Bugayong vs.

Ginez
100 Phil 616, December 28, 1956


FACTS:
Benjamin Bugayong was married to defendant Leonila Ginez on August 27, 1949 at
Asingan, Pangasinan wherein they resided at the residence of Bugayongs sister. After
some time or about July 1951, Leonila left and had gone to reside with her mother.
As early of July 1951, Benjamin began receiving letters from his sister-in-law and some
from anonymous writers informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife.
In August 1952, Benjamin went to Pangasinan and sought for his wife whom he met in
the house of Leonilas godmother. They stayed in the house of Benjamins cousin and
lived as husband and wife for two nights and one day.
The couple then went to Benjamins house where they passed the night as husband and
wife. On the second day, Benjamin tried to verify from his wife the truth of the
information he received but instead of answering, Leonila packed up and left him which
Benjamin concluded as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity.
On November 18, 1952, Benjamin filed in the Court of First Instance a complaint for
legal separation against his wife Leonila Ginez.. The case was dismissed on the ground of
alleged condonation.


ISSUE:
Did Benjamin Bugayong condone the infidelity of Leonila?


RULING:
Yes. There was condonation because the husband, Benjamin Bugayong, actively searched for his
wife in Pangasinan after she left the conjugal home. The act of Benjamin in persuading Leoniza
to come along with him, and the fact that she went with him and consented to be brought to the
house of his cousin and together slept there as husband and wife and the further fact that in the
second night they slept together in their house as husband and wife all these facts have no other
meaning than that a reconciliation between them was effected and that there was condonation of
the wife by the husband. A single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties
ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation, and where the parties live in the same house, it
is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation.