LEGAL SEPARATION

LOVE HAPPENS TO EVERYONE. IT IS DUBBED TO BE BOUNDLESS AS

IT GOES BEYOND THE EXPECTATIONS PEOPLE TAGGED WITH IT. IN
LOVE, “AGE DOES MATTER.” PEOPLE LOVE IN ORDER TO BE SECURE
THAT ONE WILL SHARE HIS/HER LIFE WITH ANOTHER AND THAT
HE/SHE WILL NOT DIE ALONE. INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN LOVE HAD
THE POWER TO LET LOVE GROW OR LET LOVE DIE – IT IS A CHOICE
ONE HAD TO FACE WHEN LOVE IS NOT THE LOVE HE/SHE EXPECTED.
(PADILLA- RUMBAUA VS RUMBAUA G.R. NO. 166738, AUGUST 14,
2009)
• Legal separation is merely the separation
of spouses from bed and board. (Article 63
of the Family Code) While it permits the
partial suspension of marital relations, the
marriage bond still exists as the marital
bonds are not severed as in the case of
annulment or petition for nullity.
 DISTINCTIONS
ANNULMENT LEGAL SEPARATION
(A) DEFECTIVE AT THE VERY
BEGINNING.
(B) THE CAUSE MUST BE
ALREADY EXISTING AT THE TIME
OF THE MARRIAGE.
(C) THERE ARE SEVEN GROUNDS
FOR ANNULMENT.
(D) DISSOLVES THE MARRIAGE
BOND.
(E) UNDER PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE
GROUNDS ARE GENERALLY
(A) NO DEFECT IN THE MARRIAGE
AT THE BEGINNING.
(B) THE CAUSE ARISES AFTER THE
MARRIAGE CELEBRATION.
(C) THERE ARE TEN GROUNDS FOR
LEGAL SEPARATION.
(D) THE MARRIAGE REMAINS.
(E) THE GROUNDS ARE THOSE
GIVEN BY THE NATIONAL LAW.
 PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
(A.M. NO. 02-11-11-SC RE: PROPOSED RULE ON LEGAL SEPARATION)

WHO MAY FILE?

A PETITION FOR LEGAL

SEPARATION MAY BE FILED ONLY BY
THE HUSBAND OR THE WIFE, AS
THE CASE MAY BE.

WHEN TO FILE?

WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM

THE TIME OF THE OCCURRENCE
OF ANY OF THE CAUSES.
 PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS?
(A) REPEATED PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR GROSSLY ABUSIVE
CONDUCT DIRECTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER, A
COMMON CHILD, OR A CHILD OF THE PETITIONER;

(B) PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR MORAL PRESSURE TO COMPEL

THE PETITIONER TO CHANGE RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL
AFFILIATION;

(C) ATTEMPT OF RESPONDENT TO CORRUPT OR INDUCE THE

PETITIONER, A COMMON CHILD, OR A CHILD OF THE
PETITIONER, TO ENGAGE IN PROSTITUTION, OR CONNIVANCE IN
SUCH CORRUPTION OR INDUCEMENT;
 PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION
(D) FINAL JUDGMENT SENTENCING THE RESPONDENT
TO IMPRISONMENT OF MORE THAN SIX YEARS, EVEN IF
PARDONED;
(E) DRUG ADDICTION OR HABITUAL
ALCOHOLISM OF THE RESPONDENT;
(F) LESBIANISM OR
HOMOSEXUALITY OF THE RESPONDENT;
(G) CONTRACTING BY THE
RESPONDENT OF A
SUBSEQUENT BIGAMOUS
MARRIAGE,
WHETHER IN OR OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES;
 PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION
(H) SEXUAL INFIDELITY OR PERVERSION OF THE
RESPONDENT;

(i) ATTEMPT ON THE LIFE OF PETITIONER BY THE

RESPONDENT; OR

(J) ABANDONMENT OF PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT

WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR MORE THAN ONE
YEAR.
 1. REPEATED PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
ONG VS. ONG
G.R. NO. 153206, OCTOBER 23, 2006

FACTS: ON MARCH 21, 1996, LUCITA ONG FILED A COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL SEPARATION UNDER ARTICLE 55
PAR. (1) OF THE FAMILY CODE BEFORE THE RTC OF DAGUPAN CITY. SHE ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT AFTER THREE YEARS OF MARRIAGE, SHE AND WILLIAM QUARRELED ALMOST EVERY DAY, WITH
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BEING INFLICTED UPON HER;
2. THAT WILLIAM WOULD SHOUT INVECTIVES AT HER LIKE PUTANG INA MO, GAGO, TANGA, AND HE WOULD
SLAP HER, KICK HER, PULL HER HAIR, BANG HER HEAD AGAINST CONCRETE WALL AND THROW AT HER
WHATEVER HE COULD REACH WITH HIS HAND;
3. THAT WILLIAM WOULD ALSO SCOLD AND BEAT THE CHILDREN AT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THEIR BODIES USING
THE BUCKLE OF HIS BELT AND THAT WHENEVER SHE TRIED TO STOP WILLIAM FROM HITTING THE CHILDREN, HE
WOULD TURN HIS IRE ON HER AND BOX HER;
4. AND THAT ON DECEMBER 14, 1995, A VIOLENT QUARREL ENSUED AND WILLIAM HIT HER ON HER HEAD,
LEFT CHEEK, EYE, STOMACH, AND ARMS; WHEN WILLIAM HIT HER ON THE STOMACH AND SHE BENT DOWN
BECAUSE OF THE PAIN, HE HIT HER ON THE HEAD THEN POINTED A GUN AT HER AND ASKED HER TO LEAVE THE
HOUSE.
 WILLIAM FOR HIS PART DENIED THE CHARGES AND ASSERTED
THAT SINCE LUCITA HAS ABANDONED THE FAMILY, A DECREE OF LEGAL
SEPARATION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, FOLLOWING THE FAMILY
CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL BE DENIED
WHEN BOTH PARTIES HAVE GIVEN GROUND FOR LEGAL SEPARATION.
 ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHOULD BE
GRANTED?
HELD:
YES. AS BETWEEN THE DETAILED ACCOUNTS GIVEN FOR LUCITA AND THE GENERAL
DENIAL FOR WILLIAM, THE COURT GIVES MORE WEIGHT TO THOSE OF THE FORMER. THE
COURT ALSO GIVES A GREAT AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AS TRIAL COURT JUDGES
ENJOY THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY OF OBSERVING THE DEPORTMENT OF WITNESSES ON
THE STAND, A VANTAGE POINT DENIED APPELLATE TRIBUNALS.

ALSO WITHOUT MERIT IS THE ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM THAT SINCE LUCITA HAS
ABANDONED THE FAMILY, A DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED,
FOLLOWING ART. 56, PAR. (4) OF THE FAMILY CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT LEGAL
SEPARATION SHALL BE DENIED WHEN BOTH PARTIES HAVE GIVEN GROUND FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION. THE ABANDONMENT REFERRED TO BY THE FAMILY CODE IS ABANDONMENT
WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR.AS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT
LUCITA LEFT WILLIAM DUE TO HIS ABUSIVE CONDUCT, SUCH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
ABANDONMENT CONTEMPLATED BY THE SAID PROVISION.
 2. HOMOSEXUALITY
MANUEL ALMELOR VS RTC AND LEONIDA ALMELOR
G.R. NO. 179620, AUGUST 26, 2008

FACTS: AFTER 11 YEARS OF MARRIAGE, LEONIDA ALMELOR FILED A PETITION TO ANNUL THEIR MARRIAGE
ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY ALLEGING THAT, MANUEL, HER HUSBAND, CONCEALED TO
HER THAT HE WAS A HOMOSEXUAL.

HER SUSPICIONS WERE FIRST AROUSED WHEN SHE NOTICED MANUEL'S PECULIAR CLOSENESS TO HIS MALE
COMPANIONS. SHE ALSO FOUND SEVERAL PORNOGRAPHIC HOMOSEXUAL MATERIALS IN HIS
POSSESSION.HER WORSE FEARS WERE CONFIRMED WHEN SHE SAW MANUEL KISS ANOTHER MAN ON THE
LIPS. AT THIS POINT, LEONIDA TOOK HER CHILDREN AND LEFT THEIR CONJUGAL ABODE.

MANUEL, FOR HIS PART, DENIED HIS WIFE'S ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTED THAT HIS WIFE'S ACTION IS BASED
ON AN ONGOING FAMILY RIVALRY AS BETWEEN LEONIDA'S FAMILY-OWNED HOSPITAL AND HIS.

THE TRIAL COURT NULLIFIED THE MARRIAGE, NOT ON THE GROUND OF ARTICLE 36, BUT ARTICLE 45 OF THE
FAMILY CODE.
ISSUE: W/N THE MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ANNULLED BASED ON
PETITIONER’S ALLEGED HOMOSEXUALITY?
HELD:
NO. THE TRIAL COURT DECLARED THAT LEONIDA'S PETITION FOR NULLITY HAD "NO BASIS AT ALL
BECAUSE THE SUPPORTING GROUNDS RELIED UPON CAN NOT LEGALLY MAKE A CASE UNDER
ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE." IF SO, THE LOWER COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED
OUTRIGHT THE PETITION FOR NOT MEETING THE GUIDELINES SET IN MOLINA. WHAT LEONIDA
ATTEMPTED TO DEMONSTRATE WERE MANUEL'S HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES BY CITING OVERT
ACTS GENERALLY PREDOMINANT AMONG HOMOSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS. SHE WANTED TO
PROVE THAT THE PERCEIVED HOMOSEXUALITY RENDERED MANUEL INCAPABLE OF FULFILLING
THE ESSENTIAL MARITAL OBLIGATIONS.

