Legal Separation; Defenses
what the petitioner alleged - collusion? and
Art 56, FC. LegSep denied in the ff.
defenses:
1. Aggrieved condoned
2. Aggrieved consented
3. Aggrieved connived
4. Both have made a ground for LS
5. Collusion
6. Prescription
Legal Separation; Defenses; Condonation
Condonation - post-offense and after knowing
fully the offense
Cohabiting is forbearance, not condonation
Sexual intercourse is condonation
Willan v. Willan
Petitioner husband sought legal separation
from his respondent wife stating that she was
very violent and always force him to have sex.
During the pendency of the case, she still
demanded sex to which the petitioner
acquiesced. Lower court held that that is
tantamount to condonation.
WON acquiescing to a violent demand of wife
for sex is sufficient defense for legsep
petition
Yes, he could have freely run away if he was
really pestered. He may not have liked it but
still acquiesced for the sake of peace. That is
condonation.
Failure to search spouse is not condonation
Ocampo v. Florenciano
Petitioner Ocampo married Respondent
Florenciano in 1938. He sent her to beauty
school in Manila. Later, he found out she was
having illicit affairs with a certain Arcalas in
1951 and with a certain Orzame in 1955. He
filed petition for legal separation thereafter.
CA held that (1) the wife merely confessed
(2) he failed to search actively for her wife
after 1955 - condonation?
WON the legsep petition be denied by reason
of collusion/condonation
Court held that there was no collusion. It may
be a fact that the wife just admitted
allegations but such allegations were backed
with evidences and testimonies. She really
committed adultery. Court also held there was
no condonation because it isnt the husbands
responsibility to look for his wife. She left;
therefore its her duty to return. CA decision
reversed.
Condonation if:
1. Spouse knew the committed offense
2. Nevertheless reconciled
Bugayong v. Ginez
Petitioner Bugayong married respondent
Ginez in 1949. In 1951, he went abroad for
work. He received letters alleging the
infidelity of her wife. He even received wifes
letter that a certain man kissed her. He went
back in 1952 to confront wife but before that
they had sex in his cousins house and another
in his house. Thereafter, he asked about the
infidelity but respondent wife refused to
answer and left. He construed that as
admission and filed for legsep.
WON having sex with the offender wife
tantamount to condonation
Yes. Knowing that the wife betrayed his
trust, he still had sex with her and that is
tantamount to forgiveness. Art. 100, CC says
that legsep may be filed if no condonation on
the part of the aggrieved party. Court
interpreted that such sex will amount to
condonation. According to US jurisprudence, a
single voluntary act of marital intercourse
after betrayal of trust will clear the ground
for legsep. Husband petition denied.
Legal Separation; Defenses; Consent
Consent - pre-offense (as opposed to
condonation)
1. Express consent - telling spouse that
he/she may have other liaisons
2. Implied consent - indifference or
corrupt advice construed as consent
Matubis v. Praxedes
Petitioner Socorro Matubis and respondent
Praxedes were married but after a year
found it hard to live with each other. They
made a written agreement providing among
others that they could get another mate
without any interference. Respondent had
another mate but the petitioner wife
petitioned for legsep on the ground of his
concubinage.
WON legsep may be filed by reason of his
committing concubinage
Court held that the respondent indeed had
another mate but petitioner signed the
written agreement that they are free to have
another mate. Although the concubinage
ground is present, the consent defense is also
sufficient to prevent legsep. Legsep denied.
People v. Sensano and Ramos
Respondent spouses were married in 1919.
They had a child but the husband left for
Cagayan and didnt communicate with her for
3 years. He also didnt support the child for
that period. She lived with another man for
subsistence. When respondent husband
returned, he filed an adultery charge against
his wife and the other man. After sentence,
respondent Ramos refused to take her in and
let her do what she want. She then lived with
the other man again after sentence.
Respondent husband then again filed a charge
for adultery. CFI granted legsep but
Attorney-General appealed the decision.
WON the second adultery charge is a
sufficient ground for legsep
Court held that his refusal to take her in
