Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-7487 December 29, 1913
CONSTANA !A"E DE #ARNUE$O, plaintif and appellant,
vs.
GA#R%EL &USTER, defendant and appellant.
O'Brien & DeWitt for plaintif.
Chicote & Miranda for defendant.

'O(NSON, J.:
On the 7th of Febua!, "#7$, %abiel Fuste and Constan&a 'a(e& )ee *oined in a Catholic o canonical
+aia,e in the cit! of Mala,a, -pain. .n Febua! of "#/0, %abiel Fuste ca+e to the Philippine .slands,
settled, and ac1uied eal and pesonal popet!. 2o)ad the +iddle of "#/3, Constan&a 'a(e& ca+e to Manila,
)hee he husband )as esidin,, and hee lived )ith hi+ in con*u,al elations until the +onth of Apil, "#//. On
the 4th da! of that +onth and !ea the! +ade an a,ee+ent, in a public docu+ent, b! )hich the! 5esolved to
sepaate and live apat, both consentin, to such sepaation, and b! vitue theeof the husband authoi&ed the
)ife to +ove to -pain, thee to eside in such place as the said lad! pleases.5 6B. of E., p. "7.8 .n the sa+e
docu+ent, the husband undetoo9 to send his )ife the su+ of 7:: pesetas +onthl! fo he suppot, pa!able in
Madid, -pain, fo+ the +onth of ;une of the said !ea "#//. 2he husband co+plied )ith this obli,ation until
Au,ust, "#//, afte )hich ti+e he ceased to +a9e futhe pa!+ents.
.n the be,innin, of Mach, "/:/, the )ife etuned to the Philippines, but the husband had absented hi+self
theefo+ in the eal! da!s of Febua! of the sa+e !ea. On the ""th of Mach, "/:/, the )ife co++enced
divoce poceedin,s a,ainst he husband, alle,in, as cause of action the adulte! co++itted b! hi+ in o about
the !ea "#// )ith a cetain )o+an that she na+ed in the co+plaint and )ith )ho+ he had lived and cohabited
and b! )ho+ he had had t)o childen. -he pa!ed that she be ,anted a decee of divoce< that the cout ode
the sepaation of the popeties of the plaintif and the defendant, to date fo+ the date of the said decee< that
the con*u,al societ! be theefoe li1uidated, and afte the a+ount of the con*u,al popet! had been
dete+ined, that one=half theeof be ad*udicated to he< futhe+oe, as to the a+ount of pension o)in, fo he
suppot but not paid to he, that the defendant be odeed to pa! he the su+ of 73,::: -panish pesetas, that is,
7,00: -panish dollas, )hich, educed to Philippine cuenc! at the ate of e>chan,e on the date of the
co+plaint, a+ounted to P"0,/$/./:.
2he defendant denied that eithe he o his )ife )as a esident of the cit! of Manila, as the! had thei do+icile in
Bacelona, -pain, and he alle,ed that both of the+ )ee natives and sub*ects of -pain. ?e ad+itted that he )as
+aied to Constan&a 'a(e&< he also ad+itted havin, e>ecuted the docu+ent of the 4th of Apil, "#//, in )hich
he had undeta9en to +a9e an allo)ance fo the suppot of his )ife in Madid, but he denied the othe
paa,aphs of the co+plaint. As a special defense )ith e,ad to the allo)ance, he alle,ed@ 52hat in o about the
+onth of Ma!, "/::, he )ote to his )ife, the plaintif, instuctin, he to etun to Manila, )ith a vie) of *oinin,
he husband and bein, +aintained b! hi+ in his o)n house< that the co++unication )as i,noed b! the plaintif,
)ho a,ainst the )ill of the defendant, continued to live sepaatel! fo+ hi+ that fo+ the !ea "/:", the
defendant did not 9no) he addess< that since "/::, the plaintif has lived in co+fot and has 9no)n )hee he
husband esided< that the plaintif, duin, all of the ti+e efeed to, in addition to dispossin, of valuable
popet! belon,in, to he husband, possessed and still possesses popet! of he o)n, ac1uied b! he, in
,eate a+ount than that o)ned b! he husband< and that in an! case the action has pescibed b! opeation of
la).56B. of E., pp. 7 and #.8 As to the divoce, he ad+its that he had b! the plaintif t)o childen that have died.
