were ignored and rejected by the police because of an alleged administrative classification that affords lesser protection when

Elisa Goitia and Jose Campos Rueda were married on January the victom is a woman abused by a spouse or boyfriend, or a child 7, 1915. They established their residence, where they lived abused by a father or stepfather. together for a month after which plaintiff returned to her parents. She alleged that defendant demanded of her that she WON the administrative classification violates the equal perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genitals. She protection clause refused to perform any act other than legal and valid cohabitation. Defendant continued demanding such acts from YES. A man is not allowed to physically abuse or endanger a her. Her continued refusal exasperated him, inducing him to woman merely because he is her husband. A police officer may maltreat her by word and deed and inflict injuries upon her not knowingly refrain from interference in such violence, and may lips, face and different body parts. Thus, she was obliged to not automatically decline to make an arrest simply because the leave the conjugal abode and is now asking for support. The assaulter and his victim are married to each other. Whatever may court of first instance held that defendant cannot be compelled be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily to support wife, except in his own house, unless it be by virtue controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be of a judicial decree granting her a divorce or separation from mandated solely on the basis of sex. the defendant. Sub-issues: WON wife is entitled to support outside conjugal abode 1. Dismissal of claims of son- Correct. Condition to stay away from son is not one of the conditions after arrest. There is YES. The rule established in Art. 149 of the Civil Code is not failure to adequately allege denial of equal protection absolute. The doctrine that neither spouse cannot be 2. Allegation of custom or policy- A pattern emerges that compelled to support the other outside the conjugal abode, evidences deliberate indifference on the part of the police unless it be by virtue of a judicial decree granting them a department to the complaints of Tracey and its duty to protect divorce or separation is not controlling in cases where one of her. Such indifference raises an inference of custom or policy the spouses was compelled to leave the conjugal abode by the on the part of municipality. other or where the husband voluntarily abandons such abode 3. Unidentified police officers- Okay because case was and the wife seeks to force him to furnish support. The nature of the duty of affording mutual support is compatible and dismissed even before plaintiff had an opportunity to discover enforcible in all situations, so long as the needy spouse does identity of unidentified defendants. not create any illicit situation. A judgment for separate 4. Pendent Jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim- The maintenance is a judgment calling for the performance of a court has discretion to exercise this power. At the instant case, duty made specific by the mandate of the sovereign. court declines to exercise because needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to Moreland, concurring: A husband cannot, by his own promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a wrongful acts, relieve himself from the duty to support his surer-footed reading of applicable law. wife imposed by law; and where a husband, by wrongful, illegal and unbearable conduct, drives his wife from the MCGUIRE v MCGUIRE domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure to abrogate the law applicable to the marital relation Lydia (66) and Charles (80) McGuire were married. They have and repudiate his duties thereunder. known each other for 3 years and wife knew of husbands THURMAN v CITY OF TORRINGTON Between early October 1982 and June 10, 1983, Tracey Thurman notified the police officers of the City of repeated threats upon her life and the life of her child, Charles Thurman, Jr., made by her estranged husband, Charles Thurman. This include breaking her windshield while she was in the car, where he was convicted of breach of peace, and stabbing her repeatedly. Attempts to file complaints by wife against husband based on threats of death and maiming her extraordinary frugality. She has 2 daughters from previous marriage, whose education was supported by second marriage. They are now married and living in different states. They inherited an 80-acre farm from first husband and Lydia transferred her interest to her daughters but she can have the rent money which she uses to visit her daughters. Wife testified that she used to raise chickens and her profits were used to buy clothing and groceries because husband gave her very little money, did not give her clothes except for a single coat and never took her to a movie. Their house was not equipped with a

GOITIA v CAMPOS RUEDA

bathroom and kitchen was not modern. The furnace was not in good condition and she had a hard time scooping coal for it. The car did not have an efficient heater. She could not raise chickens anymore due to the 3 abdominal operations she went through which her husband paid for. Because of these, wife filed an action for equity to recover suitable maintenance and support money, and for costs and attorneys fees. District Court decreed that wife was legally entitled to use the credit of the husband and obligate him to pay for certain items in the nature of improvements and repairs, furniture, and appliances for the household; purchase a new automobile with an effective heater in 30 days; pay travel expenses of wife to visit each daughter at least once a year; wife be entitled in the future to pledge the credit of the husband for what may constitute necessities of life; personal allowance of wife of $50 a month; awarded $800 for wifes attorney; and as an alternative, buy a modern house elsewhere. WON wife is entitled to relief NO. To maintain an action such as the one at bar, the parties must be separated or living apart from each other. Parties are not living apart and wife has been supported in the same manner without complaint. As long as home is maintained and the parties are living as husband and wife it may be said that the husband is legally supporting his wife and the purpose of the marriage is being carried out. As for attorneys fees, it is only allowed to the successful party in litigation only where allowance is provided by the statute YASIN v JUDGE, SHARIA DISTRICT COURT Hatima Yasin was formerly married to Hajin Idris Yasin, in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. They were granted a decree of divorce, also in accordance with Islamic Law. Former husband has remarried and Hatima is now asking the Court to allow her to resume her maiden name. The Sharia District Court dismissed petition because the petition was deemed to be for a change of name and compliance with Rule 103 of the Rules of Court was necessary for the petition to be granted. WON a petition for resumption of maiden name is also a petition for change of name NO. The true and real name of a person is that given to him and entered in the civil register. This name is the subject of the petition for a change of name. Petitioner does not seek to change her registered maiden name, rather she prays that she be allowed to resume the use of this name in view of her divorce. When the marriage ties no longer exists as in the case of death of husband or Muslim divorce, the widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation of the change in her civil status in order to revert to

her maiden name as the use of her husband's name is optional and not obligatory for her.