. The person obliged to give support may, at his option, satisfy it, either by paying the pension
that may be fixed or by receiving and maintaining in his own home the person having the right to the same.

The foregoing are the grounds upon which our short opinion and order for judgment, heretofore filed in this
case, rest.
Reasoning
● The act of marriage alone creates the husband's responsibility to provide for his wife. According to Article 149 of
the Civil Code, the person who is required to offer assistance may, at his discretion, do so by either accepting and
keeping the person who is entitled to the same in his own house or by paying the pension that may be
determined. This legal choice, though, is not absolute. If the woman leaves the marital home as a result of the
husband's wrongdoing, the law does not allow him to escape or end his duty to provide for her.
In the contested case, the wife was compelled to leave the marital residence due to the husband's indecent
behavior and physical abuse. As mentioned in the case, “the complaint of the wife which alleges unbearable
conduct and treatment on the part of the husband is sufficient to constitute a cause of action for separate
maintenance.”
Therefore, it is only fair to ask the husband for support even though the upkeep is separate and outside of the
marital house.
Separate Opinions (if any)
● MORELAND, J., concurring:

Contended that a husband cannot relieve himself from the duty to support his wife imposed by law; and where a
husband, by wrongful, illegal, and unbearable conduct, drives his wife from the domicile fixed by him, he cannot
take advantage of her departure to abrogate the law applicable to the marital relation and repudiate his duties
thereunder.

Relevance to the topic

● To quote the Court’s statement: “A judgment for separate maintenance is not due and payable either as damages
or as a penalty; nor is it a debt in the strict legal sense of that term, but rather a judgment calling for the
performance of duty made specific by the mandate of the sovereign. This is done from necessity and with a view
to preserving the public peace and the purity of the wife; as where the husband makes so base demands upon
his wife and indulges in the habit of assaulting her the pro tanto separation resulting from a decree for separate
support is not an impeachment of that public policy by which marriage is regarded as so sacred and inviolable in
its nature; it is merely a stronger policy overruling a weaker one; and except in so far only as such separation is
tolerated as a means of preserving the public peace and morals may be considered, it does not in any respect
whatever impair the marriage contract or for any purpose place the wife in the situation of a feme sole.”

Given that, the ruling, in this case, reflects the nature of the Philippine marriage:
o to preserve the mandate of the sovereign, the provisions of article 149 of the Civil Code, Articles 44 to 79
of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870, etc.
o to preserve the public peace and the purity of the wife
o marriage is regarded as so sacred and inviolable in its nature