?e e>pessl! denied the contents of paa,aph $ of the co+plaint, elatin, to the cha,e of adulte! and also
those of paa,aphs 3, 7, and #, concenin, the possession of eal and pesonal popet! of the con*u,al
patneship, the state+ent of thei a+ount, and thei 1ualiAcation as bein, all con*u,al popet!. As a special
defense, he alle,ed that pio to the !ea "#// he confeed po)es of attone! upon the plaintif to ad+iniste
and collect popet! and cedits petainin, to hi+ to the value of about 0::,::: pesos< that the plaintif
accepted and e>ecised the said po)e of attone!, attached the popet! and collected the cedits )ithout eve
Page 1 of 7
havin, endeed an! account of the+. As a special pefeed defense, he alle,ed that neithe the tial cout no
an! othe cout in the Philippine .slands has *uisdiction ove the sub*ect +atte of the co+plaint, because, as to
the allo)ance fo suppot, since neithe the plaintif no the defendant ae esidents of Manila, o of an! othe
place in the Philippine .slands, the a,ee+ent upon the sub*ect )as neithe celebated, no )as it to be fulAlled,
in the Philippine .slands< and as to the divoce, because the action theefoe ou,ht to be tied b! the
ecclesiastical couts. .n conclusion, he pa!ed that the cout And@ 2hat the cout )as )ithout *uisdiction ove
the t)o causes of action< that even if it had *uisdiction, it could not ode the pa!+ent of the su+ clai+ed as
aeas of ali+on!< that, afte all, the action )ith e,ad to this cause of action has pescibed< and as to the
pa!e fo a decee of divoce, the defendant should be ac1uitted, )hile on the othe hand the plaintif should be
e1uied to ende to the defendant an accountin,, suppoted b! poofs, of he opeations as his attone! and
ad+inistati> of his popet! in -pain.
.n decidin, the case, the Cout of Fist .nstance of the cit! of Manila held itself to have *uisdiction, deceed the
suspension of life in co++on bet)een the plaintif and defendant, odeed the latte to pa! the fo+e
P$,:":."7, diected that the co++unal popet! be divided bet)een the paties, )ith costs a,ainst the
defendant, and in event that the paties could not a,ee to the division, it )as to be efected b! co++issiones
accodin, to la).
Both paties appealed fo+ this *ud,+ent, but not)ithstandin, the appeal, the patition of the popet!, b!
+eans of co++issiones, )as poceeded )ith. 2hese latte, afte vaious vicissitudes, endeed thei epot and
account of the patition to the cout, )ho then endeed Anal *ud,+ent, fo+ )hich, also, both paties appealed.
%. DE&ENDANT)S APPEAL.
2he Ast eo assi,ned is the utte lac9 of *uisdiction of the tial cout and of all othe couts of the .slands to
t! the case, eithe )ith e,ad to the fulAll+ent of the contact to funish ali+on!, o to decee a divoce o
suspension of life in co++on bet)een the spouses@ lac9 of *uisdiction ove the pesons and ove the sub*ect
+atte of the liti,ation< and ove the pesons of the contendin, paties, because neithe of the spouses )as a
esident of the Philippines on the date of the co+plaint.
2he lo)e cout did not co++it this eo attibuted to hi+. 2he defendant had not poved that he had
else)hee a le,al do+icile othe than that )hich he +anifestl! had in the Philippines duin, the seventeen !eas
pecedin, the date of the co+plaint. On the conta!, it plainl! appeas, )ithout poof to the conta!, that
duin, this not inconsideable peiod, e>tendin, fo+ the !ea "#/0 until a +onth pio to the aival of his )ife
in the Philippines in Mach, "/:/, he had constantl! esided in the said .slands, had 9ept open house, and had
ac1uied in the cit! of Manila 1uite a little eal popet! )hich is no) the ob*ect of the division of the con*u,al
societ!. .t is also plainl! sho)n, )ithout poof to the conta!, that his )ife esided in this cit! of Manila fo+ the
+iddle of "#/3 until Apil, "#//, at )hich ti+e she )as pe+itted b! hi+ to chan,e he esidence. .t is afi+ed
b! the defendant in point Ave of his ans)e to the co+plaint, that in Ma!, "/::, he sent a lette instructing the
plaintif to etun to Manila to live with he husband and to be suppoted b! hi+ in his house, but that the
plaintif, a,ainst the )ill of the defendant, continued to live pat fo+ hi+. 6B. of E., p. 7.8 .t is also afi+ed in
the said ans)e, that duin, all of the ti+e efeed to in the co+plaint, and especiall! since "/::, the plaintif
9ne) )hee he husband resided. 6B. of E., p. 7.8 .t is also ve! evident that the contact, b! vitue of )hich he
authoi&ed his )ife to move to -pain and reside thee in such place as )as a,eeable to he, )as e>ecuted in
these .slands, 5in the cit! of Manila on the 4th of Apil, "##/,5 as is to be seen in the headin, of the docu+ent.
6B. of E., p. "0.8 Finall!, at pa,e "" of his bief, he sa!s that the ecod sho)s hi+ to be a -panish sub*ect,
inscibed in the consulate of his nation, and cities aticle 03 of the Civil Code, the 2eat! of Pais and the
Philippine Bill.