after being sentenced for the 1st adultery
charge amounted to his consent to the
adulterous relations of his wife and the other
man. CFI decision reversed. Legsep cannot be
granted because he consented to the second
adulterous act.
Legal Separation; Defenses; Connivance
Connivance - bilateral (as opposed to consent,
unilateral) before commission of ground, may
also be inferred from the conduct of the
petitioner spouse
Sargent v. Sargent
Petitioner husband suspects that his wife is
having adulterous relations with their driver
Simmons. He employed detectives that acted
as house helps and he also told the other
servants to keep a watchful eye with the two
while hes on business trips. The servants
confirmed the adulterous acts of the two and
he crafted a plan to catch her wife red-
handed. Thereafter, he filed an adultery
charge against his wife
WON the adultery charge will lay against his
wife
Court held that the husband was already
knowledgeable about the adulterous acts of
his wife but he did nothing to prevent further
adultery. As a man and knowing that his wife
is in such a situation, he should have thrown
protection around his wife by preventing
further adultery (firing Simmons or
confronting her) but instead he allowed
certain adulterous instances. Therefore, he
must be supposed to see and mean the result
(adulterous acts of his wife).
Legal Separation; Defenses; Mutual
Guilt/Recrimination
If both parties are guilty of dishonoring their
marital vows, no one can invoke the guilt of
the other.
Legal Separation; Defenses; Collusion
Brown v. Yambao
Petitioner filed a legal separation case against
his respondent wife. He alleges that she was
impregnated by another man. Respondent
didnt show up in the hearing and was thereby
declared default. After the adultery of the
wife was established, the fiscal intervened
and said the petitioner was living with a
concubine. Petitioner avers that the fiscal
overstepped its boundaries when the same
acted as the counsel for the wife.
WON fiscals job was limited to only finding
about collusion between the spouses
No. Fiscals job only includes finding about
collusions but it was not limited to that. He or
she may bring light to any circumstances that
may affect the legsep proceedings and finding
about the concubine balances out the adultery
of his wife. Therefore, the legsep charge
cannot proceed having both parties guilty of a
ground.
Also, the suit has prescribed. After learning
about the adultery of his wife, 10 years have
passed before he filed a charge. Art. 102, CC
states that such action must be filed within 1
year after learning of the cause and 5 years
after the cause was committed.
Legal Separation; Defenses; Prescription
Art. 102, CC. Prescriptive period for legsep
1. 1 year after knowing the cause - may
be short because petitioner might
seek advices first
2. 5 years after such cause occurred
Contreras v. Macaraig
Petitioner and respondent married in 1952.
Respondent husband was then employed to
work as an agent which requires being away
from home most of the time. 10 years later,
she was receiving reports about her husbands
infidelity. Upon knowing that the other woman
was impregnated, he confronted both of
them. The respondent doesnt want to come
back to petitioner Contreras anymore.
Petitioner filed for a legsep case but the
lower court denied it by reason of
prescription (she has known about it on Sept
1952 and filed on Sept 1963)
WON period to file for legsep had
prescribed.
The court held that the proper time to start
counting was on Dec. 1952, when she
confirmed that her husband was indeed
having illicit affairs. She may have heard
about it on Sept. 1952 but she hasnt
confirmed that those reports werent
hearsays. Therefore, she can still file for
legsep.
Legal Separation; When to Try Actions
Art. 58, FC - 6 months must elapse, for
possible reconciliation, prior to hearing the
cases
Somosa-Ramos v. Vamenta
Petitioner wife filed a legsep case against his
husband. The husband allegedly is guilty of
concubinage and he attempted on her life.
Husband opposed this citing that there is a
6-month cooling period prior to hearing
legsep cases. Lower court agreed with
husband.
WON the case my push through prior to the
6- month requirement
The insistence of the petitioner that the
hearing of the case be done immediately is
justified. Aside from the attempt to her life,
the respondent may squander the properties
they have prior to legsep.
Legal Separation; When to Try Actions;
Mediation
Mediation - settling (post-legsep) child
custody, property, support pendent lite
