Legal Separation Notes

Munoz v. del Barrio (1955) before the FC

- Married 1942 and had 2 children
- Frequent quarrels where he mistreated her
- She was unable to take the abuse and separated
- Despite this, she argues
o He continued to maltreat her in several occasions
- She filed petition in Court of 1st instance praying for
o Legal separation
o Custody of their children
o Support from resp of their children
o For their conjugal prop to pay the costs
- Resp denies the allegations
- Court tries reconciliation pursuant to art 98, cc but failed
- Court tries the case. Plaintiff presents witnesses
o Witness to their fights
o Her dad
o Patrolman
o An attorney who stopped one of their fights
- Court dismissed pet

ISSUE:
WON maltreatments after resp the separation of swelling is ground for
legal sep pursuant to Art 97(2)

HELD:
No
- We only look at the maltreatments after the separation of dwelling
because the previous ones could not have amounted to threats on her
life because she didnt institute any legal action then
- Without the proof of intention to kill, the person cannot be convicted of
attempted of frustrated murder
- Acc to RPC
o It is necessary that the homicidal intent be evidenced by
adequate acts to produce the death of the victim
- Only bare fists and a few blows were given at the spur of the impulse

Court points out that the petitioner should have filed for attempted
parricide and have him prosecuted as a means of establishing her right
to secure legal sep

Pet denied

Ong Eng Kiam v. Ong (2006)

- Married in 1975 and have 3 kids who are all of majority
- 1995, she asked him to bring son back from Bacolod which turned into
a violent quarrel, hitting her on the head, cheek, eye, stomach, arms
 and ultimately pointing a gun to her head asking her to leave the
conjugal house
- 1996 she filed a complaint for legal sep saying her life was
o Marked by physical violence
o Threats
o Intimidation
o Grossly abusive conduct
- RTC granted
- CA affirmed
o Guy filed MR hence this petition
She wanted control of properties
Abandonment
ISSUE
WON CA erred in upholding the RTCs decision granting the legal sep
given that she herself has given ground for the same upon abandonment (art
56(4))

HELD:
NO
- The abandonment stated in art 55(10) is abandonment without
justifiable cause for more than 1 yr (pursuant to art 56(4) where both
parties have given ground for leg sep)

Petition is denied for lack of merit

People v. Zapata and Bondoc (1951)

- Bondoc filed a case against his wife and Dalmancio Bondoc for
cohabiting and having sex from 1946-1947
- She was found guilty and sentenced to 4 months of arresto mayor
- Husband filed a second cae of the same from 1947-1948
- Defendants moved to quash the complaint on ground that they would
be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense
- CFI upheld the motion to quash
o The complaints must be deemed one continuous offense
because the defendants were the same
ISSUE:
WON the CFI erred in quashing the 2nd complaint because of double
jeopardy

HELD:
Yes
- Adultery is a crime of result and not of tendency
o Each time you have sex constitutes the crime of adultery
regardless if the parties were the same
- 2 reasons why there is no double jeopardy
o The times they had sex after the first complaint are separate
and distinct crimes. For continuous crime to exist, there must be
a unity of criminal intent or purpose
 o Because after the 1st complaint, the defendant no longer has the
defense that he did not know the wife was married

Gandionco v. Penaranda (1987)

- 1986, Teresita filed before RTC a complaint against petitioner for leg
sep on ground of concubinage
- She also filed a criminal case to MTC against petitioner for the same
- Pet claims that
o Civil action for leg sep and app for support should be suspended
in view of the crim case filed against him
o Citing Art 3 sec 3 of 1985 rules on crim procedure
Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the
civil action to enforce civil liability arising from the offense
as contemplated in the first section hereof, the ff rules
shall be observed:
After a crim action has been commenced, the
pending civil action from the same offense is
suspended in whatever stage it may be found until
final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been
rendered
ISSUE:
WON the criminal case should be settled before the civil case for leg sep can
begin