%antin, these facts, thee can be no doubt that the defendant, althou,h a -panish sub*ect, )as a esident of
these .slands. Aticle 03 of the Civil Code that he cites itself povides that 5-paniads )ho chan,e thei do+icile
to a foei,n count!, )hee the! +a! be consideed as natives )ithout othe conditions than that of esidents
theein, shall be e1uied, in ode to peseve the -panish nationalit!, to state that such is thei )ish befoe the
-panish diplo+atic o consula a,ent, )ho +ust ecod the+ in the e,ist! of -panish residents, as )ell as
thei spouses, should the! be +aied, and an! childen the! +a! have.5 Fo+ this povision, )hich is the
e>clusive and iefutable la) ,ovenin, the defendant, )e ae to conclude that the do+icile of the defendant
and the plaintif is full! poven, iespective of the 2eat! of Pais. Bithout this supposition of havin, ac1uied
his do+icile and esidence in these .slands, he could not have e1uied his )ife to etun to live )ith hi+ theein
because this e1uie+ent could onl! be based on aticles $# of the Civil Code of -pain, accodin, to )hich the
)ife is obli,ed to follo) he husband )heeve he )ishes to establish his esidence, o on aticle 4# of chapte $
of the Maia,e Ca) in foce in the Philippines, )hich i+poses upon the )ife the dut! of obe!in, he husband,
livin, in his co+pan!, o of follo)in, hi+ to )heeve he tansfes his do+icile o esidence. And *ust because
Page 2 of 7
he )as absent fo a +onth befoe his )ife etuned to the Philippines, he cannot be undestood to have
suendeed his habitual do+icile of +oe than seventeen !eas, )ithout havin, established an! othe
afte)ads, and )ithout +a9in, an! declaation in le,al fo+, befoe he absented hi+self, of it bein, his
intention to chan,e his do+icile, )hile at the sa+e ti+e he etains hee his house, eal popet! and all +anne
of +eans of subsistence. -ection 777 of the Code of Civil Pocedue leaves to the election of the plaintif the
bin,in, of a pesonal action li9e the one at ba eithe in the place )hee the defendant +a! reside o be found,
o in that )hee the plaintif resides.
2he liti,atin, spouses have ,ained not onl! do+icile 6domicilio8 but also esidence 6vecindad8 in Manila. .n this
liti,ation the defendant clai+s that, bon as he sa!s in Malloca, in the Baleaic .slands, he is not sub*ect, in his
+aia,e, to the ules ,ovenin, con*u,al popet!, that ae in foce in the teitoies of -pain that ae ,ovened
b! the co++on la) of Castillo 6as the Philippines in thei da!8, because the! ae opposed to the Foal Ca) in
foce in the said .slands and )hich is espected b! the Civil Code. Even if this defense could be sustained heein,
paa,aph 0 of aticle "$ of the said Civil Code )ould be applicable. .t povides@ 5Fo the puposes of this aticle,
esidence 6vecindad8 )ill be ac1uied@ B! esidence of ten !eas in common la) povinces o teitoies, unless
befoe the te+ination of that ti+e he +anifests his )ill to the conta!< o b! a esidence of t)o !eas, if the
inteested peson declaes this to be his )ill . . . .n an! case, the )ife )ill follo) the condition of he husband. . .
.5 On no occasion had the defendant +anifested his )ill to the conta!, not even as he )as leavin,, afte a
esidence of seventeen !eas, a +onth befoe the etun of his )ife to these .slands. On the conta!, )hen he
inscibed hi+self in the -panish consulate, he declaed his intention of continuin, to eside in the .slands as a
-paniad and not as a Mallo1uin, sub*ect as such to the co++on la) of -pain.
.n an endeavo to de+onstate the lac9 of *uisdiction of the couts of these .slands ove the sub*ect +atte of
the co+plaint that is to t! an action fo divoce bet)een t)o Catholic -paniads, he alle,es in his appeal@ 2hat
both liti,ants ae -panish sub*ects and that the! contacted a Catholic +aia,e< that in accodance )ith aticle
/ of the Civil Code of -pain 6the sa+e as that of these .slands8 the la)s elatin, to fa+il! i,hts and duties, o to
the status, condition and le,al capacit! of pesons, ,oven -paniads althou,h the! eside in a foei,n count!<
that, in conse1uence, 5all 1uestions of a civil natue, such as those dealin, )ith the validit! o nullit! of the
+ati+onial bond, the do+icile of the husband and )ife, thei suppot, as bet)een the+, the sepaation of thei
popeties, the ules ,ovenin, popet!, +aital authoit!, division of con*u,al popet!, the classiAcation of
thei popet!, le,al causes fo divoce, the e>tent of the latte, the AD2?OR.2' to decree it, and, in ,eneal, the
civil efects of +aia,e and divoce upon the peson and popeties of the spouses, ae 1uestions that ae
,ovened e>clusivel! b! the national la) of the husband and )ife, and, in ou case, b! the -panish la) b! vitue
of aticle / as above set out.5 6Bief, p. "0.8 2he appellant and defendant continues his a,u+ent, sa!in,@ 2hat b!
the e>pess povision of aticle #: of the Civil Code of -pain, 5*uisdiction in actions fo divoce and nulliAcation
of canonical +aia,es lies )ith ecclesiastical couts,5 )hile that of civil tibunals is li+ited to civil +aia,es<
that this bein, so, the action fo divoce bou,ht b! the plaintif in the cause does not fall )ithin the *uisdiction
of the civil couts, accodin, to his o)n la) of pesons, because these couts ou,ht to appl! the -panish la) in
accodance )ith the said aticle / of the Civil Cod of -pain, and this -panish la) ,ants the *uisdiction ove the
pesent cause to the ecclesiastical couts, in the place of )hich no tibunal of these .slands con subo,ate itself.
-a!s this appellant@ 5.f a la) of a foei,n count! )ee of i,oous application in a ,iven case, a Noth A+eican
tibunal )ould have no *uisdiction upon an ecclesiastical cout and theefoe the Noth A+eican tibunal in
appl!in, it )ould have to e>ecise a facult! )hich that la) eseved to the ecclesiastical cout.5 6Bief, pp. "7,
"4, and "$.8
Dnless )e ta9e the 1uestion itself fo ,anted, the foe,oin, easonin, cannot be upheld. 2he 1uestion is
pecisel! )hethe the couts of the Philippines ae co+petent o have *uisdiction to decee the divoce no) on
appeal, and it is ta9en fo ,anted that the po)e to decee it is one of the i,hts included in the pesonal
statute, but appellant does not pove b! an! la) o le,al doctine )hateve that the pesonal statute of a
foei,ne caies )ith it, to )hethe he tansfes his do+icile, the authoit! established b! the la) of his nation
to decee his divoce, )hich )as )hat he had to de+onstate.
2he authoit! of *uisdictional po)e of couts to decee a divoce is not co+pised )ithin the pesonal status of
the husband and )ife, si+pl! because the )hole theo! of the statutes and of the i,hts )hich belon, to
eve!one does not ,o be!ond the sphee of pivate la), and the authoit! and *uisdiction of the couts ae not a
+atte of the pivate la) of pesons, but of the public o political la) of the nation. 52he *uisdiction of couts
and othe 1uestions elatin, to pocedue ae consideed to be of a public natue and conse1uentl! ae
,eneall! sub+itted to the teitoial pinciple. . . . All pesons that have to de+and *ustice in a case in )hich
foei,nes intevene, since the! can ,ain nothin, b! a si+ple declaation, should endeavo to appl! to the
tibunales of the state )hich have coecive +eans 6popet! situated in the teito!8 to enfoce an! decision
the! +a! ende. Othe)ise, one )ould e>pose hi+self in the suit to +a9in, useless e>penditues )hich,
althou,h he )on his case, )ould not contibute to secue his i,hts because of the coutEs lac9 of +eans to
enfoce the+.5 62oes Ca+pos, 5Ele+entos de Feecho .ntenational Pivado,5 p. ":#.8 5;ustice,5 sa!s the sa+e
Page 3 of 7
pofesso, 5is a pinciple supeio to that of nations, and it should theefoe be ad+inisteed )ithout ta9in, into
an! account )hatsoeve the state to )hich the liti,ants belon,. . . . .n ode to foste thei elations and develop
thei co++ece, all civili&ed nations ae inteested in doin, *ustice, not alone to thei o)n people, but to those
foei,nes )ho contact )ithin the count! o outside of it *uidical ties )hich in so+e +anne efect thei
soveei,nt!. 6.bid, p. ":7.8 Mi,ht its couts, in so+e cases, in suits bet)een foei,nes esidin, in its teito!,
appl! the pesonal la) of the paties, but abdicate thei *uisdiction, efain fo+ ad+inistein, *ustice because
the pesonal la) of the foei,ne ,ave the *uisdiction of the ,iven case to so+e cout that is not the teitoial
one of the nationG 2his has neve !et been clai+ed in an! of the theoies e,adin, the conHict of la)s aisin,
out of 1uestions of nationalit! and do+icile< it )ould be e1uivalent to eco,ni&in, e>tateitoial la) in favo of
pivate pesons. 2he povisions of aticle #: of the Civil Ca) of -pain is onl! bindin, )ithin the do+inions of
-pain. .t does not acco+pan! the pesons of the -panish sub*ect )heeve he +a! ,o. ?e could not successfull!
invo9e it if he esided in ;apan, in China, in ?on,9on, o in an! othe teito! not sub*ect to the do+inion of
-pain. Foei,n Catholics do+iciled in -pain, sub*ect to the ecclesiastical couts in actions fo divoce accodin,
to the said aticle #: of the Civil Code, could not alle,e lac9 of *uisdiction b! invo9in,, as the la) of thei
pesonal statute, a la) of thei nation )hich ,ives *uisdiction in such a case to teitoial couts, o to a cetain
cout )ithin o )ithout the teito! of thei nation.1awphi1.net
.t is a 1uestion that has alead! been settled in t)o decisions of the -upe+e Cout 6Benedicto vs. Fe la Ra+a, 7
Phil. Rep., 74, and .ba(e& vs. Oti&, $ Phil. Rep., 70$8.
