Pilapil v.

Somera Facts: On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard eilin!, a erman national, !et married be"ore the #e!istrar o" $irths, Marria!es and %eaths at Friedens&eiler in the Federal #ep'blic o" ermany( )hey had a child named Isabella Pilapil eilin! &ho &as born on *pril +,, 19-,( 1 *"ter abo't three and a hal" years o" marria!e, s'ch marital disa!reement ens'ed &hich led to the initiation o" a divorce proceedin! a!ainst petitioner in ermany be"ore the Schoneber! .ocal /o'rt in 0an'ary, 19-1 on the !ro'nd o" "ail're o" their marria!e( On the other hand,petitioner "iled an action "or le!al separation, s'pport and separation o" property be"ore the #e!ional )rial /o'rt o" Manila, on 0an'ary +1, 19-1 &here the same is still pendin! as /ivil /ase 2o( -1314-55( 3 On 0an'ary 14, 19-5, %ivision +, o" the Schoneber! .ocal /o'rt, Federal #ep'blic o" ermany, prom'l!ated a decree o" divorce on the !ro'nd o" "ail're o" marria!e o" the spo'ses( )he c'stody o" the child &as !ranted to petitioner( )he records sho& that 'nder erman la& said co'rt &as locally and internationally competent "or the divorce proceedin! and that the dissol'tion o" said marria!e &as le!ally "o'nded on and a'thorized by the applicable la& o" that "orei!n 6'risdiction( 4 On 0'ne +7, 19-5, or more than "ive months a"ter the iss'ance o" the divorce decree, private respondent "iled t&o complaints "or ad'ltery be"ore the /ity Fiscal o" Manila alle!in! that, &hile still married to said respondent, petitioner 7had an a""air &ith a certain 8illiam /hia as early as 19-+ and &ith yet another man named 0es's /h'a ( the prosec'tor recommended the dismissal o" the cases on the !ro'nd o" ins'""iciency o" evidence( Issue: Whether or not private respondent can prosecute petitioner eventhough they are no longer married when the case was filed uling: )he la& speci"ically provides that in prosec'tions "or ad'ltery and conc'bina!e the person &ho can le!ally "ile the complaint sho'ld be the o""ended spo'se, and nobody else( 9nlike the o""enses o" sed'ction, abd'ction, rape and acts o" lascivio'sness, no provision is made "or the prosec'tion o" the crimes o" ad'ltery and conc'bina!e by the parents, !randparents or !'ardian o" the o""ended party( )he so3called e:cl'sive and s'ccessive r'le in the prosec'tion o" the "irst "o'r o""enses above mentioned do not apply to ad'ltery and conc'bina!e( It is si!ni"icant that &hile the State, as parens patriae, &as added and vested by the 19-4 #'les o" /riminal Proced're &ith the po&er to initiate the criminal action "or a deceased or incapacitated victim in the a"oresaid o""enses o" sed'ction, abd'ction, rape and acts o" lascivio'sness, in de"a'lt o" her parents, !randparents or !'ardian, s'ch amendment did not incl'de the crimes o" ad'ltery and conc'bina!e( In other &ords, only the o""ended spo'se, and no other, is a'thorized by la& to initiate the action there"or( In these cases, there"ore, it is indispensable that the stat's and capacity o" the complainant to commence the action be de"initely established and, as already demonstrated, s'ch stat's or capacity m'st ind'bitably e:ist as o" the time he initiates the action( It &o'ld be abs'rd i" his capacity to brin! the action &o'ld be determined by his stat's before or subsequent to the commencement thereo", &here s'ch capacity or stat's e:isted prior to b't ceased be"ore, or &as ac;'ired s'bse;'ent to b't did not e:ist at

the time o", the instit'tion o" the case( 8e &o'ld thereby have the anomalo's spectacle o" a party brin!in! s'it at the very time &hen he is &itho't the le!al capacity to do so( *merican 6'rispr'dence, on cases involvin! stat'tes in that 6'risdiction &hich are in pari materia &ith o'rs, yields the r'le that after a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders &here the stat'te provides that the innocent spo'se shall have the e:cl'sive ri!ht to instit'te a prosec'tion "or ad'ltery( 8here, ho&ever, proceedin!s have been properly commenced, a divorce s'bse;'ently !ranted can have no le!al e""ect on the prosec'tion o" the criminal proceedin!s to a concl'sion( !! In the cited Loftus case, the S'preme /o'rt o" Io&a held that < =2o prosec'tion "or ad'ltery can be commenced e:cept on the complaint o" the h'sband or &i"e(= Section >91+, /ode( Though Loftus was husband of defendant when the offense is said to have been committed, he had ceased to be such when the prosecution was begun? and appellant insists that his stat's &as not s'ch as to entitle him to make the complaint( 8e have repeatedly said that the o""ense is a!ainst the 'no""endin! spo'se, as &ell as the state, in e:plainin! the reason "or this provision in the stat'te? and &e are o" the opinion that the unoffending spouse must be such when the prosecution is commenced( @Emphasis s'pplied(A )he co'rt held that the stat's o" the complainant vis3a3vis the acc'sed m'st be determined as o" the time the complaint &as "iled( )h's, the person &ho initiates the ad'ltery case m'st be an o""ended spo'se, and by this is meant that he is still married to the acc'sed spo'se, at the time o" the "ilin! o" the complaint( In this case, &hen the private respondent "iled a case "or ad'ltery a!ainst petitioner they &ere no lon!er married by virt'e o" the divorce decree !ranted to petitioner( In the present case, the "act that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his co'ntry, the Federal #ep'blic o" ermany, is admitted( Said divorce and its le!al e""ects may be reco!nized in the Philippines inso"ar as private respondent is concerned !3 in vie& o" the nationality principle in o'r civil la& on the matter o" stat's o" persons( 9nder the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, bein! no lon!er the h'sband o" petitioner, had no le!al standin! to commence the ad'ltery case 'nder the impost're that he &as the o""ended spo'se at the time he "iled s'it(