BUT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE PETITION, THE TRIAL COURT NULLIFIED THE MARRIAGE
BETWEEN MANUEL AND LEONIDA ON THE GROUND OF VITIATED CONSENT BY VIRTUE OF
FRAUD.

NO SUFFICIENT PROOF WAS PRESENTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MANUEL IS

A HOMOSEXUAL AND THAT HE CONCEALED THIS TO LEONIDA AT THE TIME OF THEIR MARRIAGE.
THE LOWER COURT CONSIDERED THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF MANUEL'S SEXUAL PREFERENCE
WITHOUT THE CORROBORATION OF WITNESSES. ALSO, IT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF MANUEL'S
PECULIARITIES AND INTERPRETED IT AGAINST HIS SEXUALITY.
EVEN ASSUMING, EX GRATIA ARGUMENTI, THAT MANUEL IS A HOMOSEXUAL,
THE LOWER COURT CANNOT APPRECIATE IT AS A GROUND TO ANNUL HIS
MARRIAGE WITH LEONIDA. THE LAW IS CLEAR - A MARRIAGE MAY BE ANNULLED
WHEN THE CONSENT OF EITHER PARTY WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD, SUCH AS
CONCEALMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY. NOWHERE IN THE SAID DECISION WAS IT
PROVEN BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT MANUEL WAS A
HOMOSEXUAL AT THE ONSET OF HIS MARRIAGE AND THAT HE DELIBERATELY HID
SUCH FACT TO HIS WIFE. IT IS THE CONCEALMENT OF HOMOSEXUALITY, AND
NOT HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE, THAT VITIATES THE CONSENT OF THE INNOCENT
PARTY. SUCH CONCEALMENT PRESUPPOSES BAD FAITH AND INTENT TO DEFRAUD
THE OTHER PARTY IN GIVING CONSENT TO THE MARRIAGE.

TO REITERATE, HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE IS ONLY A GROUND FOR LEGAL

SEPARATION. IT IS ITS CONCEALMENT THAT SERVES AS A VALID GROUND TO
ANNUL A MARRIAGE. CONCEALMENT IN THIS CASE IS NOT SIMPLY A BLANKET
DENIAL, BUT ONE THAT IS CONSTITUTIVE OF FRAUD. IT IS THIS FUNDAMENTAL
ELEMENT THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE.
3. CONTRACTING BY THE RESPONDENT OF A SUBSEQUENT
BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE, WHETHER IN OR OUTSIDE THE
PHILIPPINES.
PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ VS VICENTA F. ESCAÑO, ET AL.
G.R. NO. L-19671, NOVEMBER 29, 1965
FACTS: VICENTA ESCAÑO, 27 YEARS OF AGE, EXCHANGED MARRIAGE VOWS
WITH PASTOR TENCHAVEZ, 32 YEARS OF AGE, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF HER
PARENTS, BEFORE A CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN IN 1948. THE MARRIAGE WAS THE
CULMINATION OF A PREVIOUS LOVE AFFAIR AND WAS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTER. VICENTA AND PASTOR PLANNED TO ELOPE THE FOLLOWING
DAY BUT THIS WAS PREVENTED BY VICENTA'S PARENTS.
THE FOLLOWING MORNING, THE ESCAÑO SPOUSES SOUGHT PRIESTLY ADVICE.
FATHER REYNES SUGGESTED A RECELEBRATION TO VALIDATE WHAT HE BELIEVED TO
BE AN INVALID MARRIAGE. THE RECELEBRATION DID NOT TAKE PLACE. VICENTA
CONTINUED LIVING WITH HER PARENTS WHILE PASTOR RETURNED TO HIS JOB IN
MANILA.
ON 24 JUNE 1950, WITHOUT INFORMING HER HUSBAND, SHE APPLIED FOR A
PASSPORT, INDICATING IN HER APPLICATION THAT SHE WAS SINGLE, THAT HER
PURPOSE WAS TO STUDY, AND SHE WAS DOMICILED IN CEBU CITY, AND THAT SHE
INTENDED TO RETURN AFTER TWO YEARS. THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED, AND
SHE LEFT FOR THE UNITED STATES. ON 22 AUGUST 1950, SHE FILED A VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE AGAINST PASTOR, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
GRANTED IN THE US COURTS.

IN 1954, VICENTA MARRIED AN AMERICAN, RUSSELL LEO MORAN, IN NEVADA. SHE

NOW LIVES WITH HIM IN CALIFORNIA, AND, BY HIM, HAS BEGOTTEN CHILDREN. SHE
ACQUIRED AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ON 8 AUGUST 1958.

IN 1955, TENCHAVEZ INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS AT BAR AND ASKED FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION AND ONE MILLION PESOS IN DAMAGES. VICENTA CLAIMED A VALID
DIVORCE FROM PLAINTIFF AND AN EQUALLY VALID MARRIAGE TO HER PRESENT
HUSBAND, RUSSELL LEO MORAN; WHILE HER PARENTS DENIED THAT THEY HAD IN
ANY WAY INFLUENCED THEIR DAUGHTER'S ACTS, AND COUNTERCLAIMED FOR
 ISSUE:
W/N A DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHOULD BE GRANTED?
HELD:
YES. IN THE PHILIPPINE JURISDICTION, VICENTA ESCAÑO'S DIVORCE AND
SECOND MARRIAGE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION AS VALID FOR HER
PREVIOUS UNION TO TENCHAVEZ MUST BE DECLARED TO BE EXISTENT AND
UNDISSOLVED. IT FOLLOWS, LIKEWISE, THAT HER REFUSAL TO PERFORM HER
WIFELY DUTIES, AND HER DENIAL OF CONSORTIUM AND HER DESERTION OF HER
HUSBAND CONSTITUTE IN LAW A WRONG CAUSED THROUGH HER FAULT, FOR
WHICH THE HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO THE CORRESPONDING INDEMNITY (CIVIL
CODE, ART. 2176). NEITHER AN UNSUBSTANTIATED CHARGE OF DECEIT NOR AN
ANONYMOUS LETTER CHARGING IMMORALITY AGAINST THE HUSBAND
CONSTITUTE, CONTRARY TO HER CLAIM, ADEQUATE EXCUSE. WHEREFORE, HER
MARRIAGE AND COHABITATION WITH RUSSELL LEO MORAN IS TECHNICALLY
"INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON NOT HER HUSBAND" FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF PHILIPPINE LAW, AND ENTITLES PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TENCHAVEZ TO A
DECREE OF "LEGAL SEPARATION UNDER OUR LAW, ON THE BASIS OF ADULTERY."
 4. SEXUAL INFIDELITY

FROILAN GANDIONCO VS HON. PENARANDA

G.R NO. 79284, NOVEMBER 27, 1987

FACTS: PRIVATE RESPONDENT, TERESITA, THE LEGAL WIFE OF THE PETITIONER, FILED A COMPLAINT
AGAINST PETITIONER FOR LEGAL SEPARATION ON THE GROUND OF CONCUBINAGE, WITH A PETITION
FOR SUPPORT AND PAYMENT FOR DAMAGES. SHE ALSO FILED A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST PETITIONER
FOR CONCUBINAGE. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF SUPPORT
PENDENTE LITE WAS FILED BY TERESITA AND WHICH WAS GRANTED BY THE LOWER COURT.

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE CIVIL ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION AND THE INCIDENTS
CONSEQUENT THERETO, SUCH AS, APPLICATION FOR SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE, SHOULD BE SUSPENDED
IN VIEW OF THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR CONCUBINAGE FILED AGAINST HIM THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
IT IS PETITIONER'S POSITION THAT SUCH CIVIL ACTION ARISES FROM,
OR IS INEXTRICABLY TIED TO THE CRIMINAL ACTION FOR
CONCUBINAGE, SO THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO LEGAL
SEPARATION WILL HAVE TO BE SUSPENDED TO AWAIT CONVICTION OR
ACQUITTAL FOR CONCUBINAGE IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.
 ISSUE:
W/N CONVICTION FOR CONCUBINAGE WILL HAVE TO BE FIRST
SECURED BEFORE THE ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION CAN PROSPER?
HELD:
NO. A CIVIL ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION, BASED ON CONCUBINAGE, MAY
PROCEED AHEAD OF, OR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH, A CRIMINAL ACTION FOR
CONCUBINAGE, BECAUSE SAID CIVIL ACTION IS NOT ONE "TO ENFORCE THE
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE OFFENSE" EVEN IF BOTH THE CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL ACTIONS ARISE FROM OR ARE RELATED TO THE SAME OFFENSE. SUCH
CIVIL ACTION IS ONE INTENDED TO OBTAIN THE RIGHT TO LIVE SEPARATELY,
WITH THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES THEREOF, SUCH AS, THE DISSOLUTION OF THE
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS, CUSTODY OF OFFSPRINGS, SUPPORT, AND
DISQUALIFICATION FROM INHERITING FROM THE INNOCENT SPOUSE, AMONG
OTHERS.

