Munoz v.

del Barrio (1955)

FACTS:
On 24 Sep 1942 – Felicidad and Jose married. They were married again
canonically on 24 Oct 1942. They had two children: Felix Luis (11), Maria Teresa (9)
and quarreled frequently in which the husband allegedly maltreated wife “by
deed”

On 1947, the wiife couldn’t take it anymore and lived separately. So, on 26
Oct 1951 – Felicidad filed petition alleging Jose had made several attempts on
her life, which compelled living separately; and Jose has not provided support for
children
She prayed to Court the following:
 Decree of legal separation (see Art. 97, Civil Code)
 Felicidad be awarded custody
 Jose be directed to contribute support of children
 Felicidad allowed costs, atty.’s fees (P200) – charged against
conjugal property, pursuant to Art. 293 of Civil Code
 Post expenses conjugal prop., divided into equal parts to
Felicidad and Jose; dissolve, liquidate conjug. prop.
 Granted any further relief that may be just/equitable
On 12 Nov. 1951 – Jose answered petition, should be dismissed, lack of
merit: contrary to moral and good customs; not authorized/sanctioned by statue.
The Court, after complying with Art. 98 [Civil Code], dismissed the petition: lack of
merit. In response, Felicidad appealed

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Jose’s actions constitute an attempt on the life of Felicidad,
and therefore presented a ground for legal separation, under Art. 97 of the
Civil Code?

HELD:
 NO. The court just considered the beatings to have allegedly
occurred in Dec 1950 or Jan 1951 – after the new Civil Code had
come into effect. In US v. Reyes: “[a] personal assault must be
punished according to its consequences and the harm done to the
victim, for the penal law in this class of crimes is only concerned with
the material results produced by the transgression, unless the
perverse intention of taking the victim’s life be clearly manifested. In
the case at bar, Jose only used his (1) bare fists; (2) desisted from
further chastisement after the spur of impulse – intent to kill has not
been established clearly and convincingly.
Provisions applicable:
  Art 293 [Civil Code]: In an action for legal separation or annulment of
marriage, attorney's fees and expenses for litigation shall be charged to the
conjugal partnership property, unless the action fails.

 Art 98 [Civil Code]: In every case the court must take steps, before granting
the legal separation, toward the reconciliation of the spouses, and must be
fully satisfied that such reconciliation is highly improbable. (n)

 Art 97 [Civil Code]: A petition for legal separation may be filed:

(1) For adultery on the part of the wife and for concubinage on the part
of the husband as defined in the Penal Code; or
(2) An attempt by one spouse against the life of the other.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Reyes v Ines-Luciano

FACTS
Celia Ilustre-Reyes filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
Quezon City a complaint against her husband Manuel J.C. Reyes for legal
separation on the ground that he had attempted to kill her:
a. 3/10/1976 – he punched her, held her head, and bumped it several
times against the cement floor. He also pushed her at the stairway of
13 flights, and swung at her abdomen which got her half-
unconscious. It was her father who saved her.
b. He doused her with grape juice, kicked her several times, and was
saved this time by her driver.
She filed for support pendente lite for her and her 3 children. Manuel
opposed this by saying that his wife committed adultery with her physician.
The RTC granted the P5,000.00 per month from June 1976 to P4,000. The CA
dismissed Manuel’s petition for the annulment of the RTC order and Manuel
appears to be financially capable of giving the support.

ISSUES: Whether or not adultery can be used as a defense in an action for support
Whether or not in determining the amount of support it is enough that
the Court ascertain via affidavits or other documentary evidence

HELD: YES. The alleged adultery must be established by competent evidence.

Adultery is a good defense if properly proved. Manuel did not present any
evidence to prove his allegation. He still has the opportunity to adduce evidence
on this alleged adultery when the action for legal separation is heard on the merits
before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC. However, it is doubtful
whether adultery will affect her right to alimony pendente lite – she is asking for
support to be taken from their conjugal property, not Manuel’s personal funds.

YES. Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for
support pendent lite; it is enough that the facts be established by affidavits/other
documentary evidence. Celia submitted documents that the corporations
controlled by Manuel have entered into multi-million contracts in projects of the
Ministry of Public Highways.

Provisions Applicable:
Art. 61, FC. After the filing of the petition for legal separation, the spouses
shall be entitled to live separately from each other.
The Court, in absence of a written agreement between the spouses, shall
designate either of them or a third person to administer the absolute
community or conjugal partnership property. The administrator appointed
by the court shall have the same powers and duties as those of a guardian
under the Rules of Court.

Art. 62, FC. During the pendency of the action for legal separation, the
provisions of Article 49 shall likewise apply to the support of the spouses and
the custody and support of the common children.