Goitia vs Campos-Rueda
35 Phil 252
FACTS:
Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos y Rueda, respondent, were married
on January 7, 1915 and had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino Manila. They stayed
together for a month before petitioner returned to her parent’s home. Goitia filed a complaint
against respondent for support outside the conjugal home. It was alleged that respondent
demanded her to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs. Petitioner
refused to perform such acts and demanded her husband other than the legal and valid
cohabitation. Since Goitia kept on refusing, respondent maltreated her by word and deed,
inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and different body parts. The trial court ruled in favor of
respondent and stated that Goitia could not compel her husband to support her except in the
conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting her separation or divorce from
respondent. Goitia filed motion for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal
home.
HELD:
The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created merely in the act of
marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill
the obligation either by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at
his option. However, this option given by law is not absolute. The law will not permit the
husband to evade or terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from
the conjugal home because of his wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was forced to
leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of the husband, she
can therefore claim support from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the
conjugal home.
Lacson vs Lacson 24 SCRA 837
Article 55
Facts:
On Feb 14, 1953, when they got married, Jan 9, 1963 is when Carmen (respondent)
left home in Bacolod to go to Manila, on March 12, 1963 Carmen filed a complaint for
custody of children as well as support in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
Manila, Before it pushed through though they reached a settlement where the two
eldest kids would go to
petitioner Alfonso and the youngest would stay with Carmen, This was affirmed by the
CFI. and on May 7, 1963 respondent filed a motion for the custody of all children be
given to her in JDRC since, she said she only entered into agreement to gain custody
of her younger children and thus should be given custody of the older ones as well who
are all below 7 years old. CA ruled that compromise agreement as relating to custody
of children should be declared null and void and as such the execution of said judgment
is void too.
ISSUE: Whether or Not support should be awarded to the wife
HELD:
Yes, should have but was filed out of time, Older children at that time were 5 and 6 so
agreement should have been declared null and void since no compelling reasons were
stated otherwise, However the children are now 11 and 10 and thus The 11 year old
may choose which parent they want to live with and Court may also award custody to
who they deem more fit through evidence
Ty vs CA
GR No. 127406, November 27, 2000
FACTS:
Private respondent, Edgardo Reyes, was married with Anna Villanueva in a civil ceremony in
March 1977 in Manila and subsequently had a church wedding in August 1977. Both weddings
were declared null and void ab initio for lack of marriage license and consent of the
parties. Even before the decree nullifying the marriage was issued, Reyes wed Ofelia Ty herein
petitioner on April 1979 and had their church wedding in Makati on April 1982. The decree
was only issued in August 1980. In January 1991, Reyes filed with RTC a complaint to have his
marriage with petitioner be declared null and void. AC ruled that a judicial declaration of nullity
of the prior marriage with Anna must first be secured before a subsequent marriage could be
validly contracted. However, SC found that the provisions of the Family Code cannot be
retroactively applied to the present case for doing so would prejudice the vested rights of the
petitioner and of her children.
ISSUE: Whether or not damages should be awarded to Ofelia Ty.
HELD:
SC is in the opinion of the lower courts that no damages should be awarded to the wife who
sought damages against the husband for filing a baseless complaint causing her mental
anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, social humiliation and alienation from her
parents. Aside from the fact, that petitioner wants her marriage to private respondent held
valid and subsisting. She is likewise suing to maintain her status as legitimate wife. To grant
her petition for damages would result to a situation where the husband pays the wife damages
from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would make the application of the law
absurd. Moreover, Philippine laws do not comprehend an action for damages between
husband and wife merely because of breach of a marital obligation.
Hence, the petition was granted. Marriage between Ty and Reyes is declared valid and
subsisting and the award of the amount of P15,000 is ratified and maintained as monthly
support to their 2 children for as long as they are of minor age or otherwise legally entitled
thereto.
Narag vs. Narag, 291 SCRA 451
FACTS:
Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family for his paramour who was
once his student in tertiary level. The administrative complaint of disbarment was filed by her
wife, Mrs. Julieta Narag. Respondent filed motion to dismiss because allegedly the complainant
fabricated the story as well as the love letters while under extreme emotional confusion arising
from jealousy. The case took an unexpected turn when another complaint was filed, the wife
as again the complainant but now together with their seven children as co-signatories. After
several hearings, the facts became clear, that the respondent indeed abandoned his family as
against morals, based on testimonial evidences. In addition, the assailed relationship bore two
children.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality and for having violated and the Code
of Ethics for Lawyers culpable for disbarment.
HELD:
YES. Respondent disbarred.
RATIO:
The complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent
breached the high and exacting moral standards set for the members of the law profession.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but
a continuing qualification for all members of the bar.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.
Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.
Dadivas de Villanueva v. Villanueva, 54 Phil 93 is not so unreasonable as to require as acquiescence on the part of the injured party which is
beyond the capacity of nature.