ALSO, A DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION, ON THE GROUND OF CONCUBINAGE,

MAY BE ISSUED UPON PROOF BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE
ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION. NO CRIMINAL PROCEEDING OR CONVICTION
IS NECESSARY.
 5. COLLUSION

JOSE DE OCAMPO VS SERAFINA FLORENCIANO

G.R. NO. L-13553, FEBRUARY 23, 1960

FACTS: JOSE AND SERAFINA WERE MARRIED IN 1938. IN 1951, JOSE DISCOVERED THAT SERAFINA MAINTAINED ILLICIT RELATIONS
WITH A CERTAIN ARCALAS. IN 1955, PLAINTIFF AGAIN SURPRISED HIS WIFE IN THE ACT OF HAVING ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH
ANOTHER MAN.

PLAINTIFF, THEREAFTER, SIGNIFIED HIS INTENTION OF FILING A PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION, TO WHICH DEFENDANT
MANIFESTED HER CONFORMITY PROVIDED SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH ADULTERY IN A CRIMINAL ACTION. ACCORDINGLY,
PLAINTIFF FILED ON JULY 5, 1955, A PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION.

WHEN SERAFINA WAS QUESTIONED BY THE FISCAL UPON ORDERS OF THE COURT, SHE REITERATED HER CONFORMITY TO THE
LEGAL SEPARATION. INTERPRETING THESE FACTS VIRTUALLY TO MEAN A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT THE APPELLATE COURT
DECLARED THAT UNDER ART. 101, LEGAL SEPARATION COULD NOT BE DECREED.
 ISSUE:
W/N THE LOWER COURT'S RULING TO DENY THE PETITION FOR BEING
BASED ON A CONFESSION OF JUDGEMENT IS PROPER?
HELD:
NO. ARTICLE 100 OF THE CIVIL CODE DOES NOT EXCLUDE, AS EVIDENCE, ANY
ADMISSION OR CONFESSION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT OUTSIDE OF THE
COURT. IT MERELY PROHIBITS A DECREE OF SEPARATION UPON A CONFESSION
OF JUDGMENT. CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT USUALLY HAPPENS WHEN THE
DEFENDANT APPEARS IN COURT AND CONFESSES THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF TO
JUDGMENT OR FILES A PLEADING EXPRESSLY AGREEING TO THE PLAINTIFF'S
DEMAND.

YET, EVEN SUPPOSING THAT THE STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT BEFORE THE FISCAL
THAT SHE "LIKE ALSO" TO BE LEGALLY SEPARATED FROM HER HUSBAND
CONSTITUTED PRACTICALLY A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INASMUCH AS
THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THE ADULTERY INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH STATEMENT, THE
DECREE MAY AND SHOULD BE GRANTED, SINCE IT WOULD NOT BE BASED ON
HER CONFESSION, BUT UPON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. WHAT
THE LAW PROHIBITS IS A JUDGMENT BASED EXCLUSIVELY OR MAINLY ON
DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION.
 ISSUE:
W/N THERE IS COLLUSION IN THE PRESENT CASE?
HELD:
NO. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE COLLUSION IF THE PARTIES HAD
ARRANGED TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT A MATRIMONIAL OFFENSE HAD BEEN
COMMITTED ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT, OR IF THE PARTIES HAD CONNIVED TO
BRING ABOUT A LEGAL SEPARATION EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF GROUNDS
THEREFOR.

HERE, THE OFFENSE OF ADULTERY HAD REALLY TAKEN PLACE, ACCORDING

TO THE EVIDENCE. THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FALSELY TOLD THE
ADULTEROUS ACTS TO THE FISCAL, BECAUSE HER STORY MIGHT SEND HER
TO JAIL THE MOMENT HER HUSBAND REQUESTS THE FISCAL TO PROSECUTE.
SHE COULD NOT HAVE PRACTICED DECEPTION AT SUCH A PERSONAL RISK.
•
 PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION
CONTENTS AND FORM
THE PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
SHALL:

(1)ALLEGE THE COMPLETE FACTS

CONSTITUTING THE CAUSE OF ACTION.

(2) STATE THE NAMES AND AGES OF

THE COMMON CHILDREN OF THE
PARTIES, SPECIFY THE REGIME
GOVERNING THEIR PROPERTY
RELATIONS, THE PROPERTIES
INVOLVED, AND CREDITORS, IF ANY.
• (4) BE FILED IN SIX COPIES. THE PETITIONER SHALL, WITHIN FIVE
DAYS FROM SUCH FILING, FURNISH A COPY OF THE PETITION
TO THE CITY OR PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR AND THE
CREDITORS, IF ANY, AND SUBMIT TO THE COURT PROOF OF
SUCH SERVICE WITHIN THE SAME PERIOD.
 PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION
WHERE IS THE VENUE?

IF THE PETITIONER OR RESPONDENT IS A

RESIDENT:
FAMILY COURT OF THE PROVINCE OR CITY WHERE
THE HE HAS BEEN RESIDING FOR AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF FILING.

IF A NON-RESIDENT RESPONDENT:

FAMILY COURT WHERE HE MAY BE FOUND IN THE
PHILIPPINES, AT THE ELECTION OF THE
PETITIONER.
 SUMMONS
WHERE SUMMONS CAN BE SERVED?

THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS SHALL BE

GOVERNED BY RULE 14 OF THE RULES OF
COURT AND BY THE FOLLOWING RULES:
Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or
his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by
diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him by publication once a week for two
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines and in such place as the court may order. In
addition, a copy of the summons shall be served on respondent at
his last known address by registered mail or by any other
means the court may deem sufficient.
 SUMMONS
WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF THE
PUBLISHED SUMMONS?

(1) TITLE OF THE CASE;

(2) DOCKET NUMBER;
(3) NATURE OF THE PETITION;
(4) PRINCIPAL GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
AND THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR, AND
(5) A DIRECTIVE FOR RESPONDENT TO
ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE LAST
ISSUE OF PUBLICATION.
 MOTION TO DISMISS
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS?

A.) LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT

MATTER OR
B.) LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES;
NOTE!
ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MIGHT WARRANT A
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE MAY BE RAISED AS AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN AN ANSWER.
 ANSWER
WHEN TO FILE AN ANSWER?

WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF SUMMONS, OR WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS FROM THE LAST ISSUE OF PUBLICATION IN CASE OF
SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION.

NOTE: IT MUST BE VERIFIED BY RESPONDENT HIMSELF AND NOT BY

COUNSEL OR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT.

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO FILE AN ANSWER?

 THE COURT SHALL NOT DECLARE THE RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT.
 THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER COLLUSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
 INVESTIGATION REPORT OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
WHAT IS COLLUSION IN LEGAL SEPARATION OR ANNULMENT
OF MARRIAGE?
IT IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR ONE OF
THEM TO COMMIT, OR TO BE REPRESENTED IN COURT AS HAVING
COMMITTED A MATRIMONIAL OFFENSE, OR TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE OF A VALID DEFENSE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING
THE OTHER TO OBTAIN A LEGAL SEPARATION OR ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGE, WHICH MAY BE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED FROM THE ACTS
OF THE PARTIES. COLLUSION IS A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF THE
ACTION. (OCAMPO V. FLORENCIANO, 107 PHIL. 35)
 JOSE DE OCAMPO VS SERAFINA FLORENCIANO
G.R. NO. L-13553, FEBRUARY 23, 1960
FACTS:
JOSE AND SERAFINA WERE MARRIED IN 1938. IN 1951, JOSE DISCOVERED THAT
SERAFINA MAINTAINED ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH A CERTAIN ARCALAS. IN 1955, PLAINTIFF
AGAIN SURPRISED HIS WIFE IN THE ACT OF HAVING ILLICIT RELATIONS WITH ANOTHER
MAN.

PLAINTIFF, THEREAFTER, SIGNIFIED HIS INTENTION OF FILING A PETITION FOR LEGAL

SEPARATION, TO WHICH DEFENDANT MANIFESTED HER CONFORMITY PROVIDED SHE IS
NOT CHARGED WITH ADULTERY IN A CRIMINAL ACTION. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFF FILED
ON JULY 5, 1955, A PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION.

WHEN SERAFINA WAS QUESTIONED BY THE FISCAL UPON ORDERS OF THE COURT, SHE
REITERATED HER CONFORMITY TO THE LEGAL SEPARATION. INTERPRETING THESE FACTS
VIRTUALLY TO MEAN A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT THE APPELLATE COURT DECLARED
THAT UNDER ART. 101, LEGAL SEPARATION COULD NOT BE DECREED.
 ISSUES:
1. W/N THE LOWER COURT'S RULING TO DENY THE PETITION FOR
BEING BASED ON A CONFESSION OF JUDGEMENT IS PROPER?
2. W/N THERE IS COLLUSION IN THE PRESENT CASE?
1. NO. ARTICLE 100 OF THE CIVIL CODE DOES NOT EXCLUDE, AS EVIDENCE, ANY
ADMISSION OR CONFESSION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT OUTSIDE OF THE
COURT. IT MERELY PROHIBITS A DECREE OF SEPARATION UPON A CONFESSION
OF JUDGMENT. CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT USUALLY HAPPENS WHEN THE
DEFENDANT APPEARS IN COURT AND CONFESSES THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF TO
JUDGMENT OR FILES A PLEADING EXPRESSLY AGREEING TO THE PLAINTIFF'S
DEMAND.

