CASE 1: People v. Zapata & Bondoc In the CFI of Pampanga, Andres Bondoc filed a complaint of adultery v.

wife Guadalupe Zapata and Dalmacio Bondoc, her paramour a. For cohabiting and repeated sexual intercourse from 1946 to 1947 (date of filing complaint) b. Dalmacio knew Guadalupe to be married 2.) Guadalupe pleaded guilty; 4 mos. Of arresto mayor 3.) Andres filed another complaint in 1948 for adulterous acts committed by his wife and Dalmacio from 1947 to 1948 a. Defendants filed motion to quash complaint bec. They would be put in jeopardy of punishment for SAME OFFENSE. b. CFI quashed 2nd complaint of Andres i. Ruled that adulterous acts charged in 1st and 2nd complaints be deemed ONE CONTINUOUS OFFENSE a. Same parties, two sets of unlawful acts from 1946-1947; 1947 to 1948 b. No person shal be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense SC Ruling: 1.) Adultery is a crime of result, not of tendency a. SC of Spain: INSTANTANEOUS CRIME i. Consummated or exhausted or completed at the moment of carnal union 2.) EACH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE constitutes A CRIME OF ADULTERY 3.) Identity of offended, status, society does not argue against commission of the crime of adultery as many times as there were carnal acts consummated i. As long as status remains unchanged; nexus remains undissolved or unbroken a. Encroachment upon that status = crime ii. No consti or legal provi. Barring filing of as many complaints for adultery as there were adulterous acts committed a. Each constitutes ONE CRIME 4.) CONCEPT of CONTINUOUS CRIME a. Favorable to transgressors; against interest of society i. To exist, plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time ii. Unity of penal provisions infringed upon or violated iii. Unity of criminal intent or purpose 1. 2 or more viol. Of the same penal provi. Are united in one and same intent leading to perpretation of same criminal purpose or aim b. In People v Zapata & Bondoc: i. Unity does not exist 1. Culprits perpetrate crime in every sexual intercourse 2. Need not do another or other adulterous acts to consummate it 3. Culprits committed adulterous acts AGAIN after adulterous acts filed in complaint ii. Another crime of adultery committed 1. If defendants, after releave during pendency of their case after which they were convicted HAD SEX. INTERCOURSE up to time when they were sent to prison to serve penalty nd 5.) 2 complaint does not violate double jeopardy clause of consti a. If defendant alleged he did not know Guadalupe was a married woman in response to the first complaint, i. How can he be absolved of said crime in the 2nd complaint, knowing then that Guadalupe WAS NOT SINGLE. 1. This fact would remain unpunished b. Even w/ pardon, pardon does not cover acts during 1946 to 1947 i. Pardon refers to previous, NOT subsequent adulterous acts 1.)

CASE 2: Munoz v. del Barrio Note: Art. 97, No. 2 of CIVIL CODE (not yet FC, bec. 15 April 1955)