HELD:
Nope
- Under the same rules, civil action for legal sep based on concubinage
may proceed ahead of, or simultaneously with, a criminal action for
concubinage
o Because said civil action is not one to enforce the civil liability
arising from the offense even if both actions arise from the same
offense
- Sec 1, Rule 111 is specific that it refers to civil action for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense charged
- This action for legal sep is not to recover civil liability but is aimed at
the conjugal rights of the spouses and their relations to each other
- A decree of legal sep on ground of concubinage may be issued without
a criminal proceeding or conviction

Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz (1968)

- Married w 6 children
- She claims:
o Def stopped living in conjugal home and started living in manila
w/ no communication
o She found unsigned notes that made her conclude that he was
having illicit liaisons w/ another woman
o Fears that he will squander their conjugal assets on the mistress
o Abused his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership
for failure to inform her of the state of their business enterprise
 - After around 20 yrs, the plaintiff filed case saying that defendant
abandoned her and is mismanaging their conjugal partnership prop
- She prays for
o Sep of prop
o Monthly sup of 2500 during pendency of action
o Payment of 20k as attorneys fees
- Def says
o He lived separately cause he could not concentrate on work bc
of her quarrelsome nature
o He successfully expanded through his own hard work their
conjugal partnership property
o He had been giving her 500 monthly support, allowance for kids
from 1200-1500 a month, and financing their education

ISSUE:
WON def abandoned his family
WON he abused his powers of administration
making it grounds for legal sep of conjugal partnership properties

HELD:
NO
- Def is not guilty of both
- There must be real abandonment for remedies under art 178 that pet
asks for, not merely separation
o Physical estrangement and financial and moral desertation
- Facts show he continued to give support in his absence. Contributing to
their support negated the intent to make abandonment perpetual
- Neither does it show he was living w a concubine
NO
- Abuse connotes willful and utter disregard of the interest of the
partnership by a repetition of deliberate acts/omissions prejudicial to
the partnership
- There must be hesitance in the Courts part to order sep of conjugal
properties
o Because the policy of the law is homiletic, to promote healthy
and family life and to preserve the union of the spouses in
person, spirit and property
o Separation of property shall not prevail unless expressly
stipulated in marriage settlements before the union is
solemnized or by formal judicial decree

Petition denied

Lapuz v. Eufemio (1972)

 - Married in 1934 and was abandoned in 1943
- Husband was cohabiting with a woman named Go Hiok
- She files for leg sep and that Eufemio be deprived of his share In the
conjugal partnership profits
- Def counterclaimed that their marriage be declared void ab initio
because of his prior marriage to Go Hiok
- Trail commenced but Lapuz died in a vehicular accident
- Eufemio moved to dismiss claiming that
o Pet was filed beyond 1 yr period as in Art 102 of CC
o Her death abated the action for leg sep
- Def prays for affirmance of the order that dismissed legal separation
but to also declare Lapuz marriage null and void ab initio

ISSUE:
WON death of plaintiff abates the action for leg sep and if it does, will it
apply if the action involved property rights

HELD:
Yes
- Action for leg sep is the bed-and-board separation not the spouse and
is purely personal
- Art 108 provides spouses to stop the proceedings and even rescind the
decree of leg sep if the parties reconciled
- Death of one party causes death of the action and has settled the
question of separation and deprived the court of jurisdiction

Yes
- It is likewise aborted even if property rights are involved
o They are merely effects of separation, the sources being the
decree itself

Willan v. Willan (1960)

- Husband wanted a divorce on the ground of cruelty
o Wife was physically and verbally abusive, extremely jealous, and
often demanded sex even when he doesnt want to
- The night before the husband left her, the had sex

ISSUE:
WON having intercourse with a spouse constitutes condonation, thus
precluding a divorce on the ground of cruelty

HELD:
YES
- Condonation is when an accuser has previously forgiven
or condoned (in some way or at some level supported) the act about
which they are complaining.
- Intercourse is conclusive evidence of condonation by the husband of
the wife
 o Its the best possible way of showing that the wife has been
reinstated, the only exception is fraud
- While he may have been reluctant to have intercourse with her, it does
not mean that he was forced or that he acted involuntarily

