Scribd
Upload
137 views1 page

Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996 Facts

The petitioner entered her husband's clinic without permission and took 157 documents including private correspondence, cards, checks, diaries and photos to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that the documents must be returned as they were obtained in violation of the husband's constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding that a spouse does not forfeit their right to privacy upon marriage, and the documents were inadmissible.

Uploaded by

Nicko
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
137 views1 page

Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996 Facts

The petitioner entered her husband's clinic without permission and took 157 documents including private correspondence, cards, checks, diaries and photos to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that the documents must be returned as they were obtained in violation of the husband's constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding that a spouse does not forfeit their right to privacy upon marriage, and the documents were inadmissible.

Uploaded by

Nicko
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

10.

applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself


aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party against
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
Facts: exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a
“lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals,
otherwise, as prescribed by law.”  Any violation of this provision
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch
renders the evidence obtained inadmissible “for any purpose in
X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and papers taken
any proceeding.” 
by her from private respondent’s clinic without the latter’s
knowledge and consent.  The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of
them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or
husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the Ipresence of her mother,
his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
a driver and private respondent’s secretary, forcibly opened the
protection is ever available to him or to her.
drawers and cabinet in her husband’s clinic and took 157
documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the
Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may
checks, diaries, Dr. Martin’s passport, and photographs. testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse while the marriage subsists.  Neither may be examined
The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a
without the consent of the other as to any communication received
case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice
in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for
of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.
specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication;
Issue: quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one
knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of
Whether or not the documents and papers in question are fidelity that each owes to the other. 
inadmissible in evidence
The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit. 
Held:

No.  Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible


in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring “the privacy of
communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable” is no less

You might also like