.n the pesent action fo divoce the Cout of Fist .nstance of the cit! of Manila did not lac9 *uisdiction ove
the pesons of the liti,ants, fo, althou,h -panish Catholic sub*ects, the! )ee esidents of this cit! and had
thei do+icile heein.
2he Couts of Fist .nstance of the Philippine .slands have the po)e and *uisdiction to t! actions fo divoce.
2hat of the cit! of Manila did not lac9 *uisdiction b! eason of the sub*ect +atte of the liti,ation.
2he second assi,n+ent of eo is diected a,ainst the Andin, of the cout that the defendant had co++itted
adulte! )ith a cetain )o+an in this cit! fo+ the !ea "#// until "/:/< the thid )as a,ainst the Andin, that
the adulte! )as acco+panied b! public scandal and in*ued the di,nit! of his )ife< and the fouth fo havin,
deceed the divoce, suspension of the +aied life, and the sepaation of the popeties of the paties.
2he evidence elatin, to the foe,oin, not bein, sent up on appeal, )e ae unable to evie) it, so )e accept the
Andin,s of the tial cout.
2hee is a point of la) e,adin, the clai+ that the adulte!, even thou,h it )ee poven )ould not be a cause
fo divoce, because no public scandal esulted theefo+ no )as thee conte+pt displa!ed fo the )ife.
6AppellantEs bief, p. 03.8 2he facts +ust be accepted b! this tibunal as the! )ee found b! the tial cout, since
the evidence cannot be evie)ed< +oeove, the appellee afi+s the conta! and +aintains that it is a poven
fact, public and notoious, an assetion that the tial cout +ust have found to be poven. 6AppelleeEs bief, p. $.8
.n la), it is not necessa! that adulte!, to be a cause fo divoce, should be acco+panied b! public scandal and
conte+pt fo the )ife. 2hee is no la) that e1uies this. Ca) 0, title /, of the Fouth Patida does not e1uie it.
2he Afth and si>th assi,n+ents of eo ae diected a,ainst the Andin, of the tial cout that thee e>ists
con*u,al popet!, a Andin, that the appellant +aintains is )ithout foundation, and that )hich holds that the
popet! in the hands of the eceive 6that sou,ht to be divided8 is con*u,al popet!, a conclusion )hich the
appellant clai+s to be conta! to the la) )hich should be applied to the case and accodin, to )hich, as
alle,ed in the tenth assi,n+ent of eo, the )hole of the popet! should be ad*udicated to the defendant as
bein, e>clusivel! his.
Facts@ 2he appellant afi+s that he is a native of Malloca in the Baleaic .slands and that is also the condition
of his )ife, the plaintif. Ca)@ 2hat althou,h the ule of the Civil Code is that )hich le,all! ,ovens con*u,al
popet!, !et at the sa+e ti+e it ad+its, as an e>ception, the la)s, usa,es, and custo+s of the Foal Ca),
accodin, to )hich, as applied in the Baleaic .slands, the la) of the fa+il! is that of the division of popet! and
that of con*u,al popet! is not 9no)n< so that the popet! petains e>clusivel! to the spouse )ho, b! )hateve
title, has ac1uied it. .n suppot of the facts, appellant cites pa,es 07 to 77 and 7/ to 4" in the bill of e>ceptions<
and of the la), the doctinal authoit! of Manesa, %utiee&, and Alcubilla.
