Anda di halaman 1dari 1

RAMIREZ-CUADERNO v.

CUADERNO o Thus, they were admonished (urged) to live together as


November 28, 1964 husband and wife.
Right to live together
ISSUE:
J. BARRERA
1. W/N the the court can compel the spouses to live together as husband
DOCTRINE: and wife.
2. W/N the the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court’s decision of Php
While marriage entitles both parties to cohabitation or consortium, the sanction 150 monthly support is unreasonable.
therefor is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and
not any legal mandate or court order. HELD:

Court cannot force cohabitation between spouses. 1. NO. The court finds it unrealistic for them to compel or urge the
spouses to live together because of the impossibility of cohabitation
FACTS: that had arisen from the facts mentioned above.
 August 14, 1957: Complaint for support was filed by Lourdes  The sanction for cohabitation is the spontaneous, mutual
Ramirez-Cuaderno against her husband Angel Cuaderno before the affection between husband and wife
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.  NOT any legal mandate or court order.

 JDRC, after hearing, ordered Angel to give Lourdes a monthly support 2. NO. It is not unreasonable where the husband gave cause for
of Php 150.00 separation.
o from the date of filing of complaint and;  It is not disputed that the physical injuries inflicted by Angel to Lourdes
o pay costs and attorney fees. gave rise to their separation.
 It was also shown that it was Angel who took Lourdes to her mother’s
 CA reversed and set aside the decision of JDRC: house where he left her.
o “So that appellant and appellee may again resume  The fact that the wife allegedly accepted money from her husband and
cohabitation which they are hereby admonished to do as their desisted from accepting any later, only indicated that Angel was
duty as husband and wife.” already providing something for the separate maintenance.
 Php 150 does not seem so unreasonable since Angel has work while
BACKGROUND ON THE CUADERNO COUPLE: Lourdes has no income of her own.

 Since Nov. 17, 1956: Couple has been living separately RULING:
o Because Angel inflicted bodily injuries on Lourdes because of
a quarrel WHEREFORE, decision of the CA is SET ASIDE and that of the Juvenile and
o Angel took Lourdes to her mother’s house where she stayed Domestic Relations Court is hereby REVIVED. Without costs.
until the institution of claim for support.

 Lourdes claimed maltreatment and abandonment; while Angel


contended that it was Lourdes who left the conjugal dwelling and
therefore not entitled thereto.

 Trial court (JDRC) granted wife’s demand, and held that Lourdes was
driven out of their dwelling because of maltreatment from Angel.
 CA SET ASIDE JDRC decision:
o CA believed that cohabitation between the spouses is not yet
impossible.