Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > November 1905 Decisions > [G.R. No. 2125. November 15, 1905.] PEDRO IBAÑEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2125.  November 15, 1905.]

PEDRO IBAÑEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

 

D E C I S I O N

TORRES, J.:

On the 5th day of October, 1903, Pedro Ibañez, through his attorney, Joaquin Hernandez, filed a complaint against his wife, Ana Ortiz, asking that judgment be entered decreeing a divorce between the parties, with costs against the Defendant, and praying for each other and further relief as the court deemed just and proper. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, after the filing of the original complaint, had falsely and maliciously stated that her husband has ill-treated her and compelled her to take certain medicine for the purpose of effecting an abortion which took place when she was three months' pregnant, thereby falsely and calumniously charging him with the commission of a crime and exposing him to public hatred and contempt; that he had been informed that his wife, Ana Ortiz, had committed adultery with an unknown person in the municipality of Mabolo, Cebu, during the months of May, June, July, August, and September, 1903, having committed several other acts of adultery before and after the filing of the original complaint without his knowledge and consent; that Plaintiff had not lived with his wife, the Defendant in this case, since the latter part of December, 1902, when he learned, through public rumors, of his wife's adultery.

On the 26th of January, 1904, the Plaintiff, with the consent of the court, filed an amendment to paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the complaint alleging that his wife, the Defendant, Ana Ortiz, had illicit intercourse, and had, in the house of Julian Nacar and at other places within the municipality of Mabolo or Talamban of the said island, during the months of May, June, July, August, and September, 1903, committed adultery with one Primitivo Maligac, a clerk of the Compania General de Tabacos, at Cebu, and that all such acts of adultery were committed by the Defendant since she had in the latter part of December, 1902, left his house without his knowledge or consent.

The Defendant presented a motion, which she subsequently amended, asking that Plaintiff be required to make the allegations in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the supplementary complaint more definite and certain by showing the circumstances under which the alleged acts of adultery were committed, giving a better description of the man and the house and place where such acts were committed, and when the other alleged acts were committed, the allegations being so vague and unintelligible that no adequate defense could be made.

The court after hearing the evidence, entered judgment March 3, 1904, against the Defendant, Ana Ortiz, declaring that she had lost all her interest in the conjugal property and that she was not entitled to support, with costs, from which judgment the Defendant appealed.

This action involves, as appears from the pleadings, a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery.

Assuming that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to try this case under the laws of titles 2, 9, and 10 of the Fourth Partida and section 56 of Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission and other legal provisions cited in the decision of this court in a similar case, No. 1056, Benedicto vs. De la Rama,1 we shall inquire into the question as to whether the judgment appealed from can be sustained.

The provisions of Titles IV and XII, Book I of the Civil Code, were suspended in these Islands by a decree of the governor-general of the 29th of December, 1889, pursuant to telegraph instructions from Madrid. That decree was published in the Official Gazette on the 31st of the same month and year — that is to say, twenty-four days after the code had been in operation. Articles 42 to 107 of the said code are not, therefore, in force at present, and they cannot be applied to cases which they might otherwise cover. The Partidas are the only laws governing the case at bar. (Decision in case No. 1056, Benedicto vs. De la Rama, already cited.)

It was proved at the trial that Ana Ortiz was married to Pedro Ibañez June 15, 1902; that six months later she left their residence in Cebu and went to live with her mother; that she thereafter removed to the house of one Julian Nacar, who had been her husband's cook at Mabolo, a neighboring town; that some time after that she entered into illicit relations with one Primitivo Maligac, those relations continuing until September, 1903.

Maligac frequently visited the house where the Defendant was stopping, spending the night in Defendant's room and not leaving until the following morning. The two were seen alone talking in a low voice and were found together at various places and in different houses late at night. The Defendant was also seen walking unreservedly with Maligac notwithstanding the fact that she was a married woman.

