LEGAL SEPARATION – Separation by a mensa et thoro (bed and board) but marriage bond still subsists

Carmen Lapuz Sy VS Eufemio S. Eufemio Consuelo Madrigal – Vazquez VS Judge Corazon Agrava
Grounds for Action:
Art 55, Family Code Facts:
1. repeated physical abuse of Carmen filed a petition for legal separation against husband Facts:
petitioner, common child & Eufemio after discovering that the latter is cohabitating with
petitioner’s child
Consuelo Madrigal and Luis Vazquez were married on
2. moral or physical pressure Go Hiok. The respondent countered that their marriage with March 19, 1952; they are childless. The latter filed a petition
to change political or the petitioner is void ab initio because he was married to Go for legal separation against his wife with the Juvenile and
religious beliefs Hiok first under traditional Chinese customs. During the Domestic Relations Court of Manila. Instead of answering the
3. attempt to corrupt or induce pendency of the trial, petitioner died due to a vehicular complaint, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the
petitioner, child of petitioner
or common child to accident and her father, Macario Lapuz took over the case in grounds of lack of cause of action and that no earnest efforts
prostitution or connivance in her place. towards a compromise had been made by the parties. During
such act Issue: pendency of the case, Vazquez filed a notice of withdrawal of
4. final judgment sentencing
respondent more than
When an action for legal separation is converted by the his complaint for legal separation.
six years in prison even if counterclaim into one for a declaration of nullity of a Issue:
pardoned marriage, does the death of a party abate the proceedings? Did the notice of dismissal of complaint filed by Vazquez
5. drug addiction or habitual Held: rendered the case at bar moot and academic?
alcoholism
6. lesbianism or homosexuality Petitioner’s death extinguished the claim for the nullity of Held:
7. respondent’s bigamous marriage. Action for legal separation is purely personal even if Yes, the court ruled the case at bar moot and academic
Marriage here or abroad property relations are involved. These rights are mere effects and that it is not necessary to resolve the controversial issue
8. sexual infidelity or
of a decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; of whether in an action by the husband for legal separation
perversion
9. attempt at the life of without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so against the wife, it should be alleged that that earnest efforts
petitioner that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely towards a compromise had been made. Because of the
10. abandonment w/ out rights in expectation. notice of dismissal, petitioner obtained the relief which she
justifiable cause for more
than one year had sought by means of her motion to dismiss.
Froilan Gandionco VS Hon. Senen Penaranda
Art 97, CC
1. adultery of wife or Facts:
concubinage of husband
2. attempt at the life of the In May 196 Teresita filed a petition for legal separation on the ground that petitioner is committing concubinage, petition for
other
support and payment of damages. Afterwards, Teresita also filed a criminal suit against her husband. Petitioner files certiorari
Who may file and that civil and pendente lite should be suspended because of criminal charges and that they should wait until the decision in
when to file action: the criminal case comes before the civil case can proceed.

Only the spouses

Held:
The Court denied the petitioner’s certiorari. The 1986 Rules on Criminal Procedure states that civil cases may proceed ahead
of or simultaneously with criminal charge. Likewise, no criminal proceeding is necessary in the action for legal separation since
all that is needed for legal separation is mere preponderance of evidence.
 Benjamin Bugayong VS Leonila Ginez Jose de Ocampo VS Serafina Florenciano
Facts: Benjamin was a US serviceman, he left his wife, the Facts: In 1938 Jose de Ocampo and Serafina Florenciano got
respondent in the care of his sisters as she goes to school. married. However in 1951, respondent allegedly had illicit
Valeriano Polangco wrote to him about rumors of his wife’s relations with a certain Jose Arcalas. Petitioner also found
adultery; respondent then goes away from sister-in-law’s out that his wife also had several relationship with other men
house and stayed at her mother’s place. Alarmed by the when he sent her to Manila to study cosmetology. Then in
Defenses/Ratification: rumors, petitioner went home and searched for her afterwhich 1955, petition caught Florenciano having carnal knowledge
Art 56, Family Code they stayed together for 2 nights and 1 day at his cousin’s with Nelson Orzame and then told her that he wanted legal
1. condonation (forgiveness)
house. Petitioner verified the truth which caused Ginez to pack separation to which the wife agreed as long as she will not
2. consent (permission)
3. connivance (3rd party and up and leave the petitioner. be criminally charged.
active Issue: Petitioner’s act of sleeping with his wife at his cousin’s Issue: That there is collusion in the form of confession of
participation) house constitutes condonation judgment by respondent.
4. recrimination
5. collusion (agreement bet Held: Yes, because even if not yet proven, he had a beleift in Held: Though the wife admitted her guilt, which constitutes
spouses) mind that his wife was already unfaithful and yet he still tried confession of judgment, the husband also presented other
6. prescription (Art 57) to take her back. Hence, the Court denied petition for Legal evidences to support the allegation. Refusing to answer is
Separation. not necessarily collusion. Hence, collusion in the case at bar
may not bar the action for legal separation.
Prescription
Art 57 5 years from the date
occurrence
William Brown VS Juanita Yambao
of cause/ground for LS

