Dadivas vs. Villanueva Digest

TOPIC: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE (RELIEF) LEGAL PROVISION:
ART. 72 (FC). When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief. (116a)
CASE: DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA VS. VILLANUEVA. 54 Phil. 92. GR No. L-29959. December 3, 1929 PLAINTIFF: Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva (Wife) DEFENDANT: Rafael Villanueva (Husband) NATURE OF THE CASE: The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Plaintiff filed a case against the Defendant on May 27, 1927 for the purpose of obtaining separate maintenance and custody of two younger minor children. As well as a proper allowance for professional legal services rendered by the Plaintiffs attorney. Upon hearing the cause the trial court absolved the defendant from the complaint and abrogated a prior order of the court for maintenance pendent lite, with costs against the plaintiff. From this judgment, the plaintiff appealed. FACTS: 1. July 16, 1905- Plaintiff and Defendant were married. 2. Manila- place of marriage and residence of the couple. 3. Children: Antonio- 18 yrs. Guillermo- 10 yrs., minor Sergio- 9 yrs., minor 4. Infidelity and cruelty- grounds on which separate maintenance is sought Page 1 of 5 ...Perfam Case Digest/Midterms/21st August 2011/19:30/jfadlp
5. Proof of infidelity -ten years prior to the institution of the action, the defendant was guilty of repeated acts of infidelity with four different women. 6. Incorrigible nature of the defendant in relations with other women and brutality towards the plaintiff caused the plaintiff to establish a separate abode for herself and two minor children. 7. April 20, 1927 -occurrence of final separation of wife (plaintiff) and husband (defendant). -the month before the plaintiff filed an appeal to obtain separate maintenance. 8. Proof to the charge of cruelty -does not establish a case for separate maintenance -unproved and insufficient 9. Repeated acts of conjugal infidelity (by the husband/defendant) -proved -recurrent -gives wife (plaintiff) an undeniable right to relief ISSUE: Whether the wife has an undeniable right to relief
HELD: The decision/judgment of the lower court was reversed in favor of the wife/plaintiff and against the husband/defendant. It was ordered that the plaintiff have and recover of the defendant the sum of Php. 2,000 for attorneys fees, Php. 720 for expenses of procuring transcript and Php. 500 per month, beginning April 1, 1928. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff by way of maintenance on or before the 10th day of each month, the sum of Php. 500. RATIONALE: Page 2 of 5 ...Perfam Case Digest/Midterms/21st August 2011/19:30/jfadlp
In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate maintenance from her husband, it is not necessary that the husband should bring a concubine into the marital domicile. Repeated illicit relations with women outside of the marital establishment are enough. The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose propensity towards other women makes common habitation with him unbearable. CASE: GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO AND SANTIAGO. 53 Phil. 952. GR No. L-28904. December 29, 1928 PLAINTIFF: Cipriana Garcia DEFENDANT: Isabelo Santiago and Alejo Santiago NATURE OF THE CASE: The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing the complaint. FACTS: 1. April 8, 1910- alleged date of marriage between the plaintiff, Cipriana Garcia and the defendant, Isabelo Santiago. 2. February 3, 1925- the date when the plaintiff was compelled to leave her conjugal dwelling due to continued family dissensions. 3. Alejo Santiago (Defendant No. 2) -Son of Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1) -allegedly seduced Prisca Aurelio 4. Prisca Aurelio daughter of Cipriana Garcia (the Plaintiff) -gave birth to a child that was allegedly Alejo Santiagos child 5. Isabelo Santiago
Page 3 of 5 ...Perfam Case Digest/Midterms/21st August 2011/19:30/jfadlp
-failed to see the vindication of the honor of Prisca Aurelio, the plaintiffs daughter by requiring his son to marry her. - refused to get involved with the matter, thus seemingly countenancing the illicit relations between his son and the plaintiffs daughter -has allegedly conveyed/been conveying their conjugal properties to Alejo to foster latters whims & caprices and thus, damaging & prejudicing her rights. Some of these properties include lands acquired during the plaintiffs and the defendants marriage with money belonging to the conjugal partnership. -publicly maintained illicit relationship with Geronima Yap 6. February 3, 1925 -separation of the plaintiff and defendant. -the separation was necessary to avoid personal violence 7. Isabelo Santiago -continually refused to provide for the plaintiffs support 8. Cipriana Garcia (the plaintiff) -could not live in their conjugal dwelling because of the illicit relationship between her daughter, Prisca Aurelio and Alejo Santiago, countenanced by the other defendant, Isabelo Santiago. -demanded that she is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite monthly pension from conjugal partnership -claimed that her husband, Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1) has shown himself unfit to administer the property of conjugal partnership and the court should therefore order its administration to be placed in her hands. ISSUE/RATIONALE: 1. Whether their separation is unjustified NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to the frequent fights.Isabelo ordered her to leave the house & threatened to illtreat her if she returned. Priscas situation is embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo caused Priscas pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead to further quarrels. 2. Whether transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal
NO. Failed to prove that property was community property. Documentary evidence even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage. 3.Whether Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance NO. Thats too much. P50.00 would be enough. 4. Whether Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right. 5. Whether Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorneys fees NO. HELD: That the judgment appealed from is therefore modified. Separation is allowed. Isabelo is ordered to provide Cipriana with a P50.00 monthly allowance to be paid within the first 10 days of the month. No costs allowed.

Dadivas vs. Villanueva Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dadivas vs. Villanueva Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dadivas vs. Villanueva Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE (RELIEF) LEGAL PROVISION:

Page 3 of 5 ...Perfam Case Digest/Midterms/21st August 2011/19:30/jfadlp

Page 4 of 5 ...Perfam Case Digest/Midterms/21st August 2011/19:30/jfadlp

Page 5 of 5 ...Perfam Case Digest/Midterms/21st August 2011/19:30/jfadlp

You might also like