(as opposed to reconciliation which focuses on
saving marriage)
1. CAM - by expert mediator (agreed
upon by spouses) of PMC, may conduct
separate caucuses prior to joint
conferences
2. JDR - judge
3. PMC-ACM - case on appeal
No recording shall be made by mediators as
per confidentiality rule.
Protection orders may be issued pursuant to
Anti-VAWC
Legal Separation; When to Try Actions;
Participation of Prosecutor
Art. 60, FC requires that no legsep decree be
based on stipulation of facts or confession of
judgment and fiscal make sure no collusion
Ocampo v. Florenciano
Petitioner Ocampo married Respondent
Florenciano in 1938. He sent her to beauty
school in Manila. Later, he found out she was
having illicit affairs with a certain Arcalas in
1951 and with a certain Orzame in 1955. He
filed petition for legal separation thereafter.
CA held that (1) the wife merely confessed
what the petitioner alleged - collusion?
WON the legsep petition be denied by reason
of collusion/condonation
Wife may have not have filed an answer to
and merely had confession of judgment but
evidence is enough to grant legsep to the
spouses.
Legal Separation; Effects of Filing Legsep
Petition
Art. 61, FC after filing legsep, spouses live
separately, administrator of ACP/CPG may be
designated and will serve as guardian (if no
written agreement yet)
Art. 62, FC on pendency, Art. 49 shall apply
(court provide for custody, support,
visitation)
De la Vina v. Villareal (J.)
Petitioner De la Vina and Respondent Narcisa
were married but the husband had a
concubine. The respondent was booted out of
the conjugal home. She files a petition for
divorce, partition of property and alimony.
She also sought a preliminary injunction
against husbands disposal of their property
while the legsep is filed. Petitioner then
invoked his right to administer their assets
since she wants to partition their properties.
WON the wife can obtain preliminary
injunction against husbands
disposing/squandering of their property
Yes. She was not positing the right to
administer but only the right to share.
Preliminary injunction must be granted in
order to prevent squandering by the husband
of their properties.
(normally, wife should live with husband but
when unity between the couple is dissolved,
wife may stay away)
Reyes v. Ines-Luciano (J.)
Reyes filed a petition for legsep on the
ground that his husband twice attempted to
kill her. He stated that he was very violent:
held and bumped her head on the floor, threw
her off the stairs, kicked and shouted at her.
Prior to trial, she asked for support
pendente lite. And this was granted by the
lower court. This was opposed by the husband
reasoning that she committed adultery.
WON support pendente lite should not be
given to the plaintiff on the grounds that she
was adulterous
The court held that in determining WON
support pendente lite be awarded. They need
not to go with the merits of the case. They do
not care about the adulterous nature of the
woman, if what he alleges is true. They only
need to ascertain sufficiency of evidence and
estimate the commensurate support pendent
lite. These may be done looking at the
affidavits and evidences on record.
(Petitioner may always file a motion to reduce
pendente lite if he finds it taxing.)
Legal Separation; Effects of DLS Issuance
In granting petition for legsep, DLS will be
issued only AFTER liquidation of properties.
That is:
1. Record legsep judgment in civil reg
2. Record distribution of properties in
the proper RegDeeds
SC Rules on Legal Separation Sec. 19 - DLS
Issuance
a. DLS issued after: COURTS recording
legsep in civ reg where married,
recording property settlements in
RegDeeds where property is
b. In DLS, quote dispositive. Attach
approved property settlement in DLS.
SC Rules on Legal Separation Sec. 20 - After
DLS
a. The PARTIES register legsep decree
to civ reg of their marriage, civ reg of
fam court, census and statistics
office
b. Registered DLS is the best evidence
for legsep
Art. 63, FC legsep effects:
a. Entitlement to live separately
b. ACP/CPG dissolved. Offending spouse
forfeits net profit
c. Child custody to innocent
d. Offending spouse cant inherit even in
the will
Banez v. Banez
RTC granted petitioners legsep petition on
the ground of respondents sexual infidelity.
The wife requested for different types of
modification to the decision: attys fees,
moral and exemplary damages, etc. RTC
denied motions but continued with the
pending appeal. RTC granted the petition of
the wife, it also ordered that the husband