An attempt on the life of a person implies that the actor in the attempt is MOVED BY AN INTENTION TO KILL the person against whom the attempt is made. MALTREATMENTS by a husband of his wife, like giving her fist blows on the face, boxing her on the abdomen, pulling her hair and twisting her neck, DO NOT CONSTITUTE attempts on the life of said spouse as provi. In said article. FACTS 1.) 2.) 3.) Civil marriage and canonical marriage bet. Felicidad Munoz and Jose del Barrio Union bore 2 children; Couple lived together in del Barrios fathers house for 6 mos. Couple had frequent quarrels a. Jose maltreated Felicidad i. Couple unceremoniously sepa. In 1947; wife in Meycawayan, husband in Manila 1. Met in Manila, maltreated in 1950/ Jan. and Sept. of 1951 b. Felicidad was then moved to file this action in CFI of Bulacan, alleging: i. System of Conjugal Partnership of GAINS governs marriage with respond. ii. No property acquired during marriage, except portion of residential land in Bulacan; no rentals are obtained from this iii. RESPONDENT HAS MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS ON THE LIFE OF FELICIDAD 1. This compelled her to live separately 2. Respond. Does not give support for Felicidad and children iv. Felicidad demanded: 1. Decree for legal sepa. 2. Custody of children (minors) 3. Respond. Be directed to contribute to support of children 4. Fees be deducted from conjugal partnership 5. Dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership of property after division in equal parts bet. Felicidad and Jose c. CFI ruled: i. Dismissed complaint of Felicidad d. Art. 97 of CC is still the same i. May be filed for adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband ii. Any attempt by one spouse against the life of the other e. MALTREATMENTS =/= attempt by one spouse on the life of the other i. REASONING: Feli. Did not institute action upon effectivity of CC in 1950, only in 1951 after alleged maltreatment had taken place was this action filed f. MALTREATMENT by Jovita Faustino (witness) i. Blow to the face ii. Patrolman Mallari: ecchymosis (pts. Of neck blackened) iii. Atty. Macias: boxed on abdomen, pulled her hair, twisted the neck SC RULING: 1.) Attempt on life of person a. MOVED BY INTENTION TO KILL the person against whom attempt is made i. Cannot declare that maltreatments were tainted w/ such intent to kill ii. INTENTION TO TAKE LIFE 1. Must be proved with same degree of certainty as is required of other elements of a crime a. Proof must be adduced that acts were calculated to produce death of the person 2. Intention can only be gleaned from external acts; a. When acts have clear given a definite result, COURTS SHOULD NOT w/o clear and conclusive proof, hold that some other result was intended b. U.S. v. Reyes i. Personal assault must be punished ACCORDING TO ITS CONSEQUENCES and HARM DONE to victim, unless intention of taking ones life be CLEARLY MANIFESTED 2.) Respondent only used bare fists; stopped after first fist blows 3.) As to civil case nature (only requiring preponderance of evidence), a. As re intent to kill, i. INTENT TO KILL MUST BE ESTABLISHED w/ CLEAR and CONVINCING EVIDENCE; intent here has not been sufficiently proven b. FELICIDAD should not have been so sure of her action bec. She dared not to cause prosec. Of her husband for ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE as means of establishing her right to secure legal sepa. She applies for in this case PETITION DISMISSED; DECISION OF CFI of BULACAN affirmed

CASE 3: GANDIONCO v. PENARANDA FACTS: 1.) Civil action for certiorari ordering peti. To pay support PENDENTE LITE to private respon. (wife) and child & Order of judge denying peti.s motion to suspend hearings in the action for legal sepa.

1986, Penaranda filed complaint against Peti. For legal sepa. On ground of concubinage (RTC) a. w/ peti for support and damages 3.) 1986, Penaranda also filed complaint w/MTC criminal case for concubinage a. Applied for support pendent elite = GRANTED 4.) GANDIONCO asserts that civil action for legal sepa and app for support pendent elite SHOULD BE suspended i. Bec. Of criminal case for concubinage filed against him by respondent. ii. After crim action has been commenced, civil action arising from same offense SHALL BE SUSPENDED until final judgment be rendered on crim. Complaint SC RULING: 1.) Petitioner INCORRECT as re. suspension of CIVIL ACTION a. Jerusalem , based on the THEN RoC on crim. Proceedings b. Did not clearly state that civil action to be suspended IS ONE w/c is to enforce civil liability arising from the offense i. CIVIL ACTION for Legal Sepa. based on Concubinage MAY PROCEED ahead of or simulatenously w/ crim. Complaint 1. BEC. Not one to enforce civil liab arising from offense 2. This Civil Action is meant to obtain RIGHT TO LIVE SEPARATELY a. Including consequences such as dissolution of CPof Gains i. Custody of offsprings ii. Support iii. Disquali. From inheriting from innocent spouse 3. Action for Legal Sepa. = Not to recover or enforce civil liab. From offense a. Aimed at conjugal rights of the spouses and relations to each other 2.) Petitioner INCORRECT as re. NEED for CONVICTION in crim. Complaint of Concubinage before Action for Legal Sepa. Can prosper; basis for legal sepa is alleged offense of CONCUBINAGE a. Decree of legal sepa. On ground of concubinage i. Issued upon preponderance of evidence in action for legal sepa. ii. No crim. Conviction/proceeding necessary

2.)

MINOR ISSUES 3.) Peti. Must pay support pendent elite = no grave abuse of discretion by judge 4.) Not right that judge be disqualified bec. Of differences of opinion w/ petitioners counsel

CASE 4: LAPUZ v. EUFEMIO VERY IMPORTANT NOTES: 1.) Action for legal sepa. w/c involves nothing more than bed and board sepa. Is PURELY PERSONAL a. Only innocent spouse may claim legal sepa. (Art. 100 of CC) b. Reconciliation of spouses can stop or abate proceedings & EVEN RESCIND DECREE of Legal Sepa. Already rendered (Art. 108 of CC) c. Death of one of the spouses = death of action itself BEC. IT IS PURELY PERSONAL 2.) Even if it involves property rights

a.

Review of property relations changes bet. spiouses = effect of decree of legal sepa. i. Cannot survive death of plaintiff if it occurs prior to decree ii. Right to dissolve Conjugal partnership of gains, loss of right of offending spouse to inherit = purely personal; not assignable

FACTS: 1.) Petition for dismissal of action for legal sepa. Instituted by Carmen Lapuz Sy a. Primarily bec. Of death of Carmen during PENDENCY of the CASE i. Order made on objection of MACARIO LAPUZ, heir of Carmen Lapuz Sy (and peti. Here) = wanted to substitute and wanted to have case prosecuted to final judgment 2.) 1953 Carmen filed peti. For legal sepa. Against Eufemio Eufemio a. Alleging that they were married civilly and canonically in 1934; had lived together until 1943 i. Eufemio x 2 allegedly abandoned her ii. They had no child iii. Acquired properties during their marriage b. Carmen discovered Eufemio cohabitaing w/ Chinese woman (Go Hiok) in 1949 c. Wanted decree of legal sepa. That would deprive Eufemio of their share in conjugal partnership profits 3.) Eufemio filed counterclaim for decla. Of absolute nullity of marriage w/ Carmen a. BASED ON prior and subsisting marriage celebrated acc. To CHINESE LAW and CUSTOMS w/ Go Hiok/ Ngo Hiok 4.) CARMEN DIED IN A VEHICULAR ACCIDENT 5.) Eufemio moved to dismiss bec. a. Peti for Legal Sepa. Filed beyond one year period in Art. 102 of CC b. Death of Carmen abated action for legal sepa. 6.) Counsel for Carmen moved to substitute Macario Lapuz (father of Carmen) 7.) COUNTERCLAIMS were not pursued after dismissial of peti. For legal sepa. SC RULING: Petition for legal sepa. And counterclaim for decla. Of absolute nullity of marriage CAN STAND INDEPENDENT & separate adjudication Action for legal. Sepa. Did not convert to action for decla. Bec. LEGAL SEPA. Presupposes a valid marriage, while petition for nullity has VOIDABLE MARRIAGE as a precondition On Issue 1: Action for Legal Sepa is of a PURELY PERSONAL NATURE; Death of one of the spouses = abatement of the action - ART. 106 c. Decree of Legal Sepa. Shall have the ff. effects i. Spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but marriage bonds shall not be severed ii. Conjugal partnership of gains or absolute conjugal community of property shall be dissolved and liquidated, but offending spouse sjal have no right to any share of the profits earned by the partnership/ community w iii. Custody of minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, unless otherwise directed by court in the interest of said minors (for whom court may appoint a guardian) iv. Offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from innocent spouse by intestate succession. Provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent one SHALL BE REVOKED IN OPERATION OF LAW d. These rights are vested in the person of the spouses; ergo same as action for legal sepa. RIGHTS not transmissible/assignable 4.) Sec. 17 of RoC (that legal rep. of deceased shall be ordered by the Court to appear and be substituted for the deceased) BASED ON enumeration of actions that survive for or against administrators i. No action for claim for recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against exector or admin. ii. ACTIONS TO RECOVER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, INTEREST THEREIN FROM THE ESTATE 1. TO ENFORCE LIEN THEREON 2. RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY may be commenced iii. Actions for Legal Sepa. Or Annulment of Marriage NOT INCLUDED in enum. iv. RIGHTS source is decree of legal sepa. ; w/o decree, no rights exist v. Settlement of property rights necessitate SEPARATE ACTION vi. Nullification of marriage is MOOT (back then; vs. now) 5.) SPECIAL TO NOTE: a. Even if bigamous marriage had not been VOID AB INITIO but only voidable i. Bec. 2nd marriage had been contracted w/ the first wife having been absentee for 7 CONSECUTIVE YEARS, action for annulment became extinghiisedh as soon as one of the three persons involved had DIED 1. ACTION FOR ANNULMENT must be brought during lifetime of any one of the parties involved. Liquidiation of any conjugal partnership that might have resulted from such voidable marriage MUST BE CARRIED OUT in testate or intestate proceedings of deceased spouse; NOT IN ANNULMENT PROCEEDING.