086 JOSE DE OCAMPO, petitioner, vs.

SERAFINA
FLORENCIANO,respondent.
[G.R.No.L13553February23,1960]
TOPIC:LEGALSEPARATION>
2. Defenses in
actionsforlegalseparationFC56,60>
PONENTE:BENGZON,J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

JoseOcampoandSerafinaFlorencianoweremarriedinApril5,1938byareligiousceremonyinGuimba,NuevaEcija,andhad
livedthereafterashusbandandwife
Theybegotseveralchildrenwhoarenotlivingwithplaintiff.
InMarch1951,latterdiscoveredonseveraloccasionsthathiswifewasbetrayinghistrustbymaintainingillicitrelationswithJose
Arcalas.Havingfoundout,hesentthewifetoManilainJune1951tostudybeautyculturewhereshestayedforoneyear. Again
plaintiffdiscoveredthatthewifewasgoingoutwithseveralothermanotherthanArcalas.
In1952,whenthewifefinishedherstudies,sheleftplaintiffandsincethentheyhadlivedseparately.
InJune1955,plaintiffsurprisedhiswifeintheactofhavingillicitrelationswithNelsonOrzame.
Hesignifiedhisintentionoffilingapetitionforlegalseparationtowhichdefendantmanifestedconformityprovidedsheisnot
chargedwithadulteryinacriminalaction.
Accordingly,Ocampofiledapetitionforlegalseparationin1955.
Article101oftheNewCivilCodestatesthefollowing:
ART.101.Nodecreeoflegalseparationshallbepromulgateduponastipulationoffactsorbyconfessionofjudgment.
Incaseofnonappearanceofthedefendant,thecourtshallordertheprosecutingattorneytoinquirewhetherornotacollusion
betweenthepartiesexists.Ifthereisnocollusion,theprosecutingattorneyshallintervenefortheStateinordertotakecarethat
theevidencefortheplaintiffisnotfabricated.)

8.

Becausethedefendantmadenoanswertothecomplaintforlegalseparationfiledagainsther,thecourtdefaultedher,andpursuant
toArt.101above,directedtheprovincialfiscaltoinvestigatewhetherornotcollusionexistedbetweentheparties.Thefiscal
examinedthedefendantunderoath,andthenreportedtotheCourtthattherewasnocollusion.Theplaintiffpresentedhisevidence
consistingofthetestimonyofVicenteMedina,ErnestodeOcampo,CesarEnriquez,MateoDamo,JosedeOcampoandCapt.
SerafinGubat.

ISSUE(S):WhethertheconfessionmadebyFlorencianoconstitutestheconfessionofjudgmentdisallowedbytheFamilyCodewhich
ultimatelyleadstocollusionwarrantingdismissalofthepetitionforlegalseparation.
HELD:NO.
RATIO:
Florencianosadmissiontotheinvestigatingfiscalthatshecommittedadultery,intheexistenceofevidenceofadulteryother
thansuchconfession,isnottheconfessionofjudgmentdisallowedbyArticle48oftheFamilyCode.Whatisprohibitedisa
confessionofjudgment,aconfessiondoneincourtorthroughapleading.Wherethereisevidenceoftheadulteryindependent
ofthedefendantsstatementagreeingtothelegalseparation,thedecreeofseparationshouldbegrantedsinceitwouldnotbe
based on the confession but upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a judgment based
exclusively on defendants confession. The petition should be granted based on the second adultery, which has not yet
prescribed.
SC granted petitioners certiorari to consider the application of articles 100 and 101 of the New Civil Code, which for
conveniencearequotedherewith:
ART.100.Thelegalseparationmaybeclaimedonlybytheinnocentspouse,providedtherehasbeennocondonationoforconsent
totheadulteryorconcubinage.Wherebothspousesareoffenders,alegalseparationcannotbeclaimedbyeitherofthem.Collusion
betweenthepartiestoobtainlegalseparationshallcausethedismissalofthepetition.

ART.101.Nodecreeoflegalseparationshallbepromulgateduponastipulationoffactsorbyconfessionofjudgment.
Incaseofnonappearanceofthedefendant,thecourtshallordertheprosecutingattorneytoinquirewhetherornotacollusionbetween
thepartiesexists.Ifthereisnocollusion,theprosecutingattorneyshallintervenefortheStateinordertotakecarethattheevidencefor
theplaintiffisnotfabricated.
ThemerecircumstancethatdefendantstoldtheFiscalthatshe"likealso"tobelegallyseparatedfromherhusband,isno
obstacletothesuccessfulprosecutionoftheaction.Whensherefusedtoanswerthecomplaint,sheindicatedherwillingnessto
beseparated.Yet,thelawdoesnotorderthedismissal.Allowingtheproceedingtocontinue,ittakesprecautionsagainst
collusion,whichimpliesmorethanconsentorlackofoppositiontotheagreement.
Needlesstosay,whenthecourtisinformedthatdefendantequallydesirestheseparationandadmittedthecommissionofthe
offense,itshouldbedoublycarefullestacollusionexists.(TheCourtofAppealsdidnotfindcollusion.)
Collusionindivorceorlegalseparationmeanstheagreementbetweenhusbandandwifeforoneofthemtocommit,orto
appeartocommit,ortoberepresentedincourtashavingcommitted,amatrimonialoffense,ortosuppressevidenceofavalid
defense,forthepurposeofenablingtheothertoobtainadivorce.Thisagreement,ifnotexpress,maybeimpliedfromtheactsof
theparties.Itisagroundfordenyingthedivorce.(Griffithsvs.Griffiths,69N.J.Eq.68960Atl.1099;Sandozvs.Sandoz,107Ore.
282,214Pas.590.).
Inthiscase,therewouldbecollusionifthepartieshadarrangedtomakeitappearthatamatrimonialoffensehadbeen
committedalthoughitwasnot,orifthepartieshadconnivedtobringaboutalegalseparationevenintheabsenceofgrounds
therefor.
Here,theoffenseofadulteryhadreallytakingplace,accordingtotheevidence.Thedefendantcouldnothavefalselytoldthe
adulterousactstotheFiscal,becauseherstorymightsendhertojailthemomentherhusbandrequeststheFiscaltoprosecute.
Shecouldnothavepracticeddeceptionatsuchapersonalrisk.
Inthisconnection,ithasbeenheldthatcollusionmaynotbeinferredfromthemerefactthattheguiltypartyconfessestotheoffense
andthusenablestheotherpartytoprocureevidencenecessarytoproveit.
CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):