Ocampo v. Florenciano (1960)

- Married in 1938
- 1951, He found out about Serafinas illicit relations w/ Arcalas and
other men
- He sent her to Manila to study Beauty Culture
- 1955, he caught her having illicit relations with Nelson Orzame
- She left him shortly after
- He then filed a pet for leg sep on ground of adultery
- Serafine did not answer but confessed to the fiscal in an interview to
having sexual relations w/ several men
- CFI dismissed pet:
o There was condonation/consent to the adultery because he was
already aware in 1951 but inly filed in 1955 and that the right to
file action has already prescribed (Art. 102, NCC)
- CA affirmed

ISSUE:
WON CA erred in affirming CFIs decision

HELD:
YES
- Plaintiffs failure to actively search for defendant and take her home
constituted condonation or consent to her adulterous relations since
it was not his duty to search for her to bring her home. Hers was the
obligation to return.
- Art. 101 prohibits a judgment based SOLELY on the confession of
judgment (Admitting of defendant to right of plaintiff to judgment/filing
a pleading agreeing to the plaintiffs demand), not exclude confessions
made by defendant ourside the court.
o Griffiths v Griffiths,Collusion - the agreement between
husband and wife for one of them to commit or to appear to
commit, or to be represented in court as having committed, a
matrimonial offense, or to suppress evidence of a valid defence,
for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce.
- 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

Bugayong v. Ginez (1956)

- Married 1949
- 1951, He went back to the US and received letters from his sister in
law and other anonymous writers alleging the acts of infidelity of his
wife
- 1952, he went to Pangasinan and stayed w/ his wife for 2 nights and 1
day
o they had sex
- He tried to verify with his wife the info but she just left
- He then filed a case for legal separation at CFI but was dismissed on
the issue of condonation
ISSUE:
WON the act of sleeping w/ his wife constitutes condonation of the act
of adultery thus a valid defense against legal sep

HELD:
Yes
- The act served as an act of forgiveness of the marital offense
constituting a ground for leg sep
- Any cohabitation with the guilty party after knowledge of the offense
and will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation (but can be
rebutted by evidence)
- If they live in the same house, it is presumed they live on matrimonial
cohabitation
- Art. 100 NCC says legsep can be claimed by the innocent spouse given
there had been no condonation or consent

Petition denied

Matubis v. Praxedes (1960)

- 1943 they got married
- 1944 the agreed to live separately because they could not agree on
how to live together as husband and wife
- 1948 they entered into an agreement that neither can prosecute for
adultery or concubinage or any other suit arising from their separation
- 1955 defendant began cohabiting w/ Rebulado and they deported
themselves as husband and wife and had a child
- 1956, plaintiff filed for legsep and change of surname bc of
abandonment and concubinage
- Defendant argued his actions did not constitute concubinage
- CFI dismissed petition bc:
o Filed out of time (1956) after being aware of the cohabitation for
1 yr
o She had consented to concubinage because of their agreement
in 1948
- CA affirmed
ISSUE
WON the LC erred in considering the time for action had elapsed
WON there was consent on the part of the plaintiff

HELD
NO
- Art 102 says that the complaint was indeed filed outside the periods
provided for

YES
- Expressed condonation from their agreement

SC affirmed

People v. Sensano and Ramos (1933)

- Married in 1919 Ursula Sensano Mariano Ventura
- After birth of their child, he left them to go to Cagayan for 3 yrs w/o
support or communication
o Despite wife being poor and illiterate
- She met Marcelo Ramos who took her and her child w/ him
- Mariano returned in 1924 and charged them w/ adultery
o They were sentenced to 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor
- After sentence, she begged him for forgiveness
o He refused
o She went back to Marcelo
- Mariano did not assert his rights as a husband and stayed in Hawaii for
7 yrs
- Upon his return, charged them again with adultery to obtain a divorce
under Act No. 2710