2he citation fo+ pa,es 7/ to 4" of the bill of e>ceptions, the onl! petinent one, is but an afidavit Aled b! the
defendant in )hich, unde oath, he hi+self testiAes as to the Foal Ca) in the Baleaic .slands. 2he advese
pat! sa!s )ith e,ad to this@ 52his afidavit )as neve pesented in poof, )as neve eceived b! the tial
Page 4 of 7
*ud,e, and cannot seiousl! be consideed as an efot to establish the la) of a foei,n *uisdiction. -ections 7::,
7:" and 7:0 of the Code of Civil Pocedue, no) in foce in these islands, indicate the +ethod b! )hich the la)
of a foei,n count! +a! be poved. Be +aintain that the afidavit of a peson not vesed in the la), )hich )as
neve sub+itted as poof, neve eceived b! the tial cout, and )hich has neve been sub*ected to an! coss=
e>a+ination, is not a +eans of povin, a foei,n la) on )hich the defendant elies.5 6Bief, pp. 3 and 7.8
Futhe+oe, on the supposition that the defendant could invo9e the Foal Ca) as the la) of his pesonal status
in the +atte of the e,i+en of his +aia,e, and that to alle,e this he be consideed as authoi&ed b! aticle "$
of the Civil Code, )e have said befoe, in dealin, )ith his la) of do+icile, that paa,aph 0 of this aticle "$ of
the Civil Code )ould be entiel! advese to his clai+, and if it be advanced that thee is a si+ila Foal Ca) in
the Philippines b! vitue of paa,aph " of the said aticle "$, it +i,ht be said, thou,h thee is not at pesent
an! need to sa! it, that it is not in foce. 2he t)o Andin,s attac9ed ae in pefect accod )ith the la). All the
popet! of the +aia,e, sa!s aticle "4:7 of the Civil Code, shall be consideed as con*u,al popet! until it is
poven that it belon,s e>clusivel! to the husband o to the )ife. No poof has been sub+itted to this efect.
As seventh assi,n+ent of eo it is alle,ed that the cout belo) eed in holdin, in the *ud,+ent that the
plaintif had bou,ht to the +aia,e a do)! of 7:,::: -panish dollas. But the defendant hi+self adds that the
cout +ade no ode o decee e,adin, the alle,ed do)!. On the othe hand, the plaintif, in he fouth
assi,n+ent of eos, clai+ed that the cout eed in not conA+in, the epot of the co++issiones )hich ,ave
to the said plaintif the su+ of 7:,::: -panish dollas. .t is unnecessa! to sa! an!thin, futhe.
2he ei,hth eo consists in that the cout belo) odeed the defendant to pa! to the plaintif P$3,:":."7
Philippine cuenc!, )heeas the plaintif had +ade no de+and in he co+plaint )ith espect to this su+< that
no aeas of pa!+ent ae o)in, fo ali+on!, even thou,h pa!+ents had been stipulated in the contact, unless
the! ae clai+ed b! the peson )ho had funished the actual suppot, and that ali+on! is due onl! )hen it is
necessa!< so that, as the plaintif has had no need of it fo ten !eas, no has she stated )ho has funished it,
thee is no eason fo a)ain, he the a+ount of the aeas fo all that ti+e< that as she has allo)ed ten !eas
to elapse befoe clai+in, it, he action pescibed in "/:4, that is to sa!, afte Ave !eas.
2he plaintif ac9no)led,es that thee is no petition o pa!e in he co+plaint as to this cause of action, but she
consides that in e1uit! such an o+ission can be supplied.
Paa,aph 7 of section #/ 6/:8 of the Code of Civil Pocedue dete+ines one of the e1uisites of the co+plaint@
5A de+and fo the elief )hich the plaintif clai+s.5 2he section ,oes on to sa!@ 5.f the ecove! of +one! o
da+a,es is de+anded, the a+ount de+anded +ust be stated. .f special elief, such as an ode fo the special
estitution of popet!, etc., the ,ound of de+andin, such elief +ust be stated and the special elief pa!ed fo.
But thee +a! be added to the state+ent of the speciAc elief de+anded a ,eneal pa!e fo such futhe o
othe elief as shall be dee+ed e1uitable.5
.n the co+plaint of the case at ba the povisions of paa,aph 0 of the said section #/ I/:J ae co+plied )ith b!
settin, foth in its paa,aphs 4 and $ the elation of the cause of action, that is, the contact of the 4th of Apil,
"#//, b! )hich the defendant obli,ated hi+self to send to the plaintif in -pain a cetain a+ount of +one!
+onthl!, fo he suppot, and the failue to co+pl! )ith this obli,ation afte the +onth of Au,ust, "#//.
Paa,aph 3, as a conse1uence of the po+ise established in 4 and $, sa!s as follo)s@ 52hat the defendant
%abiel Fuste ! Fuste actuall! o)es the plaintif the su+ of 73,":: -panish pesetas, that is, 7,00: dollas,
)hich, educed at the pesent ate of e>chan,e, a+ounts to the su+ of P"0,/$/./:, Philippine cuenc!.5 6B. of
E., p. 0.8 .n the case of default on the pat of the defendant 5the cout shall poceed to hea the plaintif and his
)itnesses and assess the da+a,es o dete+ine the othe elief to )hich the plaintif ma !e entitled, includin,
the costs of the action, and ende Anal *ud,+ent fo the plaintif to recover such sum o to eceive such othe
elief as the pleadin,s and the facts )aant.5 2he pleadin,s, not the pa!e of the co+plaint.
