Case: Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P.

Arquero
Facts:
O n J une 1, 19 94 , Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero, Process
Server of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brookes Point, Palawan for
immorality. Complainant alleged that his wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, a
former stenographer of the MTC B ro oke s Poi nt, an d re s pon de nt unl aw f ul l y
an d scand al ousl y coha bi te d as hus ba nd and w i fe at B anc udo Pul o t,
B ro oke s Poi nt, Pal aw an as a re sul t of w hi ch a gi rl , De si ree May
I rade r A rq ue ro, was born to the two on May 21, 1989. Attached to the lettercomplaint was the girls Baptismal Certificate reflecting the names of respondent
and Dedje Irader as her parents. Re s pon de nt cl ai me d tha t the i mmoral i ty
cha rge b y t he pe ti ti one r w as j ust a me re ha rassme n t and a product of
complainants hatred and jealousy. By respondents own admission however, he
ha d an il l i ci t re l ati o nshi p wi th the pe ti ti one r s w i fe for 8 -9 m ont hs.
The re ason for havi n g t hi s i l l i c i t r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s e x p l a i n e d b y
the respondent that the petitioner and his wife had a
kasunduan in writing and duly notarized. The Kasunduan indicated that they
would sever their marriage ties and allow themselves to live with other possible
partner and that no one would go to court to institute any action against the
other.
Issue: Whether or not the Kasunduan is enough ground to sever the marriage
tie.
Ruling:
S C r u l e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s j u s t i fi c a t i o n f a i l s , b e i n g a n
e m p l o y e e o f t h e j u d i c i a r y , re s pon de nt ou ght to have know n t hat
the Kasun dua n h ad absol ute l y no force and e ff e ct o n the validity of the
marriage between complainant and his wife. Art 1 of the family code provides that
ma rri age i s an i nvi ol abl e soci al i nsti t uti on w hose na tu re and
conse q ue nce s, an d i nci de nts a re go ve rne d by l aw a nd not subj e ct to
sti p ul ati on. It i s an i nsti tuti o n of pu bl i c orde r an d p ol i cy, go ve rne d
by rul e s e stabl i she d by l aw w hi ch canno t be made i nope rati ve by
sti p ul ati on of the parties.
Respondent is suspended for 6 months.