ARROYO VS.

VASQUEZ DE ARROYO
FACTS:
Plaintiff Mariano and defendant Dolores were married in 1910, and lived in Iloilo City.
They lived together with a few short intervals of separation. On July 4, 1920,
defendant Dolores went away from their common home and decided to live separately from
plaintiff. She claimed that she was compelled to leave on the basis of cruel treatment
on the part of her husband. She in turn prayed for a decree of separation, a
liquidation of their conjugal partnership, and an allowance for counsel fees and
permanent separate maintenance.
CFI:
Ruled in favor of the defendant-she was granted alimony amounting to P400, as well
as other fees. In this case, a cross-complaint took place. Plaintiff then asked for
a restitution of conjugal rights, and a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the
defendant to return to the conjugal home and live with him as his wife.
ISSUE:
WON defendant had sufficient cause for leaving theconjugal home;
WON
plaintiff
may
be
granted
the
restitution
of conjugal rights/absolute order/permanent mandatory injunction. Plaintiff is granted
a judicial declaration of defendants lack of sufficient cause to leave the domicile.
RULE:
NO on both issues. Defendant is admonished to return to the conjugal home. The
permanent mandatory injunction may not be granted.
RATIO:
On sufficient cause for leaving the conjugal home. Cruelty done by plaintiff to
defendant was greatly exaggerated. The wife was inflicted with a disposition of
jealousy towards her husband in an aggravated degree. No sufficient cause
was present.
Courts should move with caution in enforcing the duty to provide for the separate
maintenance of the wife since this recognizes the de facto separation of the two parties.
Continued cohabitation of the pair must be seen as impossible, and separation must
be necessary, stemming from the fault of the husband. She is under obligation to
return to the domicile.
When people understand that they must live togetherthey learn to soften by
mutual
accommodation that yoke which they know they cannot shake off; they become good
husbands and
wivesnecessity is a powerful master in teaching the duties which it imposes
(Evans v. Evans)
On granting the restitution of conjugal rights.
It is not within the province of the courts to compel one of the spouses to cohabit
with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. In the case of property rights, such an
action may be maintained. Said order, at best, would have no other purpose than to
compel the spouses to live together. Other countries, such as England and Scotland
have done this with much criticism. Plaintiff is entitled to a judicial declaration that
the defendant absented herself without sufficient cause and it is her duty to return.