PERFAM Presumption of Marriage [Art. 220, Civil Code; Sec.

3 (aa), Rule 131, ROC]

Title PILAPIL v. IBAY-SOMERA GR No. 80116
Date: June 30,1989
Ponente: REGALADO,J.
Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of
Manila; and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING
Nature of the case: Petition for the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner

Procedural History: After the divorce of Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil and Erich Ekkehard Geiling, private respondent filed a complaint for
adultery against the petitioner before the City Fiscal of Manila. The case was passed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila. A motion to quash
was filed by the petitioner on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which was denied by the respondent judge. Hence, the petitioner filed this
petition.
FACTS
Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen and Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national were married in Germany. Thereafter, a marital
discord set in resulting to separation de facto between them. After 3 and a half years later, private respondent initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in a court in Germany which promulagted the decree of divorce between the petitioner and the private respondent. More
than 5 months after the issuance of the divorce, private respondent filed a complaint for adultery against petitioner.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not, a foreigner qualify as an offended spouse after obtaining a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the
criminal complaint
RATIO: NO.
The law specifically provides that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should be the
offended spouse, and nobody else. It necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at
the time of the filing of criminal action.
In the present case, private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. Said divorce and its legal effect
may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle. In that consideration, the
husband of the petitioner had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the
time he filed suit.
RULING
The questioned order denying petitioner’s motion to quash is set aside and dismissing the complaint against the petitioner for lack of
jurisdiction.
)