Lacson vs.

San Jose-Lacson
24 SCRA 837
August 30, 1968

DOCTRINE: The law allows the separation of the property of the spouses and the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership provided JUDICIAL SANCTION is secured
beforehand.

FACTS:

Petitioner spouse and respondent spouse were married on February 14, 1953. On
January 9, 1963 the respondent spouse left their conjugal home and commenced to
reside in Manila. She filed a complaint in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
Manila (JDRC) for custody of all their children as well as support for them and herself.

The spouses succeeded in reaching an amicable settlement respecting: 1) custody of

the children- the two elder children to the petitioner while the other two younger children
to the respondent; 2) support- petitioner shall pay P300 monthly allowance for the
support of the children in respondent’s custody and a reciprocal rights of visitation; and
3) separation of property.

Thus, they filed a joint petition in the CFI of Negros Occidental which the latter found to
be “conformable to law”, hence, a compromise judgment was issued approving and
incorporating in toto their amicable settlement.

However, the respondent spouse filed a motion in the JDRC alleging that she entered
into and signed the joint petition just to have immediate custody of their minor children
who are all below the age of 7. The petitioner spouse opposed such on the grounds of
res judicata and lis pendens which the JDRC sustained. Then, the respondent filed an
appeal to the Court of Appeals which they certified to the Supreme Court.

The petitioner spouse opposed the said motion and filed a motion for execution of the
compromise judgment and a charge for contempt. The CFI then denied the motion of
the respondent. Hence, the respondent again interposed an appeal to the Court of
Appeals questioning the validity or legality of her agreement with the petitioner spouse
respecting the custody of their children. She also instituted a certiorari proceedings
averring that the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion and acted in excess of
jurisdiction in ordering the immediate execution of the compromise judgment.

The Court of Appeals granted the said certiorari case declaring the compromise
agreement insofar as it relates to the custody and right of visitation over the two children
and the order for execution fo the said judgment null and void.

Thus, the petitioner spouse filed this case.

ISSUE:
WON the compromise agreement entered into by the parties and the judgment of the
CFI grounded on the said agreement are conformable to the law.

HELD:
YES with respect to the separation of property and the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership but NO with respect to the custody and rights of visitation to the children.

On the separation of property: the law allows separation of the spouses and the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership provided judicial sanction is secured
beforehand. The new Civil Code provides that in the absence of an express declaration
in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between spouses during the
marriage shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order.

The husband and the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership
during the marriage, subject to judicial approval. All the creditors of the husband and of
the wife, as well as of the conjugal partnership, shall be notified of any petition for
judicial approval of the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership, so that any
such creditors may appear at the hearing to safeguard his interests. Upon approval of
the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership, the court shall take such
measures as may protect the creditors and other third persons.

In the case at bar, the spouses obtained judicial imprimatur of their separation of
property and the dissolution of their conjugal partnership. It does not appear that they
have creditors who will be prejudiced by the said arrangements.

It is likewise undisputed that the couple have been separated in fact for at least five
years — the wife’s residence being in Manila, and the husband’s in the conjugal home
in Bacolod City. Therefore, inasmuch as a lengthy separation has supervened between
them, the propriety of severing their financial and proprietary interests is manifest.

Courts cannot compel one of the spouses to cohabit with the other.—It is not within the
province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit
with, and render conjugal rights to the other. x x x At best such an order can be effective
for no other purpose than to compel the spouses to live under the same roof; and the
experience of those countries where the courts of justice have assumed to compel the
cohabitation of married couple shows that the policy of the practice is extremely
questionable.

However, in so approving the regime of separation of property of the spouses and the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership, this Court does not thereby accord recognition
to nor legalize the de facto separation of the spouses. In this jurisdiction, the husband
and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support (art. 109 New Civil Code). There is, therefore, virtue in making
it as difficult as possible for married couples — impelled by no better cause than their
whims and caprices — to abandon each other’s company.