ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 10902   March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA<br /><br />034 Phil 483

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10902. March 28, 1916. ]

    SERAPIA DE JESUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO PALMA, Defendant-Appellant.

    Marcelino Aguas, for Appellant.

    Crossfield & O’Brein, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DIVORCE; ADULTERY. — One of the causes which support an action for divorce and a suspension of the common life of a married couple is the adultery of the wife in all cases, and that of the husband when it results in public scandal or in contempt of the lawful wife.

    2. ID.; ID. — The act of the concubinage of the husband with a woman other than his wife was anciently qualified as adultery by the laws of titles 2, 9, and 10 of the Fourth Partida; hence it is that the Penal code that relates to adultery, a classification anciently recognized, as common to both crimes, according to the decision by the supreme court of Spain of April 3, 1884.

    3. ID.; ID. — Adultery committed by the husband with a woman other than his wife, in contempt of the latter and with public scandal, known in modern law as concubinage, is in the eyes of the law a legal and sufficient ground for divorce does not dissolve the material bond but only decrees the suspension of the common life between the offended and the offending parties, their separation and that of their common property.


    D E C I S I O N


    TORRES, J. :


    On December 17, 1912, counsel for Serapia de Jesus filed a written complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga against her husband, Pablo Palma, alleging that about the year 1885 she was married to him in the pueblo of Bacolor in accordance with the rites of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church; that since then they had lived together continuously until the year 1900, when plaintiff separated from her husband and abandoned the conjugal home; that plaintiff was the mother of eight children, all now of legal age, with the exception of Catalina, of 19 years of age; that neither of the spouses brought any property to the marriage, but that plaintiff’s husband afterwards inherited from his parents certain property, the amount of which she did not known; that during their marriage, the two spouses accumulated real and personal property in the nature of community property which was valued at approximately P80,000 and was now in the husband’s possession; that plaintiff’s husband, in violation of the marriage laws; had committed adultery since 1896 with one Leonora Pabustan, by whom he had three children; that as a consequence of the illtreatment plaintiff continually suffered on account of such acts of adultery, she had to separate from her husband, notwithstanding that plaintiff was entitled to share in the community property, which was in danger of being lost or of disappearing; wherefore, for the preservation and administration of said receiver, and concluded by praying the court to decree a divorce or injunction issue against of said property plaintiff’s counsel designated Mariano Buyson as receiver, and concluded by praying the court to decree a divorce or separation between plaintiff and her husband; that a writ of injunction issue against defendant, prohibiting him from administering said property and from interviewing in the administration of his own property; that plaintiff be granted the legal custody of all her minor children and a monthly allowance of P300 for her support and the education of her children; that Mariano Buyson Lampa be appointed receiver, and that after he had furnished bond the sheriff place him in possession of all of defendant’s property.

    By an order of July 15, 1913, the court assigned to plaintiff a monthly allowance P25 which defendant must pay to her within the first five days of each month. Defendant excepted to this order.

    Counsel for the later, in his written answer, made a general denial of each and all of the facts alleged in each and all of the paragraphs of the complaint and, specifically, those contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 thereof. As a special defense he alleged that all property held by defendant was his own private property; that plaintiff has no right of action herein; that defendant fell sick with particular rheumatism and with a blennorrhagic orchicepididymitis and was sick for more than two years and that only after six years did he obtain any alleviation therefrom, but not a complete cure; that since about the middle of the year of 1898 he had ceased absolutely to cohabitate or lie with his wife Serapia, surnamed Sinio and not De Jesus, nor had he lain with any other woman; that since the month of August, 1899, defendant had been abandoned by his wife, who had been residing in different places within and without the Province of Pampanga; that she committed adultery with Liberto Palma and with a man named Francisco de Manila, and as a result she had given birth to several children. Said counsel therefore prayed that defendant be absolved from the complaint and the and that the divorce be granted without alimony, and with the costs of the suit against plaintiff.

