REPUBLIC VS IYOY 470 SCRA 508

Overview:
 This case is about declaring the marriage of Crasus and Ada Iyoy null and void on the basis of ARTICLE 36 (psychological incapacity).
Facts:
 Crasus and Ada got married.
 They had 5 children.
 Ada (Fely) went to the USA and left her family behind (note this)
 Crasus learned through letters that Fely was already married in the USA with an american
 Fely obtained a divorce from the American court (note that she was still a filipina here, not yet an American citizen)
 Crasus filed a complaint to nullify their marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity under Art 36. This is 13 years after Fely Ada
left them.
 RTC handed down a decision declaring their marriage null and void ab initio on the grounds of psychological incapacity because she did
not comply with her marital obligations.
 Fely appealed to the CA however, the appellate affirmed the decision that their marriage is null and void ab initio.
Issue:
 WON their marriage is null and void ab initio under Art 36
 WON the abandonment can be a ground for legal separation
Decision:
 The marriage cannot be null and void ab initio under Art 36 because the root cause of psychological incapacity was not established.
 However, the abandonment, sexual infidelity and bigamy of Fely can be a ground for Legal Separation under Art 55 of the family code.
BUGAYONG VS GINEZ 100 PHIL 616
Overview:
 This is a case for legal separation filed by Bugayong on the ground of infidelity amounting to adultery.
Facts:
 Benjamin Bugayong and Leonila Ginez got married on Aug 27 1949.
 In 1951 Benjamin received letters informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife.
 In 1952 Benjamin convinced his wife (Leonila) to come with him.
 Both went to Pedro Bugayong’s house where they stayed for 2 nights and 1 day AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.
 Benjamin confronted Leonila to verify the acts of infidelity, instead of answering Leonila deserted his husband.
 Benjamin went to the Court of First instance to file the legal separation on the grounds of infidelity amounting to adultery.
 Court of first instance dismissed his petition because there was condonation.
 An MR was filed but was still denied.
Issue:
 WON the infidelity committed by the wife can be grounds for Legal separation
 WON there was condonation or consent given by the innocent spouse
Ruling:

 Under Art 97 of the Civil code, a petition for legal separation may be filed:
(1) For adultery on the part of the wife and for concubinage for the part of the husband as defined on the Penal Code; or
(2) An attempt by one spouse against the life of the other.
 Under Art 100 of the Civil code, he legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no
condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage.

The conduct of the husband (staying in the house of Pedro as Husband and wife) constitutes to condonation. As laid down by the American
Jurisprudence, any cohabitation with the guilty party, after the commission of the offense, and with the knowledge or belief on the part of the
injured party of its commission, will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation. The Court has no reason to depart from this doctrine.
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.
OCAMPO VS FLORENCIANO
Overview:
 This is an action for legal separation filed by Jose de Ocampo against his wife Serafina, on the ground of adultery.
Facts:
 Both were married on 1938 in Nueva Ecija
 Serafina committed adultery with Jose Arcalas on the March of 1951.
 Another one was in 1955 with Nelson Orzame
 When Serafina finished her studies, she left Jose and since then they have been living separately.
 Jose filed an action for Legal separation before the Court of first instance. However, it was denied.
 Jose filed an appeal to the CA however, CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.
 CA held that the husband's right to legal separation on account of the defendant's adultery with Jose Arcalas had prescribed, because his
action was not filed within one year from March 1951 when plaintiff discovered her infidelity. This is under ART 102 of the Civil code.
 However, as with the Adultery committed with Nelson Orzame, Jose filed an action for legal separation and Serafina agreed upon the
filing. Even confessing that SHE HAD SEXUAL RELATONS with Nelson Orzame.
Issue:
 WON Jose can be granted of legal separation on the ground of infidelity amounting to adultery.
 WON confession of judgment of Serafina violates the ART 101 of the Civil Code
Ruling:
 The confession of judgment by Serafina would not hinder this Court to render judgment in favor of Jose because there are evidences of
adultery INDEPENDENT of such statement.
 The decree may and should be granted, since it would not be based on her confession, but upon evidence presented by the plaintiff.
 What Art 101 prohibits is a judgment based exclusively or mainly on defendant’s confession.
 It has been held that collusion may not be inferred from the mere fact that the guilty party confesses to the offense and thus enables the
other party to procure evidence necessary to prove it.
 Wherefore, finding no obstacles to the aggrieved husband's petition we hereby reverse the appealed decision and decree a legal
separation between these spouse, all the consequent effects. Costs of all instances against Serafina Florenciano. So ordered.