G.R. No.

11263 November 2, 1916

ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appellee.
Ponente: Trent, J (En Banc decision)

Facts:

This is an action by the wife against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile. From a judgment
sustaining the defendant's demurrer upon the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of
action, followed by an order dismissing the case after the plaintiff declined to amend, the latter appealed.

Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos y Rueda, respondent, were married on January 7, 1915 and
had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino Manila. They stayed together for a month before petitioner returned to
her parent’s home. Goitia filed a complaint against respondent for support outside the conjugal home.

It was alleged that respondent demanded her to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs.
Petitioner refused to perform such acts and demanded her husband other than the legal and valid cohabitation.
(Hahahaha, matatawa ka dito sis kasi medyo may fetish si guy tapos di siya mapagbigyan ni ate girl ).

Since Goitia kept on refusing, respondent maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and
different body parts. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia could not compel her husband
to support her except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting her separation or divorce
from respondent. Goitia filed motion for review.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal home.

Ruling:

YES. The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created merely in the act of marriage. The law
provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either by paying her a fixed
pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option.

However, this option given by law is not absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate his
obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from the conjugal home because of his wrongful acts. In the
case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of the
husband, she can therefore claim support from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal
home.

A judgment for separate maintenance is not due and payable either as damages or as a penalty; nor is it a debt in the
strict legal sense of the term, but rather a judgment calling for the performance of a duty made specific by the
mandate of the sovereign. This is done from necessity and with a view to preserve the public peace and the purity of
the wife; as where the husband makes so base demands upon his wife and indulges in the habit of assaulting her.

The pro tanto separation resulting from a decree for separate support is not an impeachment of that public policy by
which marriage is regarded as so sacred and inviolable in its nature; it is merely a stronger policy overruling a weaker
one; and except in so far only as such separation is tolerated as a means of preserving the public peace and morals
may be considered, it does not in any respect whatever impair the marriage contract or for any purpose place the
wife in the situation of a feme sole.