    The record shows that the person of Serapia de Jesus, the plaintiff, was placed with Leocadia de Jesus for safe-keeping.

    After a hearing of the case and the evidence adduced by both parties, the Honorable Judge Llorente, by a judgment of April 15, 1914, granted a divorce between plaintiff Serapia de Jesus and defendant Pablo Palma, with separation of the property belonging to both parties. He ordered that the husband, as administrator of the community property, make an agreement in the matter, that Jose de Leon, Estanislao Santos, and Jose Joven be appointed for the purpose of effecting said settlement and division of the community property. The court further ordered that the minor children under 10 years of age should remain in the custody of Barttola Zablan; that form the date of the judgment and within the first five days of each month, each of said spouses should pay to said Zablan P15 per month for the maintenance of said minors; and that defendant should pay to plaintiff the amount of the alimony in arrears owed by him, at the rate of P25 per month from August, 1913, and pay the costs.

    Counsel for defendant excepted to this judgment and moved for a new trial.

    In view of the nature of the proceedings and of the pronouncements contained in the judgment aforementioned, the commissioners appointed proceeded to settle the affairs and partition the community property of said spouses. The evidence adduced by both parties was heard and, after due consideration of the same, the Honorable P. M. Mior, judge, on April 19, 1915, rendered judgment in which he held that the inventory and a valuation of the community property the and of the property inherited by defendant, as set forth in the documents Exhibits A and B, were correct, and that the difference found by commissioners to exist between the original value and the present value of the defendant husband’s own private property should be considered as community property and that one-half of said difference of value should belong to plaintiff. He further ordered defendant to plaintiff the property belonging to her. Defendant’s counsel also excepted to this judgment and moved that the said two judgments be set aside and that a new trial be granted. These motions were overruled by prayed for by Serapia de Jesus, with suspension of the common conjugal life; the separation of property between her and her husband Pablo Palma; the approval of the inventory, liquidation, and division, made by commissioners appointed by the court, of the community property of both parties and of the private property belonging to the husband; and also the approval of the difference found by said commissioners to exist between the original and the present value of the husband’s private property, the half of which difference of value was also held to belong to plaintiff as community property.

    One of the causes which support an action for divorce and a suspension of the common life of a married couple is adultery by the wife in every case, and that by the husband when it results in public scandal or in contempt of the wife.

    The record shows it to have been duly proven that defendant, Pablo Palma, committed adultery with Leonora Pabustan, who was living in the conjugal home and be whom he had three children, with notorious contempt of the plaintiff, defendant’s own lawful wife. Therefore, the action brought by the plaintiff to secure a divorce and the separation of her property from that of her husband, is unquestionably proper.

    The act of the concubinage of the husband with a woman other than his wife was anciently qualified as adultery by the laws of Titles 2, 9, and 10 of the Fourth Partida; hence it is that the article which treats of concubinage is found in the chapter of the Penal Code that relates to adultery — a classification common to both crimes and so recognized in the decision of the supreme court of Spain of April 3, 1884.

    Adultery committed by the husband with a woman other than his wife, in contempt of the latter, qualified in modern law as concubinage, is, in the eyes of the law, a legal and sufficient ground for the offended wife to demand divorce from the husband living in concubinage, though the judgment granting the divorce does not dissolve the marital bond, but only decrees the suspension of the common life between the offended and the offending parties, their separation and that of their common property.

    As for the rest, the record does not show it to have been duly proven that plaintiff committed adultery with another man.

    Accepting, then, the findings of fact and law contained in judgments appealed from, April 15, 1914, and April 19, 1915, for the reason that they are in accord with the law and the evidence, and moreover, deeming the errors assigned by appellant to said judgments to have been refuted, the said two judgments appealed from should be as they are hereby, affirmed, with the costs against appellant. So ordered.

    Johnson, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 10902   March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA<br /><br />034 Phil 483




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED