Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 146 views

    Brown v. Yambao

    Uploaded by

    Lucila Mangrobang
    William Brown filed for legal separation from his wife Juanita Yambao, alleging adultery during their internment in WWII. However, the court assistant found Brown had also committed adultery, barring him from claiming legal separation as the innocent spouse. The court dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court upheld this, finding the assistant properly inquired into circumstances of collusion like both parties' adultery. The court further noted Brown filed over the 5-year period allowed, so his claim was time-barred. Dismissal was proper to uphold marriage as a social institution governed by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Brown v. Yambao

    Uploaded by

    Lucila Mangrobang
    146 views1 page
    William Brown filed for legal separation from his wife Juanita Yambao, alleging adultery during their internment in WWII. However, the court assistant found Brown had also committed adultery, barring him from claiming legal separation as the innocent spouse. The court dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court upheld this, finding the assistant properly inquired into circumstances of collusion like both parties' adultery. The court further noted Brown filed over the 5-year period allowed, so his claim was time-barred. Dismissal was proper to uphold marriage as a social institution governed by law.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest for Person

    Original Title

    152. Brown v. Yambao

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William Brown filed for legal separation from his wife Juanita Yambao, alleging adultery during their internment in WWII. However, the court assistant found Brown had also committed adultery, barring him from claiming legal separation as the innocent spouse. The court dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court upheld this, finding the assistant properly inquired into circumstances of collusion like both parties' adultery. The court further noted Brown filed over the 5-year period allowed, so his claim was time-barred. Dismissal was proper to uphold marriage as a social institution governed by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    146 views1 page

    Brown v. Yambao

    Uploaded by

    Lucila Mangrobang
    William Brown filed for legal separation from his wife Juanita Yambao, alleging adultery during their internment in WWII. However, the court assistant found Brown had also committed adultery, barring him from claiming legal separation as the innocent spouse. The court dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court upheld this, finding the assistant properly inquired into circumstances of collusion like both parties' adultery. The court further noted Brown filed over the 5-year period allowed, so his claim was time-barred. Dismissal was proper to uphold marriage as a social institution governed by law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Brown v.

    Yambao
    G.R. No. L-10699. 18 October 1957
    Reyes, J.

    FACTS: William H. Brown filed a suit to obtain legal separation from his wife Juanita
    Yambao on 1955. He alleged while interned by the Japanese invaders at the UST internment
    camp, respondent had adulterous relation with Carlos field of whom she had a baby with
    and only upon his release from internment on 1945, Brown learned of his wife’s
    misconduct. Upon knowing, they lived separately and later executed a document (Annex A)
    liquidating their conjugal partnership.

    The wife failed to answer in due time despite service of summon, thus the Court of
    First Instance of Manila declared in accordance with Article 101 of the Civil Code, to
    determine within 15 days if there is a collusion between the parties. Also the City Fiscal or
    his representative is directed to intervene in the case in behalf of the State.

    Assistant City Fiscal Rafael Jose then appeared at the trial and cross-examined the
    petitioner, finding out that Brown had lived martially with another woman and had children
    with her. Therefore, the court denied the legal separation on the ground both had incurred
    adulterous relationships and under Article 100, the legal separation may only be claimed by
    the innocent spouse.

    ISSUE: W.O.N CFI erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint

    RULING: NO. Brown agrues that in his cross-examination, the prosectution should have
    limited to finding out if there is a collusion, and stop if there is none. And the truth is, the
    prosecution intervenes for Juanita Yambao, who is a private citizen and far from being the
    state. The argument is refutable.

    Collusion in matrimonial cases is the act of procuring divorce by mutual consent by the
    married persons, by the commission of one matrimonial offense, or by failure. The Fiscal
    acted within his legitimate exercise of duty to give light in any circumstances that brought
    about the legal separation. One such circumstance is obviously the fact of Brown's
    cohabitation with a woman other than his wife, since it bars him from claiming legal
    separation by express provision of Article 100 of the new Civil Code. Hence, evidence of
    such misconduct is within the proper subject of inquiry as they may be justifiably considered
    circumstantial evidence of collusion.

    The policy of Article 101 of the new Civil Code, calling for the intervention of the state
    attorneys in proceeding for legal separation (and annulment of marriages) is to emphasize
    marriage is more than a mere contract; it is a social institution which the state is interested
    and continuation and interruption are governed by law. Under Article 102, action for legal
    separation can not be filed except within one (1) year from and after the plaintiff became
    cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when such cause
    occurred. But since Brown filed the petition 10 years after, the action had been prescribed.

    Though the respondent has not interposed prescription as a defense, nevertheless, the
    courts can take cognizance thereof, because actions seeking a decree of legal separation,
    or annulment of marriage involves public interest and in accordance with the law, no such
    petition shall be granted if legal obstacles are present.

    You might also like