2his cout has ecentl! decided that the pleadin,s, not the pa!e, e>actl!, ae the essential pat of a co+plaint.
.t is not a 1uestion of ali+on! fo the pesent, no fo the futue, )hich constitutes the Ast cause of action, but
of cetain su+s stipulated in a contact. 2his contact is a la) fo the contactin, paties, a la) )hich ises
supeio to those ,eneal la)s )hich e,ulate the natue of the sub*ect +atte of the contact 6in the pesent
case an entiel! volunta! one8 and )hich ,oven *udicial action.
An action aisin, out of a contact of this natue does not pescibe li9e all pesonal ones, but, b! the povisions
of aticle "/34 of the Civil Code, afte Afteen !eas. But even thou,h the povisions of aticle "/33 )ee
applicable, b! )hich an action to co+pel the fulAll+ent of an a,ee+ent to pa! ali+on! pescibes in Ave !eas,
Page 5 of 7
!et b! section $: of the Code of Civil Pocedue, 5)hen pa!+ent has been +ade upon an! de+and founded upon
contact . . . an action +a! be bou,ht . . . afte such pa!+ent. . . .5 And the paties ad+it that on the "#th of
Au,ust, "/:#, the plaintif secued the pa!+ent of 3,73$.3# pesetas b! vitue of the contact of Apil 4, "#//. -o
that fo+ Au,ust, "/:#, until Mach, "/:/, the date of the co+plaint, the said peiod of Ave !eas had not
elapsed.
2he ninth assi,n+ent of eo consists in that the cout belo) eed in e+po)ein, the eceive to poceed to
the sepaation of the popet! and in appointin, co++issiones to +a9e the patition and distibution bet)een
the spouses, since the pincipal 1uestion in this action hin,es upon the classiAcation of the popet!< that it )as
eoneousl! classiAed as con*u,al popet!, )heeas all of it petained to the husband alone and should be
ad*udicated to hi+ fo the eason that, as it eiteated in the tenth assi,n+ent of eo, the con*u,al patneship
)as not sub*ect to the povisions of the la) ,ovenin, con*u,al popet!, because such povision ae totall!
foei,n to the Foal Ca) of the Baleaic .slands.
2he action of the tial cout, b! the te+s of section "#4 of the Code of Civil Pocedue, )as in accodance )ith
la). 2he onl! 1uestion befoe this cout is the patition of eal popet!. All that efeed to in the second
decision appealed fo+, dated -epte+be /, "/"", is uban eal estate. .ts classiAcation as con*u,al popet! is
in accodance )ith la), as is sho)n in the foe,oin, easonin,, and that no consideation of the Foal Ca)
entes into the 1uestion has also been de+onstated.
%%. PLA%NT%&&)S APPEAL.
As the tial cout endeed *ud,+ent odein, the defendant to pa! to the plaintif onl! P$,:":."7, the petitione
hee pa!s that the *ud,+ent be evesed and that in its place this cout ode the defendant to pa! to the
plaintif he clai+ of P"0,/$/./:, plus the additional su+ )hich the ali+on! a+ounts to at the ate of P":7.7:
pe +onth, datin, fo+ the "st of Au,ust, "/:/, until the date of pa!+ent, )ith le,al inteest upon the said
P"0,/$/./: fo+ the date of the Alin, of the co+plaint until the date of pa!+ent, and, futhe+oe, le,al
inteest upon each of the +onthl! pa!+ents due afte the Alin, of the co+plaint, and )hich )ill continue to
beco+e due until the close of this liti,ation.
2he tial cout +ade the follo)in, Andin,s@ Fist, that the total a+ount of the ali+on! o)in, to the plaintif
a+ounted to 74,0:: pesetas< second, that of this su+ the plaintif had collected in Madid 3,73$.3#< thid, that
the e+ainde, that is, 07,#74.70, )as e1uivalent to K$,$33.#3 Me>ican cuenc!< fouth, that the Me>ican peso
)as )oth /: centavos Philippine cuenc!< Afth, that theefoe the su+ of K$,$33.#3 Me>ican cuenc! )as
e1uivalent to P$,:": Philippine cuenc!< and Anall!, as thee )as no evidence as to the 9ind of pesetas a,eed
upon, it )as to be pesu+ed that it )as that cuent at the ti+e and place )hee the a,ee+ent )as +ade,
)hich )as Me>ican pesetas.
.n he appeal, the plaintif contends that these Andin,s ae eoneous in that, Astl!, the paties had ad+itted
that the pesetas efeed to in the contact of the 4th of Apil, "#//, )ee -panish, and in vie) of this ad+ission
the cout )as not e+po)eed to deAne the+ as bein, difeent fo+ the 9ind ad+itted b! the paties< secondl!,
if he )ee so e+po)eed, his intepetation should be ,ovened b! the te+s of the la).