ISSUE
WON Mariano can file charges of adultery for the 2 nd time

HELD:
NO
- Based on his conduct, he consented to the adulterous relations
therefore estopped to institute a criminal proceeding
- Art 344, RPC bars the offended party from instituting a criminal
proceeding if he consented or pardoned the offenders

Sargent v. Sargent (1920)

- Donald and Frances married in 1909
- He filed a petition charging her of adultery on:
o Various days in Nov 1917 with an unknown man
o Unknown time and place where she contracted gonorrhea
o Based on her relationship w/ Charles Simmons (a negroe)
 - In order to prove it, he didnt come home for 2 days and facilitated the
scenario and gathered the help of his servants:
o Ida lewis
Frances discussed interracial marriages with
o Charlotte
Charles is always in her room
o Viola
They drink and laugh together from time to time
o Mack
Frances pulled Charles in her room while in her nightgown
- He also hired detectives to listen in on conversations and they found
they call each other Dearie

ISSUE:
WON Donald connived w his employees and detectives to set her up

HELD:
YES
- Most testimonies were inconclusive of adultery and even contradictory
o Some say the door was locked, some say it was half open
- If there was any doubt as to her fidelity, why would he create a
possibility of her being in contact w/ Charles
o He did not do anything to protect her wife from Charles alleged
evil influence
o He instead orchestrated a scene to make it more likely for her to
commit adultery solidifying the connivance

Llave v. Republic (2011)

- 11 months before his death, Mamintal married Estrellita under Muslim
rites and civilly
- In their contracts, it stated that sen was divorced
- Since then, she has been presenting herself as his wife and eventually
his widow
- 1994, private respondents Zorayda and her son filed a complaint with
the RTC for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and
Sen on grounds of bigamy. She claims:
o They were married on 1958 under civil rights and that it was still
subsisting when he married Estrellita in 1993

ISSUE:
WON the second marriage was bigamous

HELD:
YES
- The only law that governs marriages between Muslims and non-
Muslims was the CC
- Divorce is not recognized except during the effectivity of RA 394 which
was not availed of during its effectivity
 - As far as Estrellita is concerned, the prior marriage has been severed
by way of divorce under PD 1083, the law that codified Muslim
personal law
- However, it cannot benefit her.
o Article 13(1) thereof provides that the law applies to marriage
and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims or wherein only
the male is a Muslims and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim aw or this Code in the PH
- PD1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were
married both in civil and Muslim rites

Petition denied

Brown v. Yambao (1957)

- 1955, Brown for legal sep from his wife on grounds of adultery and had
a baby with another man upon his release in 1945
o He was in the internment camp during the Japanese invasion
- Wife was held in default
- City Fiscal conducted an investigation and found that Brown also lived
maritally with another woman and had a child with her after his release

ISSUE:
WON prosecuting officer is limited to finding out if there is collusion

HELD:
NO
- Art. 100, CC says
o Legal sep may be claimed only by the innocent spouse provided
there was no condonation or consent to the adultery or
concubinage
- Where both are offenders, leg sep cannot be claimed by either
- Art. 101, CC says
o Calling for the intervention of the state attorneys in case of
uncontested proceedings for leg sep (and of annulment of
marriages under Art 88) is to emphasize that marriage is more
than a mere contact
-
It is a social institution in which the state is vitally
interested
Its continuation or interruption cannot be made to depend
upon the parties themselves
- Art. 102, action for legal sep can only be filed within 1 year from and
after the plaintiff gains knowledge of the cause
- Moreover, the action for leg sep had already prescribed

Somosa-Ramos v. Vamenta, Jr. (1972)

- June 1971
o Lucy filed a complaint for legal sep on grounds of concubinage
and an attempt to her life by respondent
 - Also sought for a writ of preliminary injunction for the return to her of
what she claimed to be her paraphernal and exclusive property that
husband managed
- July 1971
o Husband countered by invoking Art. 103, CC
Prohibits the hearing of an action for legal sep before the
lapse of 6 months from filing of petition
- Aug 1971
o Respondent judge granted the motion of clemente to suspend
the hearing of the pet for a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction sought by his wife Lucy

