A.

LEGAL SEPARATION DEFENSES PEOPLE v SENSANO AND RAMOS

WON legal separation can be decreed YES. Inasmuch as there is evidence of the adultery independently of confession of judgment, decree may and should be granted, since it would be based upon evidence and not just the confession. What the law prohibits is a judgment based solely on defendants confession. Refusing to answer the complaint does not necessarily imply collusion. [Collusion is the agreement between husband and wife for one of them to commit or appear to commit, or to be represented in the court as having committed, a matrimonial offense, or to suppress evidence for a valid defense, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce.] Offense really took place and it was not duty of husband to search for her and bring her home after she left him. Hers was the obligation to return.

Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married on April 29, 1919 and had one child. Shortly after birth of son, husband left to Cagayan where he remained without writing or sending the wife, who was poor, illiterate and without relatives, support for herself and their son. She struggled for existence until she met Marcelo Ramos who took them to live with him. In 1924, husband return and filed adultery charges against Sensano and Ramos. They were both sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor. After completing her sentence wife left Ramos. Husband refused to pardon her or to live with her. Abandoned for the second time, she and her child went back to Ramos. Husband knew she went back to codefendant. He left for Hawaii and stayed there for 7 years. He returned and SARGENT v SARGENT pressed another charge for the sole purpose of being able to obtain divorce. Husband charged wife with adultery on several occasions and with several men, among them Charles Simmons, WON husband consented to adultery family driver. No proof to show adultery with any man other than Simmons was presented. Husband claims that YES. Aside from the fact that he was assuming a mere pose wife committed three specific acts. He presented 6 as the offended spouse in order to get divorce, his conduct witnesses, 2 detectives and 4 slaves, 5 of whom are still in warrant the inference that he consented to the adulterous petitioners pay. The first and second acts have not been relations existing between the accused and therefore he is proven with enough evidence, especially since the wife was not authorized by law to institute criminal proceeding. His sick with a venereal disease at the date alleged. The third act absence in the country does not make it impossible to take any action against the accused during the seven years. WON husband consented to adultery and is therefore barred from filing divorce OCAMPO v FLORENCIANO YES. Petitioner had reason to suspect wife of an Jose de Ocampo and wife Serafina were married in 1938. In inclination for illicit relations with Simmons, and March 1951, plaintiff discovered that his wife was suspecting, he should have taken the step which lay within maintaining illicit relations with Jose Arcalas. Plaintiff then his power to keep Simmons away from his home, namely sent her to Manila to study beauty culture for a year. While discharge him and warn him never to come to his house in the city, wife went out with several other men. After again. However on at least 2 occasions, if not believing finishing studies in June 1952, she left husband and since defendant would commit adultery at least to facilitate it, he then lived separately. On June 18, 1955, husband caught absented himself from home, employing detectives to catch wife in the act of having illicit relations with Nelson his wife. He threw no protection around his wife and did not Orzame. Plaintiff signified he wanted legal separation. Wife even warn her against intimacy with Simmons. It is to be consented as long as she is not charged with criminal action. inferred from his conduct that he did desire his wife to Serafina did not answer complaints in court. CA held that commit the offense in his absence, and that helping as he cause of action for the adultery with Jose Arcalas has did to afford the opportunity which brought about the prescribed, while wife made a confession of judgment in the desired result, he was consenting therto. adultery with Orzame, thus legal separation could not be decreed. BROWN v YAMBAO

Willian Brown seeks for legal separation from Juanita Yambao, as well as confirmation of liquidation agreement, custody of children, disqualification of wife from succeeding husband and other remedies. He alleged that while interned by the Japanese invader, from 1942-1945, at the UST internment camp, his wife commited adultery with Carlos Field of whom she begot a baby girl; that he learned of the offense in 1945 upon his release; and that they lived separately ever since and executed a document liquidating their conjugal partnership and assigning certain properties to the wife as her share. During trial, Assistant Fiscal proved that after release, Brown had lived maritally with another woman and had begotten children by her. Court dismissed because (1) both spouses are offenders / consent and connivance, (2) complaint filed only in 1955 / already prescribed. WON Assistant Fiscal was allowed to act as counsel for defendant, who defaulted WON action has prescribed YES. Evidence of misconduct and the failure of wife to set it up by way of defense were proper subject of the inquiry as they may justifiably be considered circumstantial evidence of collusion between the spouses. Inquiry by the Fiscal should be allowed to focus upon any relevant matter that may indicate whether the proceedings for separation or annulment are fully justified or not. YES. Action was already barred because Brown did not petition for legal separation until 10 years after he learned of wifes adultery. WILLAN v WILLAN Parties were married on June 2, 1925 and had 2 children. Husband was away on military service during war, but cohabitation resumed on his demobilization, and he continued to live with his wife until the morning of September 29, 1958. Husband claims that wife persistently assaulted him, and was extremely jealous. She frequently demanded sexual intercourse with him at times when he did not wish to have it, obliging him to conform to her wishes by indulging in various types of violence in order to bend his will to hers. Husband says intercourse should not be regarded as condonation because the act was bound up with the kind of conduct which is complained of by the husband as cruelty on the part of his wife.