vacate the small house and surrender the
motor vehicle. CA reversed this decision.
Petitioner is complaining that the bigger
house should be awarded to her and that the
damages she sought be given to her.
WON she is entitled to the changes she
requests from the original appeal
No. Court held that the effects of legsep are
incidents of legsep itself. The liquidation of
property as well as amounts to be awarded is
to be decided by the court.
(Effects of legsep arent appealable because.
Its effects are incidents of legsep itself)
Legal Separation; Effects of DLS Issuance;
Dissolution and Liquidation of ACP/CPG
ACP/CPG liquidation pushes through after
DLS
 Quiao v. Quiao
Respondent wife filed legsep against her
offending husband and this was granted by
the RTC. RTC ruled that their properties
including mills and lands shall be divided
equally but Brigido will not have any net profit
and it will be forfeited to their children.
Petitioner filed a motion to clarify net
profits. RTC defined it as remaining property
after subtracting the original properties of
each spouse. Brigido wasnt satisfied with this
ruling and filed a motion for reconsideration.
WON the computation of net profit similar
between ACP and CPG
ACP: Net profits is the increase in market
value of the properties since the time of
celebration of marriage. In computing this,
absolute community is calculated, debts are
subtracted, what remains is net profit to be
divided between the spouse, but in this case,
the other half is forfeited to the common
children
CPG: Different from ACP such that the
spouses have separate properties, these are
recorded and combined into a common mass.
If marriage is dissolved, they take what they
originally have, from the remainder, debts are
subtracted and if the remainder lacks, the
spouses are solidarily liable. What remains is
the net profit which the guilty party still has
no claim for.
Legal Separation; Effects of DLS Issuance;
Support and Custody
Matute v. Macadaeg
Petitioners husband sought legsep from her
by reason of the latters commission of
adultery. He won and the custody of children
was given to him by the court but the children
were left by the husband to her sister and he
left for US. Petitioner lived with them in
Davao and later on secured a permission to
bring them to Manila to visit their
grandfathers funeral. She didnt return the
kids and instead filed for custody grant. She
forwarded that the husband has another
family and therefore unfit to take care of
their common children among other reasons.
WON the petition of the wife should be
granted.
The court held that she may file for a
petition but her act of taking away the kids
and putting in her hands the decision about
custody is not proper. While her petition is
pending, she should stick to the decision of
the court that custody should be given to the
father. Also, at the time the lower court
made a decision, she was poor and unfit. She
must wait for the decision on her new petition
prior to taking away the kids.
Legal Separation; Effects of DLS Issuance;
Inheritance/Donations/Delegation In
Insurance Policies
Inheritance
a. Conviction for a crime does not
disqualify the spouse from inheriting,
it is the DLS itself that does.
b. Even if the testator fails to revoke
the erring spouse from inheritance,
the latter is prevented ipso jure.
c. However, no law prevents erring
spouse from inheriting if will was
made after DLS.
Donations
a. DLS gives innocent spouse right to
revoke
b. Revocation recorded in registry of
properties
SC Rules on Legal Separation Sec. 22 -
Petitions for Revocation of Donations
a. 5 year period in revoking donations
 b. Donation revocation recorded in
proper RegDeeds
c. Liens., encumbrances respected
d. Post- DLS, designation in insurances
may be revoked even stated as
irrevocable.

Legal Separation; Effects of DLS Issuance;

Wifes Surname

Laperal v. Republic

Elisea Laperal Santamaria successfully

obtained a DLS from her previous marriage.
She also had her name reverted back to her
maiden name successfully as per CFI Baguio.
This was opposed by the city attorney saying
that Art. 372 requires her to continue using
his husbands surname.

WON she has the option of using her maiden

surname

The court held that the wording of Art. 372,

CC gives her no choice but to continue using
the surname of his husband. Their marital
bond is still present and she was even using
his surname during their marriage. If she had
opted to use her maiden name during their
marriage, she could use that, But that is not
the case in this case.