ISSUE:
WON Art 103 would likewise preclude the court from acting on a
motion for preliminary mandatory injunction applied for as an ancillary
remedy to such a suit

HELD
NO
- Art 103 is not an absolute bar to hearing the motion for prelim
injunction prior to the expiration of the 6 month period
- Reading 104 in relation to 103 shows the recognition that the question
of management of their property need not be left unresolved even
during the 6 month period
o Thus the parties may be heard even w/o waiting for the lapse of
the 6-month period
o Does not have the effect of overriding other provisions such as
the determination of the custody of the children and alimony
and support pendente lite according to the circumstance
o Also, from Aug. 4 1971 to July 29, 1972 [date of SC decision], six
months have already lapsed
- Rational behind Art. 103
o It is a relationship which the law attaches the quality of
permanence
o It serves as a cooling off period: recital of grievances against
each other in court may fan their inflamed passions against one
another

Contreras v. Macaraig (1970)

- Got married in 1952 and had 3 kids
- Before 1961 election
o Macaraig met Lily Ann alcala
- After elections
 o He resigned from his job to be a special agent at Malacanang
and began to be away from home often and come home late
o When asked why, he refers to confidential missions
- Sept 1962
o Their family driver told Contreras that Macaraig was living with
Lily Ann Alcala
- Oct 1962
o Husband returned to conjugal home but wife didnt want to
confront him in her desire to not anger/drive him away
- 1963
o She received news that Lily gave birth and she sent her fathers
employee to verify
- Employee saw husband carrying a baby in his arms
- She went to the parish to inquire and was given a copy of the
baptismal cert of the baby dated Oct 1963
- Contreras asked Macaraigs father to talk to him and his sister to Lily
Ann
o Lily said Macaraig did not want to break up
- Dec 1963
o She tried to make Macaraig come to her to talk, he refuses
- Dec 14, she instituted action for leg sep
- CFI ruled that the action for leg sep has prescribed
o Because she was cognizant in sept 1962 when she was told by
the driver

ISSUE
WON the action for leg sep has prescribed

HELD
NO
- SC ruled that cognizance of act shall be counted
o From the time that he admitted to Contreras that he was living
with lily ann and that he could no longer leave the mistress and
return
o This is the only time she was obligated to decide to sue for leg
sep or not

Case remanded to TC for further proceedings

De La Vina v. Villareal (1920)

- Narcissa filed a complaint against Diego for concubinage
o Illicit relationship of her husband and Ana Calog
- She was ejected from their conjugal home and was forced to establish
her habitual residence in Iloilo
o No means of support except at the expense of one of her
daughters, partition of conjugal property, and alimony pendente
- She also presented a motion for preliminary injunction
o To restrain him from alienating or encumbering the conjugal
property which he is the sole administrator of
 - Respondent judge of RTC granted motion
- Diego filed this case of petition for certiorari
o He did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action and
exceeded his power and authority in issuing the prelim
injunction

ISSUES:
WON wife validly acquired residence separate from that of her husband
during the subsistence of their marriage
WON a prelim injunction may be used to restrain a spouse from
alienating/encumbering conjugal property during the pendency of the action

HELD
YES
- The general rule that the domicile of wife follows the husbands is not
absolute rule
o Marital domicile is chosen by husband EXCEPT where the
husband gives causes for legal separation
- De la Vina unlawfully ejected her from the conjugal home to have illicit
relations giving her justification to establish her domicile elsewhere
o It is well established in jurisprudence that the wife may acquire a
separate residence where the husband has given cause for
divorce,
In this case, De La Vinas having committed concubinage.