While Ana Ortiz lived apart from her husband, and in the house of Julian Nacar, her paramour, Primitivo Maligac, delivered at various times to one Felix Son and his wife clothes belonging to Ana Ortiz for washing. On one occasion Maligac not being able to pay for the washing of 65 pieces of clothing, gave to the laundryman as security a ring which he then had on one of his fingers and told the latter not to say anything about the clothing belonging to Ana Ortiz, who received them after they were washed.

The foregoing facts are corroborated by Exhibit B, which is a letter written by Primitivo Maligac to the Defendant, and the latter's answer thereto, and also by Exhibit A, wherein Ana Ortiz acknowledges the receipt of certain jewelry, belonging to her, from Marcelino Solon, to whom they were given by Maligac to secure a debt of 25 pesos, Mexican currency, which he borrowed in order to attend to "our needs," as stated in the same document. The Plaintiff identified the Defendant's handwriting and the other witnesses identified, as Maligac's the handwriting in the letter and answer referred to. Marcelino Solon testified as to the pledging of the jewels and the execution of the document in question before the municipal president of Mabolo.

It appears, therefore, fully proven that the Defendant committed adultery by living at various times, for a period of six months, with Primitivo Maligac, who was not her husband, and that the cause of action upon which the complaint is based existed at the commencement of this suit and still exists.

The proof introduced by the Plaintiff was not overcome by that of the defense. Indeed, the trial court, after a careful examination of the evidence for the defense, rejected the same, stating that it was false and could not be believed in the face of the positive proof introduced by the Plaintiff.

Marriage even considered as a contract is of great cannot be divorced by mutual consent. A judicial decree is necessary to accomplish this. The decree, however, does not dissolve the bonds between the contracting parties. It merely separates them temporarily or permanently, as the case may be. This suspension produces same other legal effects provided for by law. (Laws 3 and 7, title 2; law 13, title 9, and laws 1 and 2, title 10, partida 4.)

Adultery being recognized by the Partidas as a ground for divorce, and it having been shown that the Defendant committed adultery to the prejudice of the Plaintiff, the decree of divorce prayed for in the complaint should be granted. Such decree, however, will not have the effect of dissolving the marriage. Its only effect can be the separating of the parties with all the legal consequences pertaining thereto, in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. (Arts 1417, 1433, and 1434 of the Civil Code.)

Although, as has already been said, the Partidas are the only laws which conferred upon the court below the power to take cognizance of and determine this action for divorce, the provisions of the Civil Code contained in those articles which were not suspended by the said telegraphic order, and which are still in force, are also applicable as to the effects of a final decree of divorce.

In view of the provisions contained in said articles and others of the Civil Code, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed only in so far as it decrees a divorce between the parties in the manner stated.

It is not contended that he Defendant has lost her interest in the conjugal property and her right to support, and no question is raised as to whether, as a result of the decree of divorce, the Defendant should lose these rights. The judgment of the court below in this respect is reversed.

For the foregoing reasons the petition for divorce - that is to say, the separation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant — is hereby granted with all the usual legal effect. The parties shall not be obliged to live together. The costs will be borne by the Defendant. The judgment thus modified as affirmed. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered and let the case be remanded to the court below for action in accordance herewith. SO ORDERED.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

  1.          3 Phil. Rep., 34 (201 U.S., 303.)