YET, EVEN SUPPOSING THAT THE STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT BEFORE THE FISCAL
THAT SHE "LIKE ALSO" TO BE LEGALLY SEPARATED FROM HER HUSBAND
CONSTITUTED PRACTICALLY A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INASMUCH AS
THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THE ADULTERY INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH STATEMENT, THE
DECREE MAY AND SHOULD BE GRANTED, SINCE IT WOULD NOT BE BASED ON
HER CONFESSION, BUT UPON EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. WHAT
THE LAW PROHIBITS IS A JUDGMENT BASED EXCLUSIVELY OR MAINLY ON
DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION.
2. NO. IN THIS CASE, THERE WOULD BE COLLUSION IF THE PARTIES HAD
ARRANGED TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT A MATRIMONIAL OFFENSE HAD BEEN
COMMITTED ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT, OR IF THE PARTIES HAD CONNIVED TO
BRING ABOUT A LEGAL SEPARATION EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF GROUNDS
THEREFOR.

HERE, THE OFFENSE OF ADULTERY HAD REALLY TAKEN PLACE, ACCORDING

TO THE EVIDENCE. THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FALSELY TOLD THE
ADULTEROUS ACTS TO THE FISCAL, BECAUSE HER STORY MIGHT SEND HER
TO JAIL THE MOMENT HER HUSBAND REQUESTS THE FISCAL TO PROSECUTE.
SHE COULD NOT HAVE PRACTICED DECEPTION AT SUCH A PERSONAL RISK.
 INVESTIGATION REPORT OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
WITHIN ONE MONTH AFTER RECEIPT OF THE COURT
ORDER, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT TO
THE COURT ON WHETHER THE PARTIES ARE IN COLLUSION AND
SERVE COPIES ON THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
COUNSELS, IF ANY.

IF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FINDS THAT COLLUSION

EXISTS:
 THE PROSECUTOR SHALL STATE THE BASIS THEREOF IN
HIS REPORT.
 THE PARTIES SHALL FILE THEIR RESPECTIVE COMMENTS
ON THE FINDING OF COLLUSION WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM
RECEIPT OF COPY OF THE REPORT.
 THE COURT SHALL SET THE REPORT FOR HEARING AND IF
CONVINCED THAT PARTIES ARE IN COLLUSION, IT SHALL
DISMISS THE PETITION.
 INVESTIGATION REPORT OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

IF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR REPORTS

THAT NO COLLUSION EXISTS:

THE COURT SHALL SET THE CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL. IT

SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO
APPEAR FOR THE STATE AT THE PRE-TRIAL.
 CASE STUDY BY A SOCIAL
WORKER

WHEN MAY THE COURT MAY REQUIRE A SOCIAL

WORKER TO CONDUCT A CASE STUDY AND TO
SUBMIT THE CORRESPONDING REPORT?

 AT LEAST THREE DAYS BEFORE THE PRE-TRIAL.

AT ANY STAGE OF THE CASE WHENEVER
NECESSARY.
 PRE-TRIAL

MANDATORY.

WHEN DOES PRE-TRIAL COMMENCE?

ON MOTION OR MOTU PROPRIO, THE COURT SHALL SET

THE PRE-TRIAL AFTER THE LAST PLEADING HAS BEEN SERVED
AND FILED, OR UPON RECEIPT OF THE REPORT OF THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THAT NO COLLUSION EXISTS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON A DATE NOT EARLIER THAN SIX
MONTHS FROM DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION.
 PRE-TRIAL
WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF PRE-
TRIAL?

THE NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL SHALL CONTAIN:

(a) THE DATE OF PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE;

AND

(B) AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES

TO FILE AND SERVE THEIR RESPECTIVE
PRE-TRIAL BRIEFS IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL ENSURE THE
RECEIPT THEREOF BY THE ADVERSE PARTY AT LEAST THREE
DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF PRE-TRIAL.
 PRE-TRIAL
TO WHOM NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED?
IT SHALL BE SEPARATELY SERVED ON THE:
A.) PARTIES
B.) THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSELS
C.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

NOTE!
NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL SHALL BE SENT TO THE RESPONDENT
EVEN IF HE FAILS TO FILE AN ANSWER. IN CASE OF
SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION AND THE RESPONDENT
FAILED TO FILE HIS ANSWER, NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL SHALL
BE SENT TO RESPONDENT AT HIS LAST KNOWN ADDRESS.
 PRE-TRIAL
WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF PRE-TRIAL
BRIEF?
THE PRE-TRIAL BRIEF SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING:
(1) A STATEMENT OF THE WILLINGNESS OF THE PARTIES TO
ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY LAW,
INDICATING THE DESIRED TERMS THEREOF;
(2) THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS TOGETHER WITH THE
APPLICABLE LAWS AND AUTHORITIES;
(3) ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATIONS OF
FACTS, AS WELL AS THE DISPUTED FACTUAL AND LEGAL
ISSUES;
(4) ALL THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED, INCLUDING
EXPERT OPINION, IF ANY, BRIEFLY STATING OR
DESCRIBING THE NATURE AND PURPOSE THEREOF;
 PRE-TRIAL
WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS OF PRE-TRIAL
BRIEF?

(5) THE NUMBER AND NAMES OF THE WITNESSES AND

THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFIDAVITS; AND
(6) SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS THE COURT MAY REQUIRE.

NOTE!
FAILURE TO FILE THE PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OR TO COMPLY WITH ITS
REQUIRED CONTENTS SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS
FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE PRE-TRIAL UNDER THE
SUCCEEDING SECTION.
 PRE-TRIAL
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR AT
THE PRE-TRIAL?
IF THE PETITIONER FAILS TO APPEAR PERSONALLY:
DISMISSED, UNLESS HIS COUNSEL OR A DULY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARS IN COURT AND
PROVES A VALID EXCUSE FOR THE NON-APPEARANCE
OF THE PETITIONER.

IF THE RESPONDENT FILED HIS ANSWER BUT FAILS TO

APPEAR:
THE COURT SHALL PROCEED WITH THE PRE-TRIAL AND
 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
THE COURT MAY REFER THE ISSUES TO A MEDIATOR
WHO SHALL ASSIST THE PARTIES IN REACHING AN
AGREEMENT ON MATTERS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW.

THE MEDIATOR SHALL RENDER A REPORT WITHIN ONE

MONTH FROM REFERRAL WHICH, FOR GOOD REASONS,
THE COURT MAY EXTEND FOR A PERIOD NOT
EXCEEDING ONE MONTH.

IN CASE MEDIATION IS NOT AVAILED OF OR WHERE IT

FAILS, THE COURT SHALL PROCEED WITH THE PRE-
TRIAL CONFERENCE, ON WHICH OCCASION IT SHALL
 PRE-TRIAL ORDER
IT SHALL BE RECORDED.

WHEN IS IT MADE?
UPON TERMINATION OF THE PRE-TRIAL, THE COURT
SHALL ISSUE A PRE-TRIAL ORDER WHICH SHALL RECITE
IN DETAIL THE MATTERS TAKEN UP IN THE CONFERENCE,
THE ACTION TAKEN THEREON, THE AMENDMENTS
ALLOWED ON THE PLEADINGS, AND, EXCEPT AS TO THE
GROUND OF LEGAL SEPARATION, THE AGREEMENTS OR
ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES ON ANY OF THE
MATTERS CONSIDERED, INCLUDING ANY PROVISIONAL
ORDER THAT MAY BE NECESSARY OR AGREED UPON BY
THE PARTIES.
 PRE-TRIAL ORDER
IF THE ACTION PROCEED TO TRIAL, THE
ORDER SHALL CONTAIN A RECITAL OF THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) FACTS UNDISPUTED, ADMITTED, AND THOSE WHICH

NEED NOT BE PROVED SUBJECT TO SECTION 13 OF THIS
RULE;
(2) FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED;
(3) EVIDENCE, INCLUDING OBJECTS AND DOCUMENTS,
THAT HAVE BEEN MARKED AND WILL BE PRESENTED;
(4) NAMES OF WITNESSES WHO WILL BE PRESENTED
 PRE-TRIAL ORDER
THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER SHALL ALSO CONTAIN A
DIRECTIVE TO THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO APPEAR
FOR THE STATE AND TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT
COLLUSION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AT ANY STAGE OF
THE PROCEEDINGS AND FABRICATION OR
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL ON
THE MERITS.
THE PARTIES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO RAISE ISSUES
OR PRESENT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE OTHER THAN
THOSE STATED IN THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER. THE ORDER
SHALL CONTROL THE TRIAL OF THE CASE UNLESS
MODIFIED BY THE COURT TO PREVENT MANIFEST
 PROHIBITED COMPROMISE

WHAT ARE THE MATTERS THAT CANNOT BE

COMPROMISED?

(1) THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS;

(2) THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE OR OF A LEGAL
SEPARATION;
(3) ANY GROUND FOR LEGAL SEPARATION;
(4) FUTURE SUPPORT;
(5) THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS; AND
 TRIAL

THE PRESIDING JUDGE SHALL PERSONALLY CONDUCT

THE TRIAL OF THE CASE. NO DELEGATION OF THE
RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE TO A COMMISSIONER
SHALL BE ALLOWED EXCEPT AS TO MATTERS
INVOLVING PROPERTY RELATIONS OF THE SPOUSES.

THE GROUNDS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION MUST BE

PROVED. NO JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS,
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR CONFESSION OF
JUDGMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED.
 TRIAL
THE COURT MAY ORDER THE EXCLUSION FROM THE
COURTROOM OF ALL PERSONS, INCLUDING MEMBERS
OF THE PRESS, WHO DO NOT HAVE A DIRECT INTEREST
IN THE CASE.

WHEN CAN IT BE ORDERED?

