50. Macadangdang vs.

CA, 108 SCRA 314

Facts:
Elizabeth Mejias, married to Crispin Anahaw with four children, had
intercourse with Antonio Macadangdang sometime in March 1967. Due to the
affair, she and her husband allegedly got separated.
Seven months
thereafter, Elizabeth gave birth to a baby boy named Rolando
Macadangdang. Elizabeth filed an action for Recognition and Support against
Antonio.
Issue:
Whether or not Rolando Macadangdang is an illegitimate child of
Antonio.
Held:
No. The Rolando Macadangdang was born on October 30, 1967, only
seven (7) months after March 1967 when the "incident" or first illicit
intercourse between Elizabeth and Antonio took place and also, seven
months from their alleged separation. It must be noted that as of March
1967, Elizabeth and Crispin Anahaw had already four children; hence, they
had been married years before such date. The birth of Rolando came more
than one hundred eighty 180 days following the celebration of the said
marriage and before 300 days following the alleged separation between
spouses Elizabeth and Crispin.
Paragraph 1 of Article 255 of the Civil Code provides that children born
after one hundred and eighty days following the celebration of the marriage,
and before three hundred days following its dissolution or the separation of
the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. Thus, the child Rolando is
conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of respondent and her
husband.
49. Pacete vs. Carriaga, 231 SCRA 321
Facts:
Concepcion Alanis, married to Enrico Pacete, filed a complaint for the
declaration of nullity of the marriage between her erstwhile husband Enrico
L. Pacete and Clarita de la Concepcion, as well as for Legal Separation,
Accounting and Separation of Property. Defendants failed to file their Answer
and were declared in default. The trial court ruled in favour of Alanis.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court is right in declaring defendants in default
and granting the Petition for Legal Separation filed by Concepcion Alanis.
Held:
No. Article 58 of the Family Code mandates that an action for legal
separation must "in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed
since the filing of the petition," obviously in order to provide the parties a
"cooling-off" period. In this interim, the court should take steps toward
getting the parties to reconcile. Also, under Section 6, of Rule 18 of the Rules
of Court, there is no defaults in actions for annulments of marriage or for
legal separation. If the defendant in an action for annulment of marriage
or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting
attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists,

and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that
the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
48. Bugayon vs. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, Dec. 28, 1956
Facts:
Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the United States Navy, was
married to defendant Leonila Ginez, while on furlough leave. The couple lived
with their sisters. On July 1951, Leonila Ginez left the dwelling of her sisterin-law and informed her husband by letter that she had gone to reside with
her mother in Asingan, Pangasinan, from which place she later moved to
Dagupan City to study in a local college there.
Benjamin Bugayong learned of the alleged acts of infidelity of his wife.
On August 1952, the spouses went to the house of Benjamins cousin where
they stayed and lived for 2 nights and 1 day as husband and wife. Then they
went to Benjamins house and again passed the night therein as husband
and wife. Benjamin tried to verify from his wife the truth of the information
he received that she had committed adultery but Leonila, instead of
answering his query, merely packed up and left, which he took as a
confirmation of the acts of infidelity imputed on her. Benjamin then filed a
complaint for legal separation.
Issue:
Whether or not the act charged have been condoned by Benjamin.

Held:
Yes. Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground
for legal separation. A single voluntary act of marital intercourse between
the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation and where the
parties live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on terms of
matrimonial cohabitation. Further, Article 100 of the Civil Code states 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.