Villanueva v. Villanueva Inn order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate maintenance
G.R. No. L-33352 from her husband it is not necessary that the husband should bring a concubine into the
marital domicile. Perverse and illicit relations with women outside of the marital
Facts establishment are enough.

The wife (Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva) files for support against the husband (Rafael
Villanueva) to obtain separate maintenance as she decided to live separately from the
marital home (a month before filing this case) due to the husband's cruelty and repeated
infidelity with other women outside their marital ties. The wife also wants to obtain custody
of their 2 younger children, aged 10 and 9 as well as reimbursement of attorney's fees
incurred for this case.
As was said by Justice Moreland in Goitia v. Campos Rueda (35 Phil 252, 262), a husband
cannot, by his own wrongful acts, relieve himself from the duty to support his wife imposed
by law; and where a husband by wrongful, illegal, and unbearable conduct, drives his wife
from the domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure to abrogate the
law applicable to the marital relations and repudiate his duties thereunder.

It appears that during the ten years prior to the filing of this case, the defendant has been
involved in illicit relations with four different women, including another different one while
this case was pending.

The complainant for the purpose of keeping the marriage intact, continued to bear with the
infidelity of the defendant. It was only on April 20, 1927 when due to the cruelty of the
defendant, the complainant decided to live their conjugal home.

The Lower Court's decision

The lower court absolved the defendant husband and abrogated a previous order approving
support, hence the wife's appeal to the Court of Appeals. Said decision was later affirmed
hence this appeal.

Issue

Whether the complainant is entitled to support (separate maintenance) on the ground of

cruelty and marital infidelity.

Ruling

Yes. The complainant is entitled to support.

It was held by the Supreme Court that (to quote)

"The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a
husband whose incurable propensity towards other women makes common habitation with
him unbearable.

Deeply rooted instincts of human nature sanction the separation in such a case, and the law
Silva V Peralta
Facts:
Saturnino Silva, an American citizen and US Army officer, was married to one Priscilla Isabel of
Australia. While deployed in the Philippines, Saturnino married appellee Esther which was
allegedly executed since no documents for the purpose of marriage were prepared. The said
marriage produced a child. While in the US for medical treatment, Saturnino divorced therein
Priscilla and contracted another marriage now with appellant Elenita Ledesma. Upon
Saturnino’s return to the Philippines, Esther demanded support for the child and upon his
refusal, instituted a suit. Thereupon, Elenita moved to enjoin Esther from representing herself
as wife of Saturnino and prayed for the award of moral damages for the humiliation and
distress she suffered upon learning his husband had a child. Esther filed a counterclaim for
actual damages and fees due to the harassment and moral damages caused by Saturnino’s
marital relation with Elenita and his subsequent refusal to acknowledge their offspring. The
trial court found for Esther. Appellant spouses now prays for reconsideration of the decision
alleging the award of the pecuniary damages is unwarranted by law.
Issue:
Whether or not appellee Esther Peralta is entitled to damages because of Saturnino’s affair
and abandonment.
Ruling: YES.
The damages awarded to appellee are a natural and direct consequence of Silva’s deceitful
maneuvers in making love to appellee, and inducing her to yield to his advances and live with
him as his wife (when Silva knew all the time that he could not marry Esther Peralta because
of his undissolved marriage to an Australian woman, a prior wedlock that he concealed from
appellee). It is clear that Esther Peralta would not have consented to the liaison had there been
no concealment of Silva’s previous marriage, or that the birth of the child was a direct result
of this connection. That Esther had to support the child because Silva abandoned her before it
was born is likewise patent upon the record, and we cannot see how said appellant can be
excused from liability therefor.
Silva’s seduction and subsequent abandonment of appellee and his illegitimate child were
likewise the direct cause for the filling of the support case in Manila, and in order to prosecute
the same, appellee had to quit her employment in Davao. While the case could have been filed
in Davao, we do not believe that this error in selecting a more favorable venue (due to her
unfamiliarity with the technicalities of the law) should be allowed to neutralized the appellant
Silva’s responsibility as the primary causative factor of the prejudice and damage suffered by
appellee.
Arroyo v Vasquez (1921)
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 and she was granted alimony amounting to P400, also other
fees
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.
ISSUES:
1. WON defendant had sufficient cause for leaving the conjugal home
2. WON plaintiff may be granted the restitution of conjugal rights or absolute order or
permanent mandatory injunction
HELD:
1. The wife had 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 together…they learn to soften by mutual
accommodation that yoke which they know they cannot shake off; they become good
husbands and wives…necessity is a powerful master in teaching the duties which it imposes…”
(Evans v. Evans)
2. 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. She is also not entitled to support.