UPON DETERMINATION THAT REQUIRING A PARTY TO
TESTIFY IN OPEN COURT WOULD:
NOT ENHANCE THE ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUTH;
CAUSE TO THE PARTY PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM OR
INABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE DUE TO
 TRIAL

NO COPY SHALL BE TAKEN NOR ANY

EXAMINATION OR PERUSAL OF THE
RECORDS OF THE CASE OR PARTS
THEREOF BE MADE BY ANY PERSON
OTHER THAN A PARTY OR COUNSEL OF A
PARTY, EXCEPT BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
 MEMORANDA

THE COURT MAY REQUIRE THE PARTIES AND THE

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO FILE THEIR RESPECTIVE
MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIMS
WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM THE DATE THE
TRIAL IS TERMINATED.
NO OTHER PLEADINGS OR PAPERS MAY BE
SUBMITTED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT. AFTER
THE LAPSE OF THE PERIOD HEREIN PROVIDED,
THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED SUBMITTED FOR
 DECISION

WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION? IO

(1) CONDONATN OR CONSENT BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY TO THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE OR ACT COMPLAINED OF;
(2) CONNIVANCE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE-OR ACT
CONSTITUTING THE GROUND FOR LEGAL SEPARATION;
(3) BOTH PARTIES HAVE GIVEN GROUND FOR LEGAL SEPARATION;
(4) COLLUSION BETWEEN THE PARTIES; OR

(5) THE ACTION IS BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION.

 A. CONDONATION

BUGAYONG VS GINEZ

GR NO. 10033, DECEMBER 28, 1956

FACTS:

BENJAMIN BUGAYONG, A SERVICEMAN IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY, WAS MARRIED TO LEONILA GINEZ IN 1949 AT ASINGAN, PANGASINAN.
IN JULY 1951, BENJAMIN BEGAN RECEIVING LETTERS INFORMING HIM OF ALLEGED ACTS OF INFIDELITY OF HIS WIFE. IN AUGUST 1952,
BENJAMIN WENT TO PANGASINAN AND LOOKED FOR HIS WIFE WHOM HE MET IN THE HOUSE OF ONE MRS. MALALANG, LEONILA'S
GODMOTHER. SHE CAME ALONG WITH HIM AND BOTH PROCEEDED TO THE HOUSE OF PEDRO, BENJAMIN'S COUSIN, WHERE THEY STAYED AND
LIVED FOR 1 NIGHT AND 1 DAY AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. THE NEXT DAY THEY PASSED THE NIGHT IN THEIR HOUSE AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. ON
THE SECOND DAY, BENJAMIN TRIED TO VERIFY FROM HIS WIFE THE TRUTH OF THE INFORMATION HE RECEIVED THAT SHE HAD COMMITTED
ADULTERY BUT LEONILA, INSTEAD OF ANSWERING HIS QUERY, MERELY PACKED UP AND LEFT, WHICH HE TOOK AS A CONFIRMATION OF THE
ACTS OF INFIDELITY IMPUTED ON HER.

BENJAMIN THEN FILED A CASE FOR LEGAL SEPARATION. LEONILA FILED AN ANSWER VEHEMENTLY DENYING THE AVERMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT
AND SETTING UP AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. AFTER BENJAMIN TESTIFIED, LEONILA'S COUNSEL MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON
THE GROUND OF CONDONATION.
 ISSUE:
WHETHER THERE WAS CONDONATION BETWEEN BUGAYONG AND
GINEZ THAT MAY SERVE AS A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION.
HELD:
YES.
GRANTING THAT INFIDELITIES AMOUNTING TO ADULTERY WERE COMMITED
BY THE WIFE, THE ACT OF THE HUSBAND IN PERSUADING HER TO COME
ALONG WITH HIM AND THE FACT THAT SHE WENT WITH HIM AND
TOGETHER THEY SLEPT AS HUSBAND AND WIFE DEPRIVES HIM AS THE
ALLEGED OFFENDED SPOUSE OF ANY ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
AGAINST THE OFFENDING WIFE BECAUSE HIS SAID CONDUCT COMES
WITHIN THE RESTRICTION OF ARTICLE 100 OF CIVIL CODE.
 B. CONSENT
PEOPLE VS SENSANO AND RAMOS
58 PHIL 73
FACTS:

URSULA SENSANO AND MARIANO VENTURA WERE MARRIED AND HAD A CHILD WHOM THE LATTER ALLEGEDLY
ABANDONED WHEN HE WENT AND STAYED IN CAGAYAN FOR THREE YEARS WITHOUT LETTERS OR FINANCIAL
SUPPORT TO THE FORMER WHO WORKED HARD FOR HERSELF AND HER SON UNTIL SHE MET THE ACCUSED MARCELO
RAMOS WHO LATER TOOK CARE OF THEM.VENTURA CHARGED SENSANO AND RAMOS FOR ADULTERY, FOUND BY
THE COURT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND SERVED THEIR SENTENCE.

SENSANO AFTER SERVING HER SENTENCED AND LEAVING HER PARAMOUR MADE STEPS TO RECONCILE WITH AND
GO BACK TO HER HUSBAND BUT TO NO AVAIL - SHE AND HER CHILD WERE ABANDONED FOR THE SECOND TIME.
THUS, THEY WENT BACK TO HER CO-ACCUSED RAMOS. DESPITE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE RESUMED LIVING WITH
HER CODEFENDANT, HER HUSBAND DID NOTHING TO ASSERT HIS RIGHT AS HER SPOUSE. INSTEAD, HE WENT ABROAD
FOR SEVEN YEARS AND PRESUMABLY HAD COMPLETELY ABANDONED THEM..

WHEN VENTURA RETURNED HOME, HE CHARGED SENSANO OF ADULTERY FOR THE SECOND TIME IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN DIVORCE UNDER ACT NO. 2710.
 ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT RAMOS CAN FILE ADULTERY AGAINST HIS SPOUSE
FOR THE SECOND TIME BEING THE OFFENDED PARTY.
HELD:

NO. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS
THE CONDUCT OF RAMOS SHOWED THAT HE CONSENTED TO THE
ADULTEROUS RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND FORMER
CO-DEFENDANT. HE IS THEREFORE UNDER THE LAW NOT AUTHORIZED TO
INSTITUTE THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
WHEN THE HUSBAND KNEW THAT HIS WIFE RESUMED LIVING WITH HER
PARAMOUR AND DID NOTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR RELATIONS OR TO
ASSERT HIS RIGHTS AS HUSBAND, THEN THIS CONDUCT WARRANT THE
INFERENCE THAT HE CONSENTED TO THE ADULTEROUS RELATIONS EXISTING
BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND THEREFORE HE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
TO INSTITUTE A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING FOR ADULTERY.
 C. COLLUSION
BROWN VS. YAMBAO,
102 PHIL 168, OCTOBER 18, 1957
FACTS:

WILLIAM H. BROWN FILED A PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION FROM HIS WIFE, JUANITA YAMBAO, BEFORE
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA ON THE GROUND OF ADULTERY.

ACCORDING TO BROWN, WHILE HE WAS INTERNED BY THE JAPANESE INVADERS FROM 1942 TO 1945 AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS INTERNMENT CAMP, HIS WIFE ENGAGED IN ADULTEROUS RELATIONS
WITH A CERTAIN CARLOS FIELD OF WHOM SHE BEGOT A BABY GIRL. BROWN SAID THAT HE LEARNED OF HIS
WIFE’S MISCONDUCT ONLY IN 1945 UPON HIS RELEASE FROM INTERNMENT AND THAT THEY HAVE LIVED
SEPARATELY THEREAFTER.

BROWN IS NOW PRAYING FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF THEIR LIQUIDATION AGREEMENT; FOR CUSTODY OF
THE CHILDREN ISSUED OF THE MARRIAGE; AND THAT THE DEFENDANT BE DECLARED DISQUALIFIED TO
SUCCEED THE PLAINTIFF AND FOR OTHER REMEDY AS MIGHT BE JUST AND EQUITABLE.
NOW, BECAUSE JUANITA YAMBAO FAILED TO FILE HER ANSWER TO THE PETITION IN DUE
TIME, THE TRIAL COURT DECLARED HER IN DEFAULT AND ORDERED THE CITY FISCAL TO
REPRESENT THE STATE AND INVESTIGATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 101 OF THE
NEW CIVIL CODE, IF COLLUSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ASSISTANT CITY FISCAL RAFAEL

JOSE, IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT AFTER THE LIBERATION, BROWN HAD LIVED MARTIALLY
WITH ANOTHER WOMAN AND HAD BEGOTTEN CHILDREN BY HER. BECAUSE OF THIS FACT,
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION ON THE GROUND THAT,
WHILE HIS WIFE’S ADULTERY WAS ESTABLISHED, BROWN HAD INCURRED A MISCONDUCT
OF SIMILAR NATURE THAT BARRED HIS RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 100 OF THE
NEW CIVIL CODE, AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN CONSENT AND CONNIVANCE IN ADDITION
TO BROWN’S ACTION FOR FILING A PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION PRESCRIBING.

BROWN IS NOW APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT.
 ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION SHOULD BE
GRANTED?
HELD:

IN THE CASE AT BAR, THE SC SAID THAT THE PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IT BEING EVIDENT THAT BROWN IS ALSO GUILTY OF
CO-HABITING WITH A WOMAN OTHER THAN HIS WIFE.
ARTICLE 100 OF THE CIVIL CODE PROVIDES THAT:“THE LEGAL SEPARATION MAY
BE CLAIMED ONLY BY THE INNOCENT SPOUSE, PROVIDED THERE HAS BEEN NO
CONDONATION OF OR CONSENT TO THE ADULTERY OR CONCUBINAGE.
WHERE BOTH SPOUSES ARE OFFENDERS, A LEGAL SEPARATION CANNOT BE
CLAIMED BY EITHER OF THEM. COLLUSION BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO OBTAIN
LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL CAUSE THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION.”