YES
- The power to solely administer their conjugal property w/o the wifes
consent only holds true for as long as there is harmonious relationship
between them
o The husbands power should be curtailed during the pendency of
the action to protect the interests of the wife if the harmonious
relationship ceases
- Act No 190, Sec 165 (2) and (3)
- RTC didnt commit any breach of jurisdiction

Reyes v. Ines-Luciano (1979)

- THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR LEG SEP, BUT RATHER, ABOUT THE
ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE THAT PRECEDED IT
- Cecilia filed for leg sep against Manuel for 2 attempts on her life
o Mar 10 1976
Manuel beat her up and w/ intent to kill bumped her head
against the floor
She attempted to upstairs but he pushed her
He took another swing at her abdomen
If it werent for the plaintiffs father, he would have
succeeded in killing her
o May 26 1976
 She went to the house for her overnight bag
He asked her to leave
Doused her with juice and kicked her several times
Was going to hit her with a steel tray had it not been for
her driver who came to help
- BEFORE THE LEG SEP CASE IS HEARD. She the LC to award support
pendent lite for her and her kids but Manuel opposed this alleging
adultery on her part
- Respondent judge granted 5k eventually reduced to 4k because the
custody of children went to Manuel
- Manuel filed for certiorari at the CA
- CA affirmed RTC

ISSUE:
WON alimony pendent lite should be granted to the wife while legal
separation case is pending given that there is an allegation of adultery on her
part

HELD:
YES
- While adultery is a defense in an action for support, it must be
established by competent evidence
o Manuel did not present evidence to prove allegation of adultery
o The adultery may still be proved during the hearing for leg sep
- In determining amount of pendente lite
o It is enough that the court ascertain the kind and amount of
evidence whit it may deem sufficient to enable it to resolve the
application
o Mere affidavits can satisfy the court to pass on the application
- Celia was asking for support from the conjugal property wherein
Manuel is president manager and treasurer
o It is determined he can afford to do so because of their various
corporations

pendente lite = means under litigation

- There is support pendente lite for the heirs A.K.A. may support for the
heirs while in litigation
o Taken by the court from ACP

Court denied pet of husband and affirmed CA with modification granting the
support pendent lire at the rate of 4k a month

Banez v. Banez (2002)

- Cebu RTC in 1996 decided that
o Legally separated aida and gabriel on grounds of the latters
sexual infidelity
 o Dissolution of their conjugal property relations and the division
of the net conjugal assets
o Forfeiture of the husbands share in the assets to the common
children
o Patment to wifes counsel = 100000 to be taken from her share
o Surrender by husband of the use and possession of a Mazda
vehicle and a small house located ni the Ma. Luisa Estate Park
Subdiv to wife and the common children w/in 15 days from the
decision
- She filed ex-parte motion to modify the decision on the payment of
attorneys fees
- She filed a motion for moral and exemplary damages
o Denied by court
- She filed a motion for execution pending appeal regarding the
husbands expulsion from their conjugal house and surrender of vehicle
o Granted by court
- Gab elevated case to the CA
- CA set aside RTC ruling on the execution of judgment pending appeal
of the assets
- Aida brought us here

ISSUE
WON execution of judgment pending appeal was justified
WON multiple appeals are allowed in an action for leg sep

HELD
NO
- Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior circumstances
demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the
issuance of the writ
o Court sees there is no urgent circumstance that outweighs the
damage which Gab would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the
house as Aida has 2 houses and lots in the US where she is a
permanent resident
NO
- Leg sep is not subject to multiple appeals
- The effects of leg sep (dissolution and liquidation of ACP or CP, custody
of children, entitlement to live separately) follow from the decree of
the same
o They are mere incidents of leg sep, not separate or distinct
matters that may be resolved by the court

Matute v. Macadaeg (1956)