Bith e,ad to the Ast eo, the plaintif sa!s that the state+ent is +ade in he co+plaint that the defendant
had obli,ated hi+self to pa! he a 5+onthl! pension fo he suppot of 7:: -panish pesetas, that is, 3: -panish
dollas, )hich, educed to Philippine cuenc!, a+ounts to P":7.7:<5 that the defendant had ad+itted this in hi
ans)e to the co+plaint, and that b! his Andin, in a sense othe than that accepted and not efuted in the
ans)e of the defendant, the cout violated the povisions of section /4 of the Code of Civil Pocedue.
2he cout has not incued this eo, because it does not appea that the defendant in his ans)e accepted the
fact in the +anne alle,ed in the co+plaint. 2he defendant said that he ad+itted havin, +ade the a,ee+ent
efeed to in paa,aph 4 of the co+plaint, and that he stood upon its contents. 2he contents of the docu+ent
to )hich he efes is of the follo)in, teno@ 5M. Fuste binds and obli,ates hi+self to pa! to his said )ife the
su+ of 7:: pesetas, +onthl!, pa!able de su cuenta in the cit! and capital of Madid, fo he suppot. . . .5 ?e did
not theefoe ad+it the +atte of the "panish pesetas< that does not appea in the contents of the docu+ent L
the onl! thin, he ad+itted in his ans)e.
As to the second eo, the cout did not co++it it in appl!in, the ule contained in aticle "0#7 of the Civil
Code. 52he usa,es o custo+s of the count! shall be ta9en into consideation in intepetin, a+bi,uit! in
contacts. . . .5 .f in the contact the )od 5 pesetas,5 not bein, speciAc, )as a+bi,uous, then it )as in ha+on!
)ith this pecept to intepet it as bein, the peseta then in use o cuent )hen and )hee the a,ee+ent )as
Page 6 of 7
+ade, Me>ican bein, then the usual and cuent +one! in the Philippines. Futhe+oe, the phase de su
cuenta cleal! +eans that it )as not 5-panish pesetas5 that the contactin, paties had in +ind, because if the
a,ee+ent had been a speciAc one to pa! 7:: -panish pesetas in Madid, eve!one )ould of couse undestand
that the e>pense of follo)in, the Huctuations of chan,e and of the difeences in value bet)een the +one!
cuent in the count!, and the -panish pesetas, )ould have to be defa!ed b! the obli,ated pat!< )heeas, if
nothin, +oe than pesetas )as +entioned, it )as necessa! to decide )hich pat! should pa! fo the difeence
in value so that the 7:: pesetas stipulated hee should be 7:: -panish pesetas paid in Madid. A,ainst the
easons of the cout belo) fo his decision this cout can ofe no le,al ,ounds. 2he ule of intepetation cited
is the one applicable and it suppots the easonin, of the decision appealed fo+.
2he appellant also alle,es as eo that the cout did not ad*udicate to he the 7:,::: -panish dollas )hich the
co++issiones poposed in thei epot. Fist she chaactei&es this su+ of 7:,::: dollas as the do)! of the
)ife deliveed to the husband, then, late, as paaphenal popet! bou,ht to the +aia,e.
Accodin, to the last instuctions of the cout to the co++issiones, this a+ount of 7:,::: dollas could not
ente into the patition, and )ith eason. .f, as )as clai+ed, it )as inheited b! the plaintif fo+ he uncle, it
eall! constitutes paaphenal popet! unde aticle "7#". 5Paaphenal popet! is that )hich the )ife bin,s
to the +aia,e )ithout bein, included in the do)! and that she +a! ac1uie afte the ceation of the sa+e
)ithout bein, added theeto.5 But it is a povision of aticle "7#4 that 52he )ife shall have the +ana,e+ent of
the paaphenal popet! unless she has deliveed the sa+e to he husband, befoe a nota!, in ode that he
+a! ad+iniste said popet!. .n such case the husband is obli,ed to ceate a +ot,a,e fo the value of the
pesonal popet! he +a! eceive, o to secue said popet!, in the +anne established fo the do)! popet!.5
Not even )as thee ofeed in evidence the public deed of delive!, no the e1uall! public +ot,a,e deed that is
e1uied b! la). -o that, theefoe, the necessa! poof of the obli,ation to etun paaphenal popet! as hee
de+anded does not e>ist.lawphil.net
2he patition of popet! deceed in the *ud,+ent appealed fo+ of the /th of -epte+be, "/"", should be and is
heeb! conA+ed.
2he t)o *ud,+ents appealed fo+ ae heeb! afi+ed, )ithout special ponounce+ent of costs in this instance.
#rellano$ C.%.$ &orres$ Carson and &rent$ %%.$ concur.
Page 7 of 7