hands and desisted from giving further chastisement after and McKay were drunk at that time.

Defendant admitted to the first blows were given at the spur of impulse. The intent shooting McKay but said that it was accidental and he had Andres Bondoc filed an adultery charge against wife to kill is not established with clear and convincing evidence. no intent of killing as victim was a good friend. The court Guadalupe Zapata and her paramour, Dalmacio Bondoc for held that he was a habitual drunkard and that his condition cohabiting and having repeated sexual intercourse during GANDIONCO v PENARANDA should be considered for lessening his sentence. the period 1946- 14 March 1947. The wife pleaded guilty and served the sentence of arresto mayor. Andres filed In May 1986, Teresita Gandionco, legal wife of Froilan WON defendant was a habitual drunkard another complaint for adultery for the period of 15 March Gandionco, filed a petition for legal separation on the 1947 to the date of the filing of the new complaint, 17 ground of concubinage with a petition for support and The exact degree of intemperance which constitutes a September 1948. Defendants filed a motion to quash on the payment for damages. She then filed a criminal case for drunkard it may not be easy to define, but speaking in ground of double jeopardy. concubinage in October 1986. Provisional remedy of general terms, and with the accuracy of which the matter is support, pendent elite, pending the decision for legal susceptible, he is a drunkard whose habit is to get a drunk WON the new complaint will result in double jeopardy. separation, was granted to Teresita. Froilan then filed a whose ebriety has become habitual. To convict a man of the petition for certiorari because he claims that the civil action offense of being a common drunkard it is, at the least, Adultery is not a continuous crime. Thus each sexual for legal separation, including the application of pendent necessary to show that he is a habitual drunkard. A man intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery and can be elite, should be suspended in view of the criminal case for may be a habitual drunkard and yet be sober for days and punished separately. In Spanish jurisprudence, adultery is a concubinage filed against him, citing Art. 111 Sec 3 of the weeks together. The only rule is, has he a fixed habit of crime of result and not of tendency. It lacks the last unity 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. drunkenness? Was he habituated to intemperance whenever that should comprise a continuous crime: (1) plurality of the opportunity offered? acts performed separately during a period of time, (2) unity WON civil action must be suspended upon commencement of penal provisions infringed upon or violated, and (3) unity of criminal action LAPUZ v EUFEMIO of criminal intent or purpose. In view of the amendment under the 1985 Rules on Carmen Lapuz filed a petition for legal separation against MUNOZ v BARRIO Criminal Procedure, a civil action for legal separation, Eufemio Eufemio, alleging that they were civilly and based on concubinage, may proceed ahead of, or canonically married in 1934, they had lived together until Felicidad Muoz and Jose del Barrio were married civilly simultaneously with, a criminal action for concubinage, 1943 until her husband abandoned her, they had no and canonically in 1942. They had 2 children in this union. because said civil action is not one to enforce the civil children; they acquired properties during the marriage, and Due to frequent quarrels and the husbands maltreatment, liability arising from the offense. Such civil action is one that she discovered her husband cohabiting with a Chinese they unceremoniously separated in 1947. In December 1950 intended to obtain the right to live separately, with the legal woman named Go Hiok. Aside from legal separation, she or January 1951 and September 1951, wife was allegedly consequences thereof, such as, the dissolution of the also prayed that husband should be deprived of his share of maltreated again, which moved her to file a petition that conjugal partnership of gains, custody of offsprings, the conjugal property profits. Eufemio filed a counterclaim declare that the system of conjugal partnership of gains support, and disqualification from inheriting from the for the declaration of his marriage to Carmen void ab initio governs her marriage with respondent, that no property has innocent spouse, among others. A conviction for on the ground of prior and subsisting marriage to Go Hiok, been acquired during the marriage except a portion of concubinage is also not required to use it as a ground for celebrated according to Chinese law and customs. Before residential land from which no rentals were derived, that the legal separation. Legal separation may be issued upon proof trial was completed, Carmen died in a car accident. His respondents made several attempts on her life, and that by preponderance of evidence. father was petitioned to act as substitute. Eufemio, however, respondent has not provided support. She is thus asking for moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation because legal separation, custody of their kids, support from the US v McMANN the petition was filed beyond the 1-yr period provided for in respondent, conjugal partnership to pay for her legal fees, Art 102 of the Civil Code, and because the death of Carmen division of remaining conjugal partnership to equal parts, McMann and McKay were packers at Camp Vicars in abated the action for legal separation. and complete relief. Mindanao. One evening, when McKay was off duty, he attempted to enter a house of the Moro Amay Pindolonan WON the action for legal separation is converted to that of WON the maltreatment that occurred after separation is but was not allowed to do so. Later, McMann, revolver at a petition to declare the nullity of marriage enough to be used as a ground for legal separation hand, tried to do the same but was also not allowed. He saw the Moro named Master who was carving the head of his WON Carmens cause of action has survived Maltreatment should be enough to constitute that there is an bolo. He snatched the bolo, cutting the Moros fingers. attempt to take the life of the wife. This attempt is moved by Later, he saw McKay and Pindolonan sitting side by side. 1) The petition for legal separation and the counterclaim to an intent to kill. In this case, it cannot be proven that there is McMann raides his revolver and shot McKay, killing him. declare the nullity of the self same marriage can stand intention to kill. Respondent only used his bare fists or Defendant also killed a dog in the premises. Both McMann independent and separate adjudication. They are not