WON there was condonation YES. The fact of having intercourse with the wife, with full knowledge of the matrimonial offense of which complaint is made, is conclusive evidence of condonation by the husband of wife. The exception is only when intercourse is induced by fraud. In this case, husband was free to resist but decided to submit to wifes wishes. This indicates act was voluntary. BUGAYONG v GINEZ Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the US Navy was married to Leonila Ginez on August 27, 1949. They agreed that Leonila would stay with Benjamins sisters while he is away. She left for her mothers home in July 1951. At about this time, Bugayong received letters from sister-in-law and from an anonymous source informing him of wifes infidelity. He also received letter from his wife saying that someone kissed her. In August 1952, he sought his wife in Pangasinan. They lived as husband and wife for 2 nights and 1 day in the husbands cousins house. They also lived as husband and wife for a night in hsubands house. On the 2nd day, he tried to verify information. Instead of answering, wife packed up and left. Husband then filed complaint for legal separation which was dismissed by lower court because of condonation. WON there was condonation YES. Any cohabitation with the guilty party, after the commission of the offense, and with the knowledge or belief in the part of the injured party of its commission, will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation. MATUBIS v PRAXEDES

complaint only in April 1956, (2) plaintiff consented to NO. The only time when wife really became cognizant of concubinage. the infidelity of her husband was in the early part of December 1963 when defendant informed plaintiff that he WON legal separation can be decreed was living with and would no longer leave Lily Ann to return to his legitimate family. This is the only time the NO. Action should be instituted within a year after taking legal period of one year must be deemed to have started. cognizance of ground. Consent was also expressly made in the agreement entered into by the parties. SOMOSA-RAMOS v VAMENTA, JR B. WHEN TO FILE/ TRY ACTIONS Lucy Somosa-Ramos filed a suit for legal separation against Clemente Ramos on the ground of concubinage and an OCAMPO v FLORENCIANO attempt by him against her life. She likewise sought a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return of her Supra: Action for adultery against Jose Arcalas has already paraphernal and exclusive property. Defendant claims that if prescribed. motion for preliminary mandatory injunction was heard, the prospect of the reconciliation of the spouses would become CONTRERAS v MACARAIG even more dim. Elena Contreras and Cesar Macaraig were married on March 16, 1952. They had 3 children, all in the custody of wife. Elenas father is paying installments on the only property of the spouses, which they obtained through a conditional sale agreement. In 1961, husband met Lily Ann Alcala, who ordered propaganda materials for VP candidate Osmena at MICO offset which husband managed. After elections, husband became a special agent at Malacaang and became away often because of confidential missions. In September 1962, family driver told wife that husband was living with Lily Ann in Singalong. In April 1963, she again received rumors that husband was seen with a pregnant woman. When husband came back in May 1963, she did not ask him about it to avoid quarrels. After she received reports that Lily Ann gave birth, she sent her fathers employee to verify. Employee saw husband carrying a baby in his arms and was given a copy of the baptismal certificate of the baby by the parish priest. Wife then sought the intervention of her father-in-law and sister-in law to convince the husband to meet with her. Husband refused to break relationship with Lily Ann. In December 1963, wife and 2 children talked to husband. He refused to leave Lily Ann and to return to his legitimate family. On December 14, 1963, plaintiff instituted action for legal separation. Court said wife became cognizant of husbands infidelity on Sept 1962, when she was informed by the driver. Thus, court dismissed the case for prescription. WON the prohibition of hearing of an action for legal separation before the lapse of six months from the filing of the petition (Art 103, CC), would likewise preclude the court from acting on a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction applied for as ancillary remedy to the suit NO. Art 103 is not an absolute bar to the hearing of a motion for preliminary injunction prior to the expiration of the six-month period. The law recognizes that the question of management of their respective property need not be left unresolved even during the six-month period.

Socorro Matubis and Zoilo Praxedes were married on Jan 10, 1943. On May 30, 1944, they agreed to live separately. On April 3, 1948, they entered into agreement saying that they relinquish their rights over each other, that they are free to get a mate, and that they are not entitled to any support nor any claims from each other. In January 1955, husband cohabited with Asuncion Rabulado and had a child with her. Wife filed a complaint for legal separation and change of surname against husband on the ground of concubinage. Trial court dismissed for two reasons (1) prescription: wife WON action has prescribed became aware of cohabitation in January 1955 and filed a