[G.R. No. 1056. December 8, 1903.
AGUEDA BENEDICTO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTEBAN DE LA
RAMA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS.
This is an action for divorce. The complaint, which was filed on October 29, 1901, alleged,
as the grounds therefor, abandonment and adultery. The answer charged the plaintiff with
adultery, denied the adultery imputed to the defendant, and asked for a divorce. Judgment
was rendered on July 5, 1902, in favor of the plaintiff, granting her a divorce and 81,042.76
pesos as her share of the conjugal property. The defendant excepted to the judgment and
moved for a new trial on the ground that the facts found were not justified by the evidence.
This motion was denied, and the defendant excepted.
ISSUE. Whether or not the Courts of First Instance now have jurisdiction of divorce cases, and if
they have, on what law it is based.
RULING.
Yes. The Court discussed the passage of different laws relating to divorce and
marriage in the advent of change of sovereignty.
The result is (1) that Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for
divorce; (2) that the only ground therefor is adultery; (3) that an action on that ground
can be maintained by the husband against wife, or by the wife against the husband; and
(4) that the decree does not dissolve the marriage bond. The Court of First Instance of
Iloilo, therefore, committed no error in assuming jurisdiction of this case.
1. The Decrees of the Council of Trent (ecclesiastical Laws only and speaks of
jurisdiction)
The canon law, which the ecclesiastical courts administered both in Spain and
here, had not as such any binding force outside of the church. However, any part of the
canon law which by proper action of the civil authorities had become a civil law stood
upon the same footing as any other law of Spain.
It was declared in article 75 of the present Civil Code, which is as follows: "The
requisites, form, and solemnities for the celebration of canonical marriages shall be
governed by the provisions of the Catholic Church and of the holy council of Trent,
accepted as laws of the Kingdom.
2. The Law of Partidas (since there was only canon laws and ecclesiastical laws in
1869 and no express provisions of the Civil Code so the Court used this as
reference instead)
Specifically, the provisions relating to the subject of divorce. Law 1, title 10 –
Defined divorce.
Law 2 of the same title is as to the grounds for divorce, to wit:
"Properly speaking there are two forms of separation to which the name of
divorce may be given and two reasons therefor; there are many reasons which
bring about the separation of those who appear to be married but are not so by the
reason of some impediment between them. Of these two reasons, one is religion
and the other the sin of fornication.”
Note: Divorce does not annul marriage. (Law 3, title 2, partida 4)
Conclusion: The Law of Partidas recognized adultery as a ground for divorce. Therefore,
according to the civil as well as the canonical law in force here on August 13, 1898, the
commission of that offense gave the injured party the right to a divorce. That provision
of the substantive civil law was not repealed by the change of sovereignty. The complete
separation under the American Government of church and state, while it changed the
tribunal in which this right should be enforced, could not affect the right itself. The fact
that the ecclesiastical courts no longer exercise such power is not important. The
jurisdiction formerly possessed by them is now vested in Courts of First Instance, by
virtue of Act No. 136. Section 56, first and fifth paragraph of that act, provides that
"Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction, first, in all civil actions in which
the subject of litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation; fifth, . . . and in all such
special cases and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for."
