5. V.

Legal Separation

C. Defenses Bugayong v. Ginez

G.R. No. L-10033, 28 December 1956

FACTS:

Petitioner, a US Navy serviceman, began receiving letters informing him of the alleged acts of
infidelity of his wife, the respondent. He admitted that respondent even informed him by letter that a
certain Eliong kissed her.

Petitioner, then, sought for his wife and when the two met, they both proceeded to a certain house
where they stayed and lived for 2 nights and 1 day. Then they repaired to the petitioner’s house and
again passed the night therein as husband and wife. On the following day, petitioner tried to verify
from his wife the truth of the information he received that she had committed adultery. But
respondent, instead of answering the query, merely packed up and left, which the petitioner took as
confirmation of the acts of infidelity imputed on his wife. Petitioner went to Ilocos “to soothe his
wounded feelings.”

Petitioner, then, filed for legal separation against his wife, who in turn filed a motion to dismiss on
ground of condonation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is condonation.

RULING:

Yes. Pursuant to previous jurisprudence, there is condonation to the alleged adultery on the part of
the husband.

Article 100 of the Civil Code provides that legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent
spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage.
Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot by either of them. Collusion between
the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.

Further, single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to
constitute condonation, and where the parties live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on
terms of matrimonial cohabitation.
Moreover, pursuant to foreign jurisprudence, a divorce suit will not be granted for adultery where the
parties continue to live together after it was known or there is sexual intercourse after knowledge of
adultery or sleeping together for a single night.

Since the parties have stayed together as husband and wife for more than two nights after the
knowledge of wife’s infidelity, condonation is established.
PEOPLE VS. SENSANO AND RAMOS

FACTS:

Ursula Sensano and Mariano Ventura were married and had a child whom the latter allegedly
abandoned when he went and stayed in Cagayan for three years without letters or financial support
to the former who worked hard for herself and her son until she met the accused Marcelo Ramos
who later took care of them.

Ventura charged Sensano and Ramos for adultery, found by the court guilty of the crime charged
and served their sentence.

Sensano after serving her sentenced and leaving her paramour made steps to reconcile with and go
back to her husband but to no avail - She and her child were abandoned for the second time. Thus,
they went back to her co-accused Ramos.

Despite the knowledge that she resumed living with her codefendant, her husband did nothing to
assert his right as her spouse. Instead, he went abroad for seven years and presumably had
completely abandoned them..

When Ventura returned home, he charged Sensano of adultery for the second time in order to obtain
divorce under Act No. 2710.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ramos can file adultery against his spouse for the second time being the offended
party.

HELD:

No. The Court concluded that the evidence in this case as well as the conduct of Ramos showed
that he consented to the adulterous relations existing between the accused and former co-
defendant. He is therefore under the law not authorized to institute the criminal proceeding.

Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraphs 1 and 2, are as follows:

Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the
offenders.

The court, in reversing the decision of the court aquo found the argument of the Solicitor General
that his seven years of acquiescence in the adultery of his wife is due to his absence in the country
which made him impossible to take any action against the accused, to be unmeritorious.