Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > November 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20043 November 28, 1964 - LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO v. ANGEL CUADERNO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-20043. November 28, 1964.]

LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO, Petitioner, v. ANGEL CUADERNO, Respondent.

R. L. Ramos and O. F. Disini for Petitioner.

Severino C. Dominguez for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; RIGHT TO LIVE TOGETHER; CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY LEGAL MANDATE. — While marriage entitles both parties to cohabitation or consortium, the sanction therefore is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order.

2. ID.; SUPPORT; P150 MONTHLY SUPPORT FROM HUSBAND NOT UNREASONABLE WHERE HUSBAND GAVE CAUSE FOR SEPARATION. — In the instant case, it is not disputed that the infliction of physical injuries on the wife, by the husband, gave rise to their separation. It is likewise shown it was the husband who took his wife to her parents’ home where he left her. The fact that the wife allegedly accepted money from her husband and desisted from accepting any later, because according to the latter, she was demanding for more, only indicates that even before the filing of the present case, the defendant-husband was already providing something for the separate maintenance. Considering that the wife has no income of her own, while the husband has an employment, the sum of P150.00 fixed by the trial court for the wife’s monthly support does not seem to be unreasonable.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


As a consequence of a complaint for support filed by Lourdes Ramirez-Cuaderno on August 14, 1957, against her husband Angel Cuaderno, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, after due hearing, rendered judgment ordering the latter to give the plaintiff- wife a monthly support of P150.00, from the date of the filing of the complaint, plus attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs. On appeal by the husband to the Court of Appeals, said decision was reversed and set aside "so that (in the language of the court) appellant and appellee may again resume cohabitation which they are hereby admonished to do as their duty as husband and wife." The wife filed the instant petition for review of the aforesaid ruling of the Court of Appeals.

It has been established that the couple were living separately since November 17, 1956 when the husband, after having inflicted bodily injuries on the wife in the course of a quarrel between them, took her to her mother’s house where the latter stayed until the institution of the claim for support. The wife claimed maltreatment and abandonment by the husband as basis therefor, whereas the husband, in resisting her demand for maintenance, contended that it was she who left the conjugal dwelling and, consequently, is not entitled thereto.

The trial court, in granting the wife’s demand, sustained the theory that she was driven out of the dwelling or, at least prevented from returning thereto by reason of defendant’s maltreatment. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, while adopting the findings of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court as to the husband’s role in the incident that led to the separation, and notwithstanding the declaration by the husband during the hearing that "all the trouble she (the wife) has given me is enough for me to turn my back to her" set aside the decision of the lower court, on the ground that it believes that the conditions were such that cohabitation between the spouses is not yet impossible. Thus, they were admonished to live together as husband and wife. 1

We recognize the wisdom of the exhortation that in the interest of society, and perhaps of the parties, courts should move with caution in providing separate maintenance for the wife, a situation which would be an acknowledgement of the de facto separation of the spouses. However, it would be taking an unrealistic view for us to compel or urge them to live together when, at least for the present, they, specially the husband, are speaking of impossibility of cohabitation. For while marriage entitles both parties to cohabitation or consortium, the sanction therefore is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife 2 and not any legal mandate or court order. This is due to the inherent characteristic and nature of marriage in this jurisdiction.

In the instant case, it is not disputed that the infliction of physical injuries on the wife, by the husband, gave rise to their separation. It is likewise shown it was the husband who took his wife to her parents’ home where he left her. The fact that the wife allegedly accepted money from her husband and desisted from accepting any later, because according to the latter, she was demanding for more, only indicates that even before the filing of the present case, the defendant-husband was already providing something for the separate maintenance. Considering that the wife has no income of her own, while the husband has an employment, the sum of P150.00 fixed by the trial court for the wife’s monthly support does not seem to be unreasonable. Needless to state that, as the separation has been brought about by the husband and under the circumstances established during the trial, the same shall subsist until a different situation between the parties shall take place.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside and that of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is hereby revived, without costs. So ordered.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See Arroyo v. Velasquez de Arroyo, 42 Phil. 54.

2. Vol. I, Tolentino’s Civil Code of the Phil., p. 296, 299.




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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17064 November 9, 1964 - FIDEL GERALDEZ v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19642 November 9, 1964 - IN RE: NILDA TSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17020 November 17, 1964 - PABLO ALMARINEZ v. CRESENCIANA MANABAT POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17118 November 17, 1964 - IN RE: UY ENG HIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16677 November 27, 1964 - LAMBERTO YNOTORIO, ET AL. v. CANUTA LIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17445 November 27, 1964 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17642 November 27, 1964 - CANDIDA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18922 November 27, 1964 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18208 November 27, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-19133 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. L-20138 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR SEGARINO Y BORGA

  • G.R. No. L-21951 November 27, 1964 - IN RE: UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-9866-7 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN TIONGSON Y DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14250 November 28, 1964 - MARIA LOURDES PRIANES v. FERMIN HENSON

  • G.R. No. L-15945 November 28, 1964 - PORFIRIO VILLAMOR v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

  • G.R. Nos. L-16076-77 November 28, 1964 - ESTEBAN VILLANUEVA v. MISAMIS LUMBER Co., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17249 November 28, 1964 - LICOTEDRA PARCOTILO v. FILOMENA PARCOTILO

  • G.R. No. L-17401 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO RAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-17469 November 28, 1964 - JUAN SORIANO v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

  • G.R. No. L-17850 November 28, 1964 - JOSE MALIMIT v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-18116 November 28, 1964 - CLODUALDO MENESES v. ESTANISLAO LUAT

  • G.R. Nos L-18444-45 November 28, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN

  • G.R. No. L-18487 November 28, 1964 - GENERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18621 November 28, 1964 - SALVADOR D. LACUNA v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS

  • G.R. No. L-18891 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. MELCHOR TIONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19299 November 28, 1964 - FELIZA JOVEN DE JESUS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-19473 November 28, 1964 - REMEDIOS L. VDA. DE LACSAMANA v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-19518 November 28, 1964 - TRINIDAD A. DEAÑO v. DIOGENEZ GODINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19519 November 28, 1964 - IN RE: ANANIAS ABUSTAN v. RUPERTO FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-19564 November 28, 1964 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-19733 November 28, 1964 - ARSENIO L. CANLAS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-20031 November 28, 1964 - MAGDALENA RULLAN v. BERNARDO O. VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20043 November 28, 1964 - LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO v. ANGEL CUADERNO

  • G.R. No. L-20228 November 28, 1964 - ROMANA CAMPITA v. AQUILINO L. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-20345 November 28, 1964 - RICARDO HAUTEA v. RAMON S. MAGALLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20403 November 28, 1964 - TOMAS S. CARPIO v. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-20484 November 28, 1964 - VIDAL PAULINO v. ADELAIDA ROSENDO

  • G.R. No. L-20860 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-21189 November 28, 1964 - JOSE AVENDAÑO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, ET AL.