Facts:
William Brown filed a petition for legal separation against his wife who allegedly got pregnant by a certain Carlos Field while
REQUISITES OF LEGAL he was interred in Intramuros. Respondent did not reply so the Fiscal intervened and found out there was no collusion.
SEPARATION:
However, the Fiscal also found out that the petitioner is also barred from filing the action because he had a concubine himself
Art 58 6 months cooling off in the person of Lilia Delito. Furthermore, the Fiscal added that the petitioner was also prescribed from action because he
period learned about the cause in 1945 but only filed for an action only ten years later.
Art 59 steps to reconciliation
Art 60 no stipulation of facts or
confession of judgment Issue:
accepted;participation of Petitioner’s claim that the fiscal’s only duty was to ensure no collusion took place and not stand in place of the wife should be
state in form of appreciated.
prosecuting attorney

Held:
The Court denied petition for legal separation. In an action for legal separation on the ground of adultery filed by
the husband, even though the defendant wife did not interpose the defense of prescription, nevertheless, the courts can take
cognizance thereof, because actions seeking a decree of legal separation or annulment of marriage, involve public interest,
and it is the policy of our law that no such decree be issued if any legal obstacles thereto appear upon the record. Also, the
husband was guilty of commission of the same offense by living with another woman.
During Pendency of Agueda Benedicto VS Esteban De La Rama Angelica Ledesma VS Intestate Estate of Cipriano Pedrosa
Action:
Art 49 Under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure the filing of a [219 SCRA 806] - The law mandates the dissolution and
In the absence of written bill of exceptions as a stay of execution. In this case, liquidation of the prop. regime of the spouses upon finality
agreement bet spouses Court therefore, the order made by the trial court in the judgment
shall of the decree of LS. Such dissolution and liquidation are
provide for the ff:
for the payment of alimony for the period from the institution necessary consequences of the final decree. This legal effect
1. support of the spouses of the action to the date of such judgment was suspended by
of the decree of legal separation ipso facto or automatically
2. custody and support of the filing of the defendant's bill of exceptions. The trial court
common might undoubtedly, under section 144, have provided that follows, as an inevitable incident of, the judgment decreeing
children as well as visitation the LS for the purpose of determining the share of each
rights
execution should not be stayed as to the order for the
of other parent payment of alimony, but it did not do so. The whole matter spouse in the conjugal assets. (citing Macadangdang v.CA,
Art 61 Effects of Filing of rested in the discretion of the trial court. The SC ruled that 108 SCRA 314.)
Petition: they have no jurisdiction to take any action in the premises.
1. entitled to live separately
2. designate third party for
The right of a wife to the payment of alimony from her
administration of ACP/CPG husband stands upon no different footing from any other right
Art 62 provides the application created by the law or arising from contract or otherwise, and
of Art 49 is to be enforced by appropriate proceedings commenced in
the court having original jurisdiction.
Effects of Action:
Art 63, Family Code Antonio Macadangdang VS The Court of Appeals
1. live separately but marriage [108 SCRA 314 (1981)]
bonds not severed
2. ACP/CPG dissolved and
liquidated but offender has no The death of a spouse AFTER a final decree of legal separation has no effect on the legal separation. The law clearly spells out
right to net profits, forfeited in the effect of a final decree of legal separation on the conjugal property. Therefore, upon the liquidation and distribution
favor of A43(2)
3. custody of minor children
conformably with the effects of such final decree, the law on intestate succession should take over the disposition of whatever
awarded to innocent spouse, remaining properties have been allocated to the deceased spouse.
subject to Art 213 (parental
authority designated
by court, take consideration all
relevant info and choice of
child
unless unfit)
4. offender disqualified from
inheriting by both intestate
and testate

Art 64
- innocent may revoke all
donation from offender, like
insurance policy
- registered lien or alienation
must be respected
- action to revoke donation
brought within 5 years