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 1207. November 2, 1905.] PIA BASA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1497. November 2, 1905.] TOMANA VERA MOGUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 2206. November 2, 1905.] MANUEL GASPAR, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. JUAN B. MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2263. November 2, 1905.] CIPRIANO SANIDAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMON CABOTAJE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2304. November 3, 1905.] EL BANCO ESPA�OL-FILIPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL., Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1078. November 7, 1905.] JOHN W. HOEY, Petitioner, vs. R.C. BALDWIN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 1791. November 7, 1905.] EMILIO BUENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2089. November 7, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ENRIQUE RIJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2297. November 7, 1905.] CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, administrator of the estate of Teodoro Patricio, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1341. November 8, 1905.] URSULA LIQUETE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EULALIO DARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1528. November 10, 1905.] JOSE ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURORA BARRIO, guardian of her minor children, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1975. November 10, 1905.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2296. November 10, 1905.] J.F. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2322. November 10, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILISO BASTAS and DIONISIO DE LA SERNA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2332. November 10, 1905.] MIGUEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1308. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PEDRO GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1642. November 11, 1905.] JUAN NOEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LASALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2008. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2184. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO PALANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2371. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2425. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff and Appellees, vs. The Chinaman UN CHE SAT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2444. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO CAGARA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1440. November 14, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, complainant-Appellee, vs. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2773. November 14, 1905.] HARRY J. COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. G.N. WOLFE, Warden of Bilibid Prison, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1898. November 15, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2121. November 15, 1905.] THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO IRIBAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1465. November 17, 1905.] ALFREDO CHANCO, administrator of the estate of Maximo Madrilejos, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1789. November 17, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2125. November 15, 1905.] PEDRO IBA�EZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2631. October 21, 1905.] EDWIN H. WARNER, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. 771 OBJECTORS, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2019. November 20, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1165. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUFINO FELIPE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1261. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PACIANO ANONUEVO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1647. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ADAUCTO OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2289. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1693. November 22, 1905.] FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. JOHN S. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 2436. November 22, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO MAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2153. November 23, 1905.] H. FRANKEL AND W.L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. M.A. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1036. November 25, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINO VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1696. November 27, 1905.] VICENTA RODRIGUEZ, administratrix of the estate of Lorenza Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LANALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 1207 November 2, 1905 - PIA BASA v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 1497 November 2, 1905 - TOMANA VERA MOGUER v. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 2206 November 2, 1905 - MANUEL GASPAR v. JUAN B. MOLINA

    005 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2263 November 2, 1905 - CIPRIANO SANIDAD v. SIMON CABOTAJE

    005 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 2304 November 3, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 1078 November 7, 1905 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R.C. BALDWIN

    005 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 1791 November 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENO v. LA COMPAÑIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN

    005 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 2089 November 7, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRIQUE RIJANO

    005 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2297 November 7, 1905 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA

    005 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 1341 November 8, 1905 - URSULA LIQUETE v. EULALIO DARIO

    005 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 1284 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 1528 November 10, 1905 - JOSE ENRIQUEZ v. AURORA BARRIO

    005 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 1975 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    005 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 2296 November 10, 1905 - J.F. WRIGHT v. LA COMPAÑIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 2322 November 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BASILISO BASTAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2332 November 10, 1905 - MIGUEL EVANGELISTA v. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 1308 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 1642 November 11, 1905 - JUAN NOEL v. MARIANO LASALA

    005 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2008 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 2184 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 2371 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 2425 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. UN CHE SAT

    005 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 2444 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO CAGARA

    005 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 1440 November 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 2773 November 14, 1905 - HARRY J. COLLINS v. G.N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1898 November 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE

    005 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2121 November 15, 1905 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ANTONIO IRIBAR

    005 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 1465 November 17, 1905 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 1789 November 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 2125 November 15, 1905 - PEDRO IBAÑEZ v. ANA ORTIZ

    005 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2019 November 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL

    005 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1165 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO FELIPE

    005 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 1261 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIANO ANONUEVO

    005 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 1647 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUCTO OCAMPO

    005 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 2289 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOE HUTCHINSON

    005 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 1693 November 22, 1905 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA v. JOHN S. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 2436 November 22, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MAZA

    005 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 2153 November 23, 1905 - H. FRANKEL, ET AL. v. M.A. CLARKE

    005 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 1036 November 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO VALENCIA

    005 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 1696 November 27, 1905 - VICENTA RODRIGUEZ v. MARIANO LANALA

    005 Phil 357