IN THE CASE AT BAR, IT IS PURSUANT TO THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE

AFOREMENTIONED LAW, WHEREIN BROWN AND YUMBAO ARE BOTH
OFFENDERS, HENCE, A LEGAL SEPARATION CANNOT BE GRANTED.
 PACETE VS CARRIAGA
231 SCRA 321
FACTS:

CONCEPCION ALANIS FILED FOR THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN HER ERSTWHILE
HUSBAND ENRICO L. PACETE AND ONE CLARITA DE LA CONCEPCION, AS WELL AS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
AND ACCOUNTING AND SEPARATION OF PROPERTY. SHE AVERRED THAT SHE WAS MARRIED TO PACETE ON
30 APRIL 1938 AND THEY HAD A CHILD NAMED CONSUELO. SHE LEARNED THAT PACETE SUBSEQUENTLY
CONTRACTED A SECOND MARRIAGE WITH CLARITA DE LA CONCEPCION. SHE AND PACETE ACQUIRED VAST
PROPERTY THAT HE FRAUDULENTLY PLACED THE SEVERAL PIECES OF PROPERTY EITHER IN HIS NAME AND
CLARITA OR IN THE NAMES OF HIS CHILDREN WITH CLARITA AND OTHER “DUMMIES;”

AFTER HAVING BEEN SUMMONED, THE DEFENDANTS REPEATEDLY ASKED THE COURT FOR EXTENSION OF
FILING FOR AN ANSWER WHICH EVENTUALLY RESULTED TO BEING DECLARED IN DEFAULT. FIVE MONTHS
AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED THE COURT GRANTED THE ISSUANCE OF A DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION
AND DECLARED THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION AS CONJUGAL PROPERTIES OF ALANIS AND PACETE WHICH
WERE ORDERED FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF ALANIS. THE COURT ALSO NULLIFIED HIS MARRIAGE TO CLARITA.
 ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
DECIDING THE CASE
HELD:

RULE 18 OF THE RULES OF COURT WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO DEFAULTS IN ACTIONS FOR
ANNULMENTS OF MARRIAGE OR FOR LEGAL SEPARATION. IF THE DEFENDANT IN AN
ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE OR FOR LEGAL SEPARATION FAILS TO ANSWER,
THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR
NOT COLLUSION BETWEEN THE PARTIES EXISTS, AND IF THERE IS NO COLLUSION, TO
INTERVENE FOR THE STATE IN ORDER TO SEE TO IT THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IS NOT
FABRICATED.

ARTICLE 103 OF THE CIVIL CODE, NOW ARTICLE 58 OF THE FAMILY CODE, FURTHER
MANDATES THAT AN ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION MUST “IN NO CASE BE TRIED
BEFORE SIX MONTHS SHALL HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE FILING OF THE PETITION,”
OBVIOUSLY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PARTIES A “COOLING-OFF” PERIOD. IN THIS
INTERIM, THE COURT SHOULD TAKE STEPS TOWARD GETTING THE PARTIES TO RECONCILE.
 DECISION

IF THE COURT RENDERS A DECISION GRANTING THE

PETITION, IT SHALL DECLARE THEREIN THAT THE DECREE
OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE COURT
ONLY AFTER FULL COMPLIANCE WITH LIQUIDATION
UNDER THE FAMILY CODE.

HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPERTY OF THE

PARTIES, THE COURT SHALL FORTHWITH ISSUE A DECREE
 DECISION

THE DECISION SHALL LIKEWISE DECLARE THAT:

(1) THE SPOUSES ARE ENTITLED TO LIVE SEPARATELY

FROM EACH OTHER BUT THE MARRIAGE BOND IS NOT
SEVERED;
(2) THE OBLIGATION OF MUTUAL SUPPORT BETWEEN
THE SPOUSES CEASES; AND
(3) THE OFFENDING SPOUSE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM
INHERITING FROM THE INNOCENT SPOUSE BY
INTESTATE SUCCESSION, AND PROVISIONS IN FAVOR
 DECISION

THE PARTIES, INCLUDING THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL AND THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SHALL BE SERVED WITH COPIES OF THE
DECISION PERSONALLY OR BY
REGISTERED MAIL. IF THE RESPONDENT
SUMMONED BY PUBLICATION FAILED TO
APPEAR IN THE ACTION, THE DISPOSITIVE
PART OF THE DECISION SHALL ALSO BE
 APPEAL
PRE-CONDITION.
NO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION SHALL BE ALLOWED
UNLESS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR NEW TRIAL WITHIN FIFTEEN
DAYS FROM NOTICE OF JUDGMENT.

WHEN MAY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY OR THE

SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEAL?

WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM NOTICE OF DENIAL OF THE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR NEW TRIAL, BY
 LIQUIDATION, PARTITION AND
DISTRIBUTION, CUSTODY, AND
SUPPORT OF MINOR CHILDREN

UPON ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT GRANTING THE

PETITION, OR, IN CASE OF APPEAL, UPON RECEIPT OF
THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT
GRANTING THE PETITION, THE FAMILY COURT, ON
MOTION OF EITHER PARTY, SHALL PROCEED WITH THE
LIQUIDATION, PARTITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE SPOUSES, INCLUDING CUSTODY
AND SUPPORT OF COMMON CHILDREN, UNDER THE
FAMILY CODE UNLESS SUCH MATTERS HAD BEEN
 ISSUANCE OF DECREE OF
LEGAL SEPARATION
WHEN SHALL THE COURT ISSUE THE DECREE OF
LEGAL SEPARATION?

(1)AFTER REGISTRATION OF THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

GRANTING THE PETITION TOR LEGAL SEPARATION IN
THE CIVIL REGISTRY WHERE THE MARRIAGE WAS
CELEBRATED AND IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY WHERE THE
FAMILY COURT IS LOCATED; AND

(2) REGISTRATION OF THE APPROVED PARTITION AND

 ISSUANCE OF DECREE OF
LEGAL SEPARATION

THE COURT SHALL QUOTE IN THE DECREE THE

DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED AND
ATTACH TO THE DECREE THE APPROVED DEED OF
PARTITION.
 REGISTRATION AND
PUBLICATION OF THE DECREE OF
LEGAL SEPARATION

WHERE SHOULD THE DECREE OF LEGAL

SEPARATION BE REGISTERED?

THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL CAUSE THE

REGISTRATION OF THE DECREE IN THE:

CIVIL REGISTRY WHERE THE MARRIAGE WAS

REGISTERED,
REGISTRATION AND PUBLICATION OF
THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION

NOTE!
THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL REPORT TO THE COURT
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE
DECREE.

IN CASE SERVICE OF SUMMONS WAS MADE BY

PUBLICATION, THE PARTIES SHALL CAUSE THE
PUBLICATION OF THE DECREE ONCE IN A NEWSPAPER
OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.
EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY

AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT:
 THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE CASE CLOSED AND
TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE IN THE PROPER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE REGULAR COURTS.
AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT:
 THE SAME SHALL BE BINDING UPON THE PARTIES
AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST IN THE
 PETITION FOR REVOCATION
OF DONATIONS
WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE THE DECISION
GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION HAS
BECOME FINAL, THE INNOCENT SPOUSE MAY FILE A
PETITION UNDER OATH THE SAME PROCEEDING FOR
LEGAL SEPARATION TO REVOKE THE DONATIONS IN
FAVOR OF THE OFFENDING SPOUSE.

THE REVOCATION OF THE DONATIONS SHALL BE

RECORDED IN THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF DEEDS IN
THE PLACES WHERE THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED.
 PETITION FOR REVOCATION
OF DONATIONS
ALIENATIONS, LIENS, AND ENCUMBRANCES
REGISTERED IN GOOD FAITH, BEFORE THE RECORDING
OF THE PETITION FOR REVOCATION IN THE
REGISTRIES OF PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPECTED.

AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE DECREE OF LEGAL

SEPARATION, THE INNOCENT SPOUSE MAY REVOKE THE
DESIGNATION OF THE OFFENDING SPOUSE AS A
BENEFICIARY IN ANY INSURANCE POLICY EVEN IF SUCH
DESIGNATION BE STIPULATED AS IRREVOCABLE. THE
REVOCATION OR CHANGE SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON
 DECREE OF RECONCILIATION

IF THE SPOUSES HAD RECONCILED, A JOINT

MANIFESTATION UNDER OATH, DULY SIGNED BY THE
SPOUSES, MAY BE FILED IN THE SAME PROCEEDING FOR
LEGAL SEPARATION.
 DECREE OF RECONCILIATION

1.) IF THE RECONCILIATION OCCURRED WHILE

THE PROCEEDING FOR LEGAL SEPARATION IS
PENDING:
THE COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY ISSUE AN ORDER
TERMINATING THE PROCEEDING.

