Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    De Ocampo V

    Uploaded by

    Na-eehs Noicpecnoc Namzug
    1) Jose de Ocampo filed for legal separation from his wife due to adultery but was denied by the lower court. The appellate court found the first adultery claim had prescribed but did not grant the separation for the second claim of adultery. 2) The Supreme Court held that while the wife's confession of adultery happened outside of court, there was still preponderance of evidence to grant the legal separation. Not allowing the separation despite evidence would undermine the law. 3) Rodolfo and his wife mutually agreed to live separately and see other people without interference. However, the court held this agreement could not legalize an illicit act and was void, so Rodolfo was still

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Ocampo V

    Uploaded by

    Na-eehs Noicpecnoc Namzug
    62 views3 pages
    1) Jose de Ocampo filed for legal separation from his wife due to adultery but was denied by the lower court. The appellate court found the first adultery claim had prescribed but did not grant the separation for the second claim of adultery. 2) The Supreme Court held that while the wife's confession of adultery happened outside of court, there was still preponderance of evidence to grant the legal separation. Not allowing the separation despite evidence would undermine the law. 3) Rodolfo and his wife mutually agreed to live separately and see other people without interference. However, the court held this agreement could not legalize an illicit act and was void, so Rodolfo was still

    Original Title

    De Ocampo v

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jose de Ocampo filed for legal separation from his wife due to adultery but was denied by the lower court. The appellate court found the first adultery claim had prescribed but did not grant the separation for the second claim of adultery. 2) The Supreme Court held that while the wife's confession of adultery happened outside of court, there was still preponderance of evidence to grant the legal separation. Not allowing the separation despite evidence would undermine the law. 3) Rodolfo and his wife mutually agreed to live separately and see other people without interference. However, the court held this agreement could not legalize an illicit act and was void, so Rodolfo was still

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views3 pages

    De Ocampo V

    Uploaded by

    Na-eehs Noicpecnoc Namzug
    1) Jose de Ocampo filed for legal separation from his wife due to adultery but was denied by the lower court. The appellate court found the first adultery claim had prescribed but did not grant the separation for the second claim of adultery. 2) The Supreme Court held that while the wife's confession of adultery happened outside of court, there was still preponderance of evidence to grant the legal separation. Not allowing the separation despite evidence would undermine the law. 3) Rodolfo and his wife mutually agreed to live separately and see other people without interference. However, the court held this agreement could not legalize an illicit act and was void, so Rodolfo was still

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    De Ocampo v.

    Florenciano

    Facts: Petitioner Jose de Ocampo filed a complaint of adultery against his wife but was denied
    by the Court of First Instance. Through several testimonies, it was found that in March 1951,
    defendant maintained illicit relations with one Jose Arcalas. After plaintiff found out, defendant
    was sent to Manila to study wherein she had several illicit relations with other men. On June
    1955, plaintiff found his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with one Nelson Orzame. Plaintiff
    then and there told his wife of his intention of filing for legal separation. The Court of Appeals
    held that the time for filing a charge of adultery on the first case had prescribed. Also, on the
    second case, CA held that they cannot render a decree of separation on the ground of
    confession of judgment.

    Issue: Whether or not the decree of legal separation should be granted.

    Held: The court held that the “confession of judgment”--which happens when a defendant
    confesses in court the right of plaintiff to his demand, did not occur because such confession
    happened outside of court. Had there been a confession of judgment, the decree should still be
    granted since there was a preponderance of evidence as provided by the plaintiff. If the court
    will not allow separation despite of the evidence, any defendant who opposes separation will
    merely confess in court.
    People v.Schnekenburger

    Facts:

    Rodolfo Schneckenburger married complainant Elena Cartagena, afterwhich they


    decided to live separately and entered into a mutual agreement whereby each could live with
    others, have carnal knowledge of them, without interference from the other. Pursuant to the said
    agreement, the husband lived with another woman, and in the prosecution for concubinage, he
    presented in defense the prior agreement or consent.

    Issue:

    Whether or not he is guilty of concubinage inspite of the fact that they had a mutual
    agreement

    Ruling:

    The court held that he is not guilty of concubinage in view of the consent of the wife. The
    law do not construed legalizing an agreement to do an illicit act, in violation of law. The
    agreement is still null and void because it is contrary to to the law and morals. Because the girl
    had previously consented, she is now undeserving of sympathy. She deserves less
    consideration than a woman who condones. An agreement of the tenor entered into between
    the parties herein, operates, within the plain language and manifest policy of the law, to bar the
    offended party from prosecuting the offense. If there is anything morally condemnatory in a
    situation of his character, the remedy lies not with us but with the legislative department of the
    government. What the law is, not what it should be, defines the limits of our authority.
    Siochi v. Gozon

    Facts:

    On 23 December 1991, Elvira filed a petition for legal separation against her husband
    Alfredo. On 2 January 1992, Elvira filed a notice of lis pendens, which was then annotated on
    TCT No. 5357.During the pendency of the case for legal separation, Alfredo and Mario Siochi
    (Mario) entered into an Agreement to Buy and Sell5 involving the property for the price of P18
    million. Among the stipulations in the Agreement were that Alfredo would: (1) secure an Affidavit
    from Elvira that the property is Alfredo’s exclusive property and to annotate the Agreement at
    the back of TCT No. 5357; (2) secure the approval of the Cavite RTC to exclude the property
    from the legal separation case; and (3) secure the removal of the notice of lis pendens
    pertaining to the said case and annotated on TCT No. 5357. However, despite repeated
    demands from Mario, Alfredo failed to comply with these stipulations. After paying the P5 million
    earnest money as partial payment of the purchase price, Mario took possession of the property
    in September 1993. On 6 September 1993, the Agreement was annotated on TCT No. 5357.
    The RTC granted the decree of legal separation between petitioner and respondent. With
    regards to the property, the Cavite RTC held that it is deemed conjugal property.Alfredo
    executed a Deed of Donation over the property in favor of their daughter, Winifred Gozon. The
    Register of Deeds of Malabon, Gil Tabije, cancelled TCT No. 5357 and issued TCT No. M-
    105088 in the name of Winifred, without annotating the Agreement and the notice of lis pendens
    on TCT No. M-10508. Alfredo, through SPA sold the property to Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc.
    (IDRI) for P18 million.10 IDRI paid Alfredo P18 million, representing full payment for the
    property.11 Subsequently, the Register of Deeds of Malabon cancelled TCT No. M-10508 and
    issued TCT No. M-1097612 to IDRI.

    Mario then filed with the Malabon Regional Trial Court a complaint for Specific
    Performance and Damages, Annulment of Donation and Sale, with Preliminary Mandatory and
    Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the share of Alfredo Gozon in the said property should be forfeited in
    view of the legal separation between them.

    Ruling:

    Article 124 of the Family Code provides that the administration and enjoyment of the
    conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the
    husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to the recourse to the court by the wife for a proper
    remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing
    such decision.In this case, Alfredo was the sole administrator of the property because Elvira,
    was unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal property. However, as sole
    administrator of the property, Alfredo still cannot sell the property without the written consent of
    Elvira or the authority of the court. Without such consent or authority, the sale is void.16

    You might also like