PEOPLE v ZAPATA AND BONDOC

inseparable, nor was the action for legal separation converted into one for declaration of nullity by the counterclaim, for legal separation presupposes a valid marriage, while the petition for nullity has a voidable marriage as a precondition. However, because of Carmens death, the action for declaration of nullity of marriage became moot and academic and there could be no further interest in continuing the same after her demise that automatically dissolved the union. Any property rights acquired by either party as a result of Art 144 of the Civil Code could be resolved in a proper petition for partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant. 2) An action for legal separation is purely personal. Being personal in character, it follows that the death of one party to the action causes the death of the action itselfactio personalis moritur cum persona. A review of the resulting changes in property relations between spouses shows that they are solely the effect of the decree of legal separation; hence they can not survive the death of the plaintiff if it occurs prior to the decree. These rights are mere effects of a decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation.

their children to live in Mla w/ his mistress, Nenita Hernandez. And that after 1955 until the time of the trial, he had never visited the conjugal abode & when he was in Bacolod, she was denied communication w/ him.

2) For abuse to exist, it is not enough that the husband perform acts prejudicial to his wife or commit acts injurious to the partnership. There must be an act willfully performed & w/ utter disregard of the partnership by the husband that would be prejudicial to the wife, evidenced by the repetition RTC ordered separation & division of the conjugal assets of deliberate acts &/or omissions. (valued at 500, 000), directing the Severino to pay to Estrella 20k as attorneys fees, with legal interest form date COURT says theyre not condoning the husbands of original complaint (July 22, 1958) until fully paid plus separation from his wife. What theyre saying is that there is costs. an insufficiency or absence of cause of action. Remedies of A. 167 and 178 are aimed at protecting the CP. And they WON separation of husband from his wife constitutes must exercise restraint since theyre trying to preserve union abandonment in law that would justify the separation of of spouses: a judgment ordering a separation of assets where conjugal partnership property. theres no real abandonment may eradicate the possibility of reconciliation. WON the husbands failure and/or refusal to inform his wife of the state of their business is an abuse of his Alimony increased from 2000 to 3000. Attorneys fees must powers of administration of the CP as to warrant a also be born by defendant since he left the conjugal abode division of matrimonial assets. and has given cause for plaintiff to seek redress in courts. 1) In the case at bar, there was only mere physical separation & not real abandonment. Abandonment contemplated by the law must be of physical estrangement, moral and FINANCIAL desertion. Based on how abandonment was used in A.178 & in Gay v State in order for desertion of one spouses to constitute abandonment, there must be absolute cessation of marital relations & duties & rights with intention of perpetual separation. To abandon is to forsake entirely. Emphasis is on its finality, hence it means giving up absolutely and with intent never again to resume or claim ones rights or interests. Here, Severino didnt seem to have the intention to leave his family permanently since he continued to give support despite his absence w/c thus negates any intent not to return & resume his marital duties & rights.

DELA CRUZ v DELA CRUZ Estrella and Severino dela Cruz were married on Feb 1, 1938 & they had six children. They acquired seven parcels of land at Bacolod Cadastre and three parcels at Silay Cadastre. These are all registered in their names. They are also engaged in various business ventures.

Since separation in fact between spouses doesnt affect the On July 22, 1958 she filed a complaint praying for the sep CP except if the husband abandons his wife w/o just cause, of prop, monthly support & payment of attorney fees & (A178, CC)...claims of the Estrella of concubinage on part costs. of Severino must be regarded as efforts at bolstering her claim of abandonment w/c shall justify, under the law, a In 1949, she claims that she already suspected that Severino judicial separation of conjugal assets. There is no strong was sleeping around. W/c was only confirmed by a note she corroborated evidence that demonstrates the existence of found in his shirt in 1951. She confronted him about it & he illicit relations btwn Nenita & Severino. promised her to forsake his mistress. W/c he didnt. Neither has he been mismanaging funds since he actually Since 1955, he never slept in conjugal dwelling, but only increased the value of their assets by over a million pesos. paid short visits. She contends that he abandoned her &