2.) IF THE RECONCILIATION OCCURRED AFTER THE

RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT GRANTING THE
PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION BUT BEFORE
THE ISSUANCE OF THE DECREE
 DECREE OF RECONCILIATION

IF THE RECONCILIATION OCCURRED AFTER THE

RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT GRANTING THE
PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION BUT BEFORE
THE ISSUANCE OF THE DECREE:

THE SPOUSES SHALL EXPRESS IN THEIR

MANIFESTATION WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE TO
REVIVE THE FORMER REGIME OF THEIR PROPERTY
RELATIONS OR CHOOSE A NEW REGIME.
 DECREE OF RECONCILIATION

IF THE SPOUSES RECONCILED AFTER THE

ISSUANCE OF THE DECREE:
THE COURT, UPON PROPER MOTION, SHALL ISSUE A
DECREE OF RECONCILIATION DECLARING THEREIN
THAT THE DECREE IS SET ASIDE BUT THE SEPARATION
OF PROPERTY AND ANY FORFEITURE OF THE SHARE OF
THE GUILTY SPOUSE ALREADY EFFECTED SUBSISTS,
UNLESS THE SPOUSES HAVE AGREED TO REVIVE THEIR
FORMER REGIME OF PROPERTY RELATIONS OR ADOPT A
NEW REGIME.
 REVIVAL OF PROPERTY REGIME
OR ADOPTION OF ANOTHER

IN CASE OF RECONCILIATION AFTER THE

ISSUANCE OF THE DECREE:

THE PARTIES SHALL FILE A VERIFIED MOTION FOR

REVIVAL OF REGIME OF PROPERTY RELATIONS OR THE
ADOPTION OF ANOTHER REGIME OF PROPERTY
RELATIONS IN THE SAME PROCEEDING FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION ATTACHING TO SAID MOTION THEIR
AGREEMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT.
 REVIVAL OF PROPERTY REGIME
OR ADOPTION OF ANOTHER
THE AGREEMENT WHICH SHALL BE VERIFIED
SHALL SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE PROPERTIES TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE

RESTORED OR NEW REGIME;

(2) THOSE TO BE RETAINED AS SEPARATE PROPERTIES

OF EACH SPOUSE; AND

(3) THE NAMES OF ALL THEIR KNOWN CREDITORS, THEIR

 REVIVAL OF PROPERTY REGIME OR
ADOPTION OF ANOTHER
NOTE!
THE CREDITORS SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH COPIES
OF THE MOTION AND THE AGREEMENT.

THE COURT SHALL REQUIRE THE SPOUSES TO CAUSE

THE PUBLICATION OF THEIR VERIFIED MOTION FOR
TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER OF
GENERAL CIRCULATION.

AFTER DUE HEARING, AND THE COURT DECIDES TO

GRANT THE MOTION, IT SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
FAMILY CODE
ART. 58. AN ACTION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL IN
NO CASE BE TRIED BEFORE SIX MONTHS SHALL HAVE
ELAPSED SINCE THE FILING OF THE PETITION.

ART. 59. NO LEGAL SEPARATION MAY BE DECREED

UNLESS THE COURT HAS TAKEN STEPS TOWARD THE
RECONCILIATION OF THE SPOUSES AND IS FULLY
SATISFIED, DESPITE SUCH EFFORTS, THAT
RECONCILIATION IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
FAMILY CODE
ART. 63. THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL
HAVE THE FOLLOWING EFFECTS:

(1) THE SPOUSES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO LIVE

SEPARATELY FROM EACH OTHER, BUT THE
MARRIAGE BONDS SHALL NOT BE SEVERED;

(2) THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR THE CONJUGAL

PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE DISSOLVED AND
LIQUIDATED BUT THE OFFENDING SPOUSE SHALL
HAVE NO RIGHT TO ANY SHARE OF THE NET
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE
FAMILY CODE
ART. 63. THE DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION SHALL
HAVE THE FOLLOWING EFFECTS:

(3) THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN SHALL BE

AWARDED TO THE INNOCENT SPOUSE, SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 213 OF THIS CODE; AND

(4) THE OFFENDING SPOUSE SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED

FROM INHERITING FROM THE INNOCENT SPOUSE BY
INTESTATE SUCCESSION. MOREOVER, PROVISIONS IN
FAVOR OF THE OFFENDING SPOUSE MADE IN THE
WILL OF THE INNOCENT SPOUSE SHALL BE REVOKED
ART. 176 : ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN SHALL BE UNDER THE PARENTAL
AUTHORITY OF THEIR MOTHER.

ART. 213 : “[N]O CHILD UNDER SEVEN YEARS OF AGE SHALL BE

SEPARATED FROM THE MOTHER, UNLESS THE COURT FINDS COMPELLING
REASONS TO ORDER OTHERWISE.
PROVISIONAL ORDERS
A.M. NO. 02-11-12-SC RE: PROPOSED RULE ON
PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MARCH 4, 2003)
 PROVISIONAL ORDERS

WHAT IS A PROVISIONAL ORDER?

IT IS A COURT ORDER THAT IS MADE DURING A

TRIAL OR A LAW SUIT AND IS ONLY TEMPORARY
UNTIL FINAL OUTCOME IS DELIVERED.
 PROVISIONAL ORDERS

WHEN IS IT ISSUED AND HOW IT IS

ENFORCED?

UPON RECEIPT OF A VERIFIED PETITION FOR

DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID
MARRIAGE OR FOR ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE
MARRIAGE, OR FOR LEGAL SEPARATION, AND AT ANY
TIME DURING THE PROCEEDING, THE COURT, MOTU
PROPRIO OR UPON APPLICATION UNDER OATH OF
 SPOUSAL SUPPORT
What are the Rules in determining
support for the spouses?
 SPOUSAL SUPPORT

WHAT ARE THE RULES IN DETERMINING

SUPPORT FOR THE SPOUSES?

(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE PROVISIONS IN A

WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SPOUSES, THE
SPOUSES MAY BE SUPPORTED FROM THE PROPERTIES
OF THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP.
(B) THE COURT MAY AWARD SUPPORT TO EITHER
 SPOUSAL SUPPORT

(C) THE COURT MAY LIKEWISE

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:

1) WHETHER THE SPOUSE SEEKING SUPPORT IS THE

CUSTODIAN OF A CHILD WHOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
MAKE IT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SPOUSE NOT TO
SEEK OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT;
2) THE TIME NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE SUFFICIENT
EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO ENABLE THE
 SPOUSAL SUPPORT

(C) THE COURT MAY LIKEWISE

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:

4) THE COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THE

SPOUSES, INCLUDING THEIR COMPARATIVE
EARNING ABILITIES IN THE LABOR MARKET;
5) THE NEEDS AND OBLIGATIONS OF EACH SPOUSE;
6) THE CONTRIBUTION OF EACH SPOUSE TO THE
 SPOUSAL SUPPORT

(C) THE COURT MAY LIKEWISE

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
8) THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL CONDITIONS OF
THE SPOUSES;
9) THE ABILITY OF THE SUPPORTING SPOUSE TO
GIVE SUPPORT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT
SPOUSE'S EARNING CAPACITY, EARNED AND
UNEARNED INCOME, ASSETS, AND STANDARD OF
LIVING; AND
 CHILD SUPPORT

THE COMMON CHILDREN OF THE SPOUSES SHALL

BE SUPPORTED FROM THE PROPERTIES OF THE
ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR THE CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP.

SUBJECT TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE

COURT, EITHER PARENT OR BOTH MAY BE
ORDERED TO GIVE AN AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR
 CHILD SUPPORT

IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF

PROVISIONAL SUPPORT, THE COURT MAY
LIKEWISE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING
FACTORS:
(1) THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THE CUSTODIAL
AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT AND THOSE OF
THE CHILD;
(2) THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH OF THE
CHILD AND HIS OR HER SPECIAL NEEDS AND
 CHILD SUPPORT

NOTE!
THE FAMILY COURT MAY DIRECT THE DEDUCTION OF
THE PROVISIONAL SUPPORT FROM THE SALARY OF
THE PARENT.
 CHILD CUSTODY
IN DETERMINING THE RIGHT PARTY OR PERSON TO
WHOM THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD OF THE PARTIES
MAY BE AWARDED PENDING THE PETITION, THE COURT
SHALL CONSIDER THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD
AND SHALL GIVE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION TO THE
MATERIAL AND MORAL WELFARE OF THE CHILD.
 CHILD CUSTODY

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED:

a) THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES;

b) THE DESIRE AND ABILITY OF EACH PARENT TO
FOSTER AN OPEN AND LOVING RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE OTHER PARENT;
c) THE CHILD'S HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE;
d) ANY HISTORY OF CHILD OR SPOUSAL ABASE BY
 CHILD CUSTODY

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED:

f) HABITUAL USE OF ALCOHOL OR REGULATED

SUBSTANCES;
g) MARITAL MISCONDUCT;
h) THE MOST SUITABLE PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL,
SPIRITUAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT; AND
 CHILD CUSTODY

ORDER OF PREFERENCE:

1) TO BOTH PARENTS JOINTLY;

2) TO EITHER PARENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL
RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE
FOREGOING PARAGRAPH, ESPECIALLY THE CHOICE
OF THE CHILD OVER SEVEN YEARS OF AGE,
UNLESS THE PARENT CHOSEN IS UNFIT;
 CHILD CUSTODY

ORDER OF PREFERENCE:

4) TO THE ELDEST BROTHER OR SISTER OVER

TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, UNLESS HE OR SHE
IS UNFIT OR DISQUALIFIED;
5) TO THE CHILD'S ACTUAL CUSTODIAN OVER
TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, UNLESS UNFIT OR
DISQUALIFIED; OR
 CHILD CUSTODY

• THE CUSTODIAN TEMPORARILY DESIGNATED BY THE

COURT SHALL GIVE THE COURT AND THE PARENTS
FIVE DAYS NOTICE OF ANY PLAN TO CHANGE THE
RESIDENCE OF THE CHILD OR TAKE HIM OUT OF HIS
RESIDENCE FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS
PROVIDED IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE
VISITATION RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS.
 VISITATION RIGHTS

APPROPRIATE VISITATION RIGHTS SHALL BE

PROVIDED TO THE PARENT WHO IS NOT AWARDED
PROVISIONAL CUSTODY UNLESS FOUND UNFIT OR
DISQUALIFIED BY THE COURT.
 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER

PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PETITION, NO CHILD

OF THE PARTIES SHALL BE BROUGHT OUT OF THE
COUNTRY WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER FROM THE
COURT.
 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
THE COURT, MOTU PROPRIO OR UPON APPLICATION
UNDER OATH, MAY ISSUE EX-PARTE A HOLD
DEPARTURE ORDER, ADDRESSED TO THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION, DIRECTING IT NOT
TO ALLOW THE DEPARTURE OF THE CHILD FROM THE
PHILIPPINES WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE
COURT.

THE FAMILY COURT ISSUING THE HOLD DEPARTURE

ORDER SHALL FURNISH THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN
 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER

THE HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDER SHALL

CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

(a) THE COMPLETE NAME (INCLUDING THE MIDDLE

NAME), THE DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH, AND THE
PLACE OF LAST RESIDENCE OF THE PERSON
AGAINST WHOM A HOLD-DEPARTURE ORDER HAS
BEEN ISSUED OR WHOSE DEPARTURE FROM THE
COUNTRY HAS BEEN ENJOINED;
 HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER

IF AVAILABLE, A RECENT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE

PERSON AGAINST WHOM A HOLD-DEPARTURE
ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED OR WHOSE DEPARTURE
FROM THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN ENJOINED SHOULD
ALSO BE INCLUDED.

THE COURT MAY RECALL THE ORDER MOTU

PROPRIO OR UPON VERIFIED MOTION OF ANY OF
THE PARTIES AFTER SUMMARY HEARING, SUBJECT
 ORDER OF PROTECTION
THE COURT MAY ISSUE AN ORDER OF
PROTECTION REQUIRING ANY PERSON:

(a) TO STAY AWAY FROM THE HOME, SCHOOL,

BUSINESS, OR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE
CHILD, OTHER PARENT OR ANY OTHER PARTY, AND
TO STAY AWAY FROM ANY OTHER SPECIFIC PLACE
DESIGNATED BY THE COURT;
(b) TO REFRAIN FROM HARASSING, INTIMIDATING, OR
THREATENING SUCH CHILD OR THE OTHER PARENT
OR ANY PERSON TO WHOM CUSTODY OF THE
 ORDER
THE COURT MAYOF PROTECTION
ISSUE AN ORDER OF
PROTECTION REQUIRING ANY PERSON:

(D) TO PERMIT A PARENT, OR A PERSON ENTITLED TO

VISITATION BY A COURT ORDER OR A SEPARATION
AGREEMENT, TO VISIT THE CHILD AT STATED
PERIODS;
(E) TO PERMIT A DESIGNATED PARTY TO ENTER THE
RESIDENCE DURING A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME IN
ORDER TO TAKE PERSONA! BELONGINGS NOT
CONTESTED IN A PROCEEDING PENDING WITH THE
FAMILY COURT;
ADMINSTRATION OF COMMON
PROPERTY
 CALDERON VS ROXAS
G.R. NO. 185595. JANUARY 9, 2013

FACTS:
MA. CARMINIA CALDERON FILED A COMPLAINT FOR THE
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF HER MARRIAGE TO JOSE
ANTONIO ROXAS ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY. IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, THE COURT
ISSUED AN ORDER GRANTING CARMINIA’S APPLICATION
FOR SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE.
HER HUSBAND FILED A MOTION TO REDUCE SUPPORT
CITING, AMONG OTHER GROUNDS, THAT THE MONTHLY
ISSUE:

WHETHER CARMINIA MAY VALIDLY CHALLENGE THE ORDER

BY THE COURT PERTAINING TO THE SUPPORT PENDENT LITE.
HELD:
NO. THE ASSAILED ORDERS RELATIVE TO THE INCIDENT OF
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE AND SUPPORT IN ARREARS, AS THE
TERM SUGGESTS, WERE ISSUED PENDING THE RENDITION OF
THE DECISION ON THE MAIN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE, AND ARE THEREFORE, INTERLOCUTORY.
THEY DID NOT FINALLY DISPOSE OF THE CASE NOR DID THEY
CONSIST OF A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE MERITS OF
PETITIONER’S CLAIMS AS THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY AND OTHER INCIDENTS AS CHILD CUSTODY,
SUPPORT AND CONJUGAL ASSETS. UNLIKE A FINAL JUDGMENT
OR ORDER, WHICH IS APPEALABLE, AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED ON APPEAL EXCEPT ONLY AS PART
THE RULES OF COURT PROVIDE FOR THE PROVISIONAL REMEDY
OF SUPPORT PENDENT LITE WHICH MAY BE AVAILED OF AT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROPER ACTION OR PROCEEDINGS,
OR AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER.
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ARE WRITS AND PROCESSES AVAILABLE
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION WHICH MAY BE
RESORTED TO BY A LITIGANT TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT
CERTAIN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS THEREIN PENDING RENDITION,
AND FOR PURPOSES OF THE ULTIMATE EFFECTS, OF A FINAL
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE. THEY ARE PROVISIONAL BECAUSE
THEY CONSTITUTE TEMPORARY MEASURES AVAILED OF DURING
THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION, AND THEY ARE ANCILLARY
BECAUSE THEY ARE MERE INCIDENTS IN AND ARE DEPENDENT
UPON THE RESULT THE MAIN ACTION. THE SUBJECT ORDERS ON
 DINAH TONOG VS CA

FACTS:

IN 1989, DINAH B. TONOG GAVE BIRTH TO GARDIN FAITH

BELARDE TONOG, HER ILLEGITIMATE DAUGHTER WITH EDGAR
V. DAGUIMOL. A YEAR AFTER THE BIRTH OF GARDIN, DINAH
LEFT FOR THE USA WHERE SHE FOUND A WORK AS
A REGISTERED NURSE. GARDIN WAS LEFT IN THE CARE OF HER
FATHER AND PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS.
IN MAY 1992, DINAH FILED A PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.
SHE AVERRED THAT SHE LEARNED OF THE JUDGMENT ONLY ON APRIL
1, 1992. THE TRIAL COURT SET ASIDE ITS ORIGINAL JUDGMENT AND
ALLOWED DINAH TO FILE HER OPPOSITION TO EDGAR'S PETITION.
EDGAR, IN TURN, FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

IN 1993, DINAH FILED A MOTION TO REMAND CUSTODY OF GARDIN

TO HER.

IN 1994, THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED A RESOLUTION DENYING EDGAR'S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING DINAH'S MOTION
FOR CUSTODY OF GARDIN. DINAH MOVED FOR THE IMMEDIATE
EXECUTION OF THE RESOLUTION.
DINAH APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT, CONTENDING THAT SHE IS
ENTITLED TO THECUSTODY OF THE MINOR, GARDIN, AS A MATTER OF
LAW. FIRST, AS THE MOTHER OF GARDIN FAITH, THE LAW CONFERS
PARENTAL AUTHORITY UPON HER AS THE MOTHER OF THE
ILLEGITIMATEMINOR. SECOND, GARDIN CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM HER
SINCE SHE HAD NOT, AS OF THEN, ATTAINED THE AGE OF
SEVEN. EMPLOYING SIMPLE ARITHMETIC HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT
GARDIN FAITH IS NOW TWELVE YEARS OLD.
ISSUE:

WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE CHILD

PENDING THE GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING?
HELD:

IN CUSTODY DISPUTES, IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE

PARAMOUNT CRITERION IS THE WELFARE AND WELL-BEING OF THE CHILD.
THE GENERAL RULE IS RECOMMENDED IN ORDER TO AVOID MANY A
TRAGEDY WHERE A MOTHER HAS SEEN HER BABY TORN AWAY FROM
HER. NO MAN CAN SOUND THE DEEP SORROWS OF A MOTHER WHO IS
DEPRIVED OF HER CHILD OF TENDER AGE. THE EXCEPTION ALLOWED BY THE
RULE HAS TO BE FOR “COMPELLING REASONS” FOR THE GOOD OF THE
CHILD.
IN THE CASE AT BAR, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO RULE ON
THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE MINOR, GARDIN FAITH, SINCE IT
APPEARS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR GUARDIANSHIP BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT HAVE NOT BEEN TERMINATED, AND NO PRONOUNCEMENT HAS BEEN
MADE AS TO WHO SHOULD HAVE FINAL CUSTODY OF
THE MINOR. BEARING IN MIND THAT THE WELFARE OF THE SAID MINOR AS
THE CONTROLLING FACTOR, WE FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT
ERR IN ALLOWING HER FATHER TO RETAIN IN THE MEANTIME
PARENTAL CUSTODY OVER HER. MEANWHILE, THE CHILD SHOULD NOT BE
WRENCHED FROM HER FAMILIAR SURROUNDINGS, AND THRUST INTO A
STRANGE ENVIRONMENT AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE AND PLACES TO WHICH
SHE HAD APPARENTLY FORMED AN ATTACHMENT.