- She (pet) was found guilty of adultery in an action for leg sep on Nov
1952
- Husband was awarded custody of their 4 kids (4, 8, 10, 12)
- He left for the US leaving the kids to his sis in davao
- Pet moved in w them
 - He came back in 1954 and in 1955, his kids joined him in Cebu
- She brought the kids to Manila for her dads funeral with Armandos
consent provided they return in 2 weeks
- She didnt return
- She filed a prayer asking for
o Custody of her kids because
She is their legit mom and they wish to stay with her
3 of the kids are over 10 and their wish must be heeded
unless she is unfit
The act of infidelity does not involve moral depravity
In any event, it is a thing of the past
Their dad is unfit to have the kids under his care bc he is
living maritally w on Paz Jesusa Concepcion
That the divorce he decreed in the US for their marriage is
null and void and he is guilty of bigamy since he married
Paz
o Armando to pay support for their schooling
- Respondent judge denied and ordered her to return kids within 24 hrs
- She filed action for certiorari and prohibition w prelim injunction
arguing respondent judge issued decision w grave abuse of discretion

ISSUE
WON there was grave abuse of discretion
WON Matute is unfit to be awarded custody pursuant to Sec 6 Rule 100
ROC

HELD:
NO
- Respondent judge had jurisdiction
o If he made a mistake, it would at best only be an error in
judgment and not in jurisdiction
o But he did not make a mistake
- No abuse of discretion
o The order merely enforced the award of the 1952 order that was
final and executor
o Unless it was reviewed and modified, the award must stand

NO
- Children at least 10yo may choose their preferred parent accdg to Sec
6 Rule 100 ROC
o Unless parent is unfit to take charge of them by reason of moral
depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity or poverty
- She could have moved for a modification of the order to give the Court
opportunity to determine if transfer of custody to her was for he best
interest of the kids
- She is without means of livelihood and depends on her bros for money
and shelter
o Unfit by reason of poverty

Petition denied
Quiao v. Quiao (2012)
- Brigido and Rita married in 1977 w 4 kids
o No sep properties prior to marriage
- 2000
o She filed for leg sep for Brigido cohabiting w/ another woman
- RTC declared the leg sep of parties pursuant to Art. 55
o Custody 3 minor children was given to Rita, the innocent spouse
- The properties accrued by them shall be divided equally between them
subject to the respective legitimes of their kids
o However, Brigidos share shall be forfeited to their kids in
accordance to Art. 129(9) FC
- Months later, Rita filed motion for execution, granted by RTC
- 2006
o Brigido paid her w regards to the earlier decision; the writ was
partially executed
- 9 months later, he filed motion for clarification asking RTC to define
Net Profits Earned
o RTC said that it denotes the remainder of the properties of the
parties after deducting the separate properties of each of the
spouses and debts
- M for Recon (MFR) by Brigido
o Set aside previous decision stating that the Net Profit Earned
shall be computed in acc w Art 102(4) of FC
- However, it later reverted to its original Order setting aside the last
ruling

ISSUE:
WON the regime of CPG governs the couples prop relations

HELD:
YES
- The operative law was the NCC and did not agree on a marriage
settlement
o The property relations between them is the system of relative
community or the conjugal partnership of gains
There was nothing to return to any of them since the
listed properties showed there was no separate properties
They also own in common all the property of the CPD
So what remains will be divided equally between them
and their heirs
o But since he is the guilty party, his share from the net profits of
the CP is forfeited in favor of the common children pursuant to
Art 63(2) of the FC

RTC ruling affirmed

RTC ruling clarified
Laperal v. Republic (1962)
- Elisea Santamaria petitioned for the use of her maiden name Elisea
Laperal after legal sep from her husband
o Also bc she ceased to live w him for many yrs
- Prior to the decree, shes been using her married name
- LC used rule 103 ROC, change of name, and granted pet
o To continue using her married name would give rise to confusion
in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal
assets

ISSUE:
WON the Court may use Rule 103 despite specific stipulations in Art
372 of CC

HELD
NO
- She should retain her married name
o She is still married and there was no severance of vinculum
- Art 372 should prevail bc it specifically qualified its application to
married women legally sep from their husbands
o This applies to her
- Even if they were to apply Rule 103, the SC thinks that it is not
sufficient to justify a change of name for to hold otherwise would be to
provide an easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of Art 372
- She failed to prove that there would be confusion in her finances
o Moreover, the CP between them had automatically been
dissolved and liquidated