BROWN vs YAMBAO ISSUE: W/N the petition for legal separation should be

granted.
WILLIAM H. BROWN, plaintiff-appellant

VS RULING: NO. Article 100 of the Civil Code provides that

JUANITA YAMBAO, defendant-appellee
FACTS: On July 14, 1955, William H. Brown filed a suit in
the Court of First Instance of Manila to obtain legal
separation from his wife Juanita Yambao. He alleged
under oath that while interned by the Japanese
invaders, from 1942 to 1945, at the UST internment
camp, his wife engaged in adulterous relations with one
Carlos Field of whom she begot a baby girl that Brown
learned of only in 1945, upon his release from
internment. They have lived separately thereafter and
executed a document liquidating their conjugal
partnership and assigning certain properties to the
erring wife as her share.
Brown prayed for confirmation of the liquidation
agreement; for custody of the children issued of the
marriage; that the wife be declared disqualified to
succeed the husband; and for their remedy as might be
just and equitable.
“Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation
cannot be claimed by either of them.” In the case at bar,
Brown and Yambao are both offenders so they cannot
be granted a legal separation.
Brown’s action was also barred because he did not
petition for legal separation proceedings until 10 years
after he learned of his wife’s adultery.
The argument of Brown is also untenable. It was
legitimate for the Fiscal to bring to light any
circumstances that could give rise to the inference that
the wife’s default was calculated, or agreed upon, to
enable the husband to obtain the legal decree of
separation that he sought without regard to the legal
merits of his case.
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs
against appellant.

For failure to answer in due time despite service of

summons, the court declared Yambao in default. The
City Fiscal or his representatives were directed to
investigate in accordance with Article 101 of the Civil
Code if collusion exists between both parties.

During the cross-examination of the husband by

Assistant City Fiscal Rafael Jose, it was found out that
after the liberation, Brown had lived maritally with
another woman and had begotten children by her.

Thereafter, the court rendered judgment denying the

legal separation asked, on the ground that, while the
wife’s adultery was established, Brown had incurred in a
misconduct of similar nature that barred his right of
action under Article 100 of the new Civil Code and that
his action has prescribed under Article 102 of the Civil
Code since the evidence showed that he learned of his
wife’s infidelity in 1945 but only filed in 1955.

Appellant Brown argues that in cross-examining him

with regard to his marital relation with Lilia who was
not his wife, the Assistant Fiscal acted as counsel for the
defaulted wife Juanita, when the power of the
prosecuting officer is limited to finding out whether or
not there is collision.
AZCUETA VS REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES irresponsibility and over-dependence on his mother is
symptomatic of psychological incapacity.
MARIETA C. AZCUETA, petitioner
ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of the evidence
VS
presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential
APPEALS, respondents marital obligations.

FACTS: 2 months after their first meeting, Marieta and
Rodolfo got married in Antipolo City. They had no
children and separated 4 years into their marriage.
The wife filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. She
claimed that Rodolfo was emotionally immature,
irresponsible and continually failed to adapt himself to
married life and perform the essential responsibilities
and duties of a husband.
She complained that her husband never bothered to
look for a job and instead always asked for financial
assistance from his mother. He never looked for a job
despite her always encouraging him. Sometime later, he
told her he already found a job but she found out that
he didn’t actually get a job and the money that he gave
her came from his mother. When she confronted him
about the matter, the husband cried like a child and told
her that he pretended to have a job just so the wife
would stop nagging him.
RULING: Yes. The SC stated that after a thorough review
of the records of the case, there was sufficient
compliance with Molina to warrant the annulment of
the parties’ marriage under Article 36. (1)The wife
successfully discharged her burden to prove the
psychological incapacity of her husband, (2)the root
cause of his PI has been medically or clinically identified
and was sufficiently proven and clearly explained, (3) his
PI existed before the marriage, (4) it is grave so as to
render him unable to assume the essential obligations
of a marriage, (5) he is evidently unable to comply to
the obligations, and (6) the incurability of his condition
has been deeply ingrained in his system since his early
years.
The respondent is suffering from Dependent Personality
Disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision
and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband.
The amended decision of the RTC is reinstated.

She also complained that every time Rodolfo would get

drunk, he becomes physically violent towards her. Also,
they only had sex once a month because he would
always say that it was sacred and should not be enjoyed
nor abused. When the wife requested that they move
to another place than live near his parents, he did not
agree so she was forced to leave their residence and see
if he will follow her but he did not.

The wife presented her husband’s first cousin and Dr.

Villegas—a psychiatrist as witnesses. Dr. Villegas stated
that based from the information she gathered from the
wife, she concluded that he was suffering from
Dependent Personality Disorder. According to her, this
kind of problem was incurable and severe because he
will not be able to carry on the responsibilities expected
of a married person.

The RTC declared the marriage null and void but the CA
reversed the decision with the reason that the evidence
failed to demonstrate that respondent’s alleged