JD 1st year 1st Sem (GR. No.

80116) Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera , Victor , Geiling

Civil Law Article 344 RPC June 30,1989 Regalado

SUMMARY

FACTS

Petitioner:

Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil (Filipino)

Respondent:

Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera - Pres. Judge of Branch CX(110) RTC Manila Branch XXVI (26)

Luis Victor - City Fiscal of Manila

Erich Ekkehard Geiling - (German)

 Sept. 7, 1979 - Imelda Pilapil married Erich Ekkehard Geiling before the Registrar of Births, Marriages, and
Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany then settled in Malate.

 April 20 1980 - Their child, Isabella Geiling, was born.

 April 1982 - They were already separated-by-fact.

 Jan 1983 - Respondent filed for a divorce proceeding after 3 and a half years of marriage.

 Jan 23, 1983 - Petitoner filed an action for legal separation , support and separation of property before the
RTC of Manila, Branch XXXII(32) as Civil Case No. 83-15866.

 January 15, 1986 - Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court , Federal Republic of Germany granted the
divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.

 June 27,1986- Private respondent filed two complaint for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila

People of the PH v. Imelda Pilapil and William Chia- Criminal Case 87-52435; Br.26, J. Ibay-Somera

People of the PH v. Imelda Pilapil and James Chua- Criminal Case 87-52434; Br.25, J. Leonardo Cruz

 Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to suspend further
proceedings thereon. Judge Leonardo Cruz suspended proceedings in Criminal Case No. 87-52434. On the
other hand, respondent judge merely reset the date of the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 to
April 6, 1987.

 Before such scheduled date, petitioner moved for the cancellation of the arraignment and for the
suspension of proceedings in said Criminal Case No. 87-52435 until after the resolution of the petition for
review then pending before the Secretary of Justice. 11 A motion to quash was also filed in the same case.

 Sept 8, 1987 -The motion was denied and the arraignment of petitioner and William Chia was ordered. The
latter entered a plea of not guilty while the petitioner refused to be arraigned. Such refusal of the
 petitioner being considered by respondent judge as direct contempt, she and her counsel were fined and
the former was ordered detained until she submitted herself for arraignment. She entered a plea of not
guilty.

 October 27, 1987 -petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to
quash.

 March 23, 1988- Secretary of Justice Sedfrey A. Ordoñez acted on the aforesaid petitions for review and,
upholding petitioner's ratiocinations, issued a resolution directing the respondent city fiscal to move for the
dismissal of the complaints against the petitioner.

RATIO

W/N it is necessary in the commencement of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds between the
complainant and the accused be unsevered and existing at the time of the institution of the action by the former
against the latter

Yes.Article 344 of the RPC states that “the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot
be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse.”.It is important that the
complainant shall establish his legal capacity to sue by ensuring that the marriage is still valid and subsisting
during the filing of the criminal case.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioner's motion to quash is SET ASIDE and another one
entered DISMISSING the complaint in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 for lack of jurisdiction. The temporary
restraining order issued in this case on October 21, 1987 is hereby made permanent.

PARAS, J., concurring:

It is my considered opinion that regardless of whether We consider the German absolute divorce as valid also in
the Philippines, the fact is that the husband in the instant case, by the very act of his obtaining an absolute
divorce in Germany can no longer be considered as the offended party in case his former wife actually has carnal
knowledge with another, because in divorcing her, he already implicitly authorized the woman to have sexual
relations with others. A contrary ruling would be less than fair for a man, who is free to have sex will be allowed
to deprive the woman of the same privilege.

In the case of Recto v. Harden (100 Phil. 427 [1956]), the Supreme Court considered the absolute divorce
between the American husband and his American wife as valid and binding in the Philippines on the theory that
their status and capacity are governed by their National law, namely, American law. There is no decision yet of
the Supreme Court regarding the validity of such a divorce if one of the parties, say an American, is married to a
Filipino wife, for then two (2) different nationalities would be involved.

In the book of Senate President Jovito Salonga entitled Private International Law and precisely because of
the National law doctrine, he considers the absolute divorce as valid insofar as the American husband is
concerned but void insofar as the Filipino wife is involved. This results in what he calls a "socially grotesque
situation," where a Filipino woman is still married to a man who is no longer her husband. It is the opinion
however, of the undersigned that very likely the opposite expresses the correct view. While under the national
law of the husband the absolute divorce will be valid, still one of the exceptions to the application of the proper
foreign law (one of the exceptions to comity) is when the foreign law will work an injustice or injury to the people
or residents of the forum. Consequently since to recognize the absolute divorce as valid on the part of the
husband would be injurious or prejudicial to the Filipino wife whose marriage would be still valid under her
national law, it would seem that under our law existing before the new Family Code (which took effect on August
3, 1988) the divorce should be considered void both with respect to the American husband and the Filipino wife.

The recent case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. (139 SCRA [1985]) cannot apply despite the fact that the husband was
an American can with a Filipino wife because in said case the validity of the divorce insofar as the Filipino wife is
concerned was NEVER put in issue