Bugayong vs Ginez the dismissal of the action on the ground of

Condonation.
FACTS: In 1949, while on furlough(temporary
unpaid) leave, Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman
in the US Navy married Leonila Ginez in
ISSUE: Whether there was condonation between
Pangasinan.
Benjamin and Leonila that may serve as a ground
After the marriage, they lived with his sisters in for dismissal of the legal separation.
Manila. 2 years after, the wife left the dwelling
of her sister-in-law and informed her husband by
letter that she had gone to Pangasinan to reside RULING: There was clearly a condonation on the
with her mother and later moved to Dagupan to part of the husband for the supposed acts of rank
study in a local college. On that same year, the of infidelity amounting to adultery committed by
husband received letters from his sister-in-law his wife. This is evident when they slept together
and from some anonymous writers about the for two nights as husband and wife in the same
infidelity of his wife. His wife also messaged him house. The SC opined that there was a
that a certain “Eliong” kissed her. reconciliation between them and there was a
condonation of the wife by the husband.
He seeked the advice of the Navy Chaplain who
directed him to consult instead the Navy Legal Also, Article 100 of the Civil Code provides that
Department. legal separation may only be claimed by an
innocent spouse provided there has been no
One year after, he went to Pangasinan and
condonation of or consent to the adultery or
looked for his wife. They met in the house of the
concubinage. The acts of the husband, despite
wife’s godmother and afterwards proceeded to
his belief of the unfaithfulness of his wife
the house of his cousin where they stayed for 1
deprives him of any action for legal separation
night and 1 day as husband and wife. The next
because his conduct comes with the restriction
day, they slept together in their own house.
of Article 100 of the Civil Code.
When he tried to verify with the wife the truth
on the information he received but instead of *In the American jurisprudence, if the parties,
answering, she merely packed up and left which after the commission of the offense and with the
he took as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity. knowledge of the other party of the its
After that, he went to Ilocos Norte to find her but commission, has lived on the same house, it is
to no avail . presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial
cohabitation and is sufficient enough to
He then filed a complaint for legal separation in
constitute condonation.
the Court of First Instance in Pangasinan against
his wife who denied his accusations. The wife,
moved to dismiss the proceedings on the
grounds that if there was truth on the
allegations, (1) the action is barred by the statute
of limitations, (2) that under the same
assumption, the acts charged have been
condoned by the husband, (3) and that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action
sufficient for this court to render a valid
judgement. : The Court of First Instance ordered
 People vs Sensano and Ramos The SC reversed the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte for the crime of adultery
FACTS: Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura to three years, six months and 21 days of prison
were married and had 1 child. After the birth of correccional.
the child, the husband went to Cagayan for 3
years without writing to his wife or giving support
to them.

The wife met Marcelo Ramos who took her and

the child to live with him. Upon the return of her
husband, he filed a charge against his wife and
Marcelo for adultery and both were sentenced to
4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor.

After completing the sentence, she left her

paramour and appealed to the municipal
president and justice of peace to send for her
husband so she can ask for his pardon and beg
him to take her back. He refused to pardon her,
to live with her and said she could go wherever
she wished and do as she pleased and that he
would have nothing more to do with her.

Abandoned for the second time, she went back

to Marcelo and lived with him ever since. The
husband knew of this but didn’t do anything to
interfere or to assert his rights as the husband.

He left for Hawaii and remained there for 7 years

completely abandoning his wife and child. On his
return to the PH, he presented the second charge
of adultery for the sole purpose of being able to
obtain a divorce under the provisions of Act No.
2710 (An Act to Establish Divorce).

ISSUE: WON the husband has consented to his

wife’s adulterous acts.

RULING: Yes. The fact that he told his wife that he

had nothing to do with her and that she can do
whatever she wants is considered as consent for
the adultery. He also did not interfere with his
wife’s relations for seven years despite knowing
that the she was staying again with Marcelo.

The Attorney-General’s contention has no merit-

the husband could still have taken actions despite
his absence from the country had he wanted to.