Legal Separation

Ocampo vs. Florenciano

Facts:

Jose de Ocampo and Serafina Florenciano were married in 1938. In March 1951, Jose
discovered on several occasions that his wife was betraying his trust by maintaining illicit
relations with Jose Arcalas. Having found out, he sent the wife to Manila in June 1951 to study
beauty culture where she stayed for one year. Again, Jose discovered that the wife was going
out with several other men other than Arcalas.

In 1952, when the wife finished her studies, she left Jose and since then they had lived
separately.

In June 1955, Jose surprised his wife in the act of having illicit relations with Nelson Orzame.
He signified his intention of filing a petition for legal separation to which the defendant
manifested conformity provided she is not charged with adultery in a criminal action.

Accordingly, Ocampo filed a petition for legal separation in 1955.

Issue:

Whether or not a decree for legal separation be granted.

Held:

Yes. As the Court understands the article, it does not exclude, as evidence, any admission or
confession made by the defendant outside of the court. It merely prohibits a decree of
separation upon a confession of judgment. Confession of judgment usually happens when
the defendant appears in court and confesses the right of the plaintiff to judgment or files
a pleading expressly agreeing to the plaintiff’s demand. Supposing the statement of
defendant constitutes a confession of judgment, in as much as there is evidence of the
adultery independent of such statement, the decree may and should be granted, since it
would not be based on her confession, but upon evidence presented by the plaintiff.
What the law prohibits is a judgment based exclusively or mainly on the defendant's confession.
If a confession defeats the action ipso facto, any defendant who opposes the separation will
immediately confess judgment, purposely to prevent it.

Bugayong vs. Ginez

Facts:
Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the US Navy was married to Leonila Ginez in August
1949 at Pangasinan while on furlough leave. Immediately after the marriage, they lived with the
sisters of Benjamin in said municipality before he went back to duty. The couple came to an
agreement that Leonila would stay with his sisters who later moved to Manila. On or about July
1951, she left the dwelling of the sisters-in-law and informed her husband by letter that she had
gone to Pangasinan to reside with her mother and later on moved to Dagupan to study in a local
college.

Benjamin then began receiving letters from Valeriana Polangco, (plaintiff’s sister-in-law) and
some from anonymous writers, which were not produced at the hearing, informing him of
alleged acts of infidelity of his wife. He admitted that his wife informed him by letter that a
certain Eliong kissed her. All these communications prompted him in October 1951 to seek the
advice of the Navy Chaplain who asked him to consult with the navy legal department.

In August 1952, Benjamin went to Pangasinan and looked for his wife. They met in the house
of Leonila’s godmother. They proceeded to the house of Pedro, cousin of Benjamin where they
stayed for 1 day and 1 night as husband and wife. The next day, they slept together in their own
house. He tried to verify with Leonila the truth on the information he received but instead of
answering, she merely packed up and left which he took as a confirmation of the acts of
infidelity. He then filed a complaint for legal separation.

Issue:

Whether or not the adultery has been condoned by the husband which shall cause the dismissal
of the petition.

Held:

Yes. ART. 100. The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided
there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both
spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot by either of them. Collusion between the
parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.

Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation or,
as stated in I Bouver's Law Dictionary, p. 585, condonation is the "conditional forgiveness or
remission, by a husband or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has committed".

In August, 1952, he went to Pangasinan and looked for his wife and after finding her they lived
together as husband and wife for 2 nights and 1 day, after which he says that he tried to verify
from her the truth of the news he had about her infidelity, but failed to attain his purpose
because his wife, instead of answering his query on the matter, preferred to desert him,
probably enraged for being subjected to such humiliation. And yet he tried to locate her, though
in vain. Now, does the husband's attitude of sleeping with his wife for 2 nights despite his
alleged belief that she was unfaithful to him, amount to a condonation of her previous and
supposed adulterous acts?

The act of the husband in persuading her to come along with him, and the fact that she went
with him and consented to be brought to the house of his cousin Pedro Bugayong and together
they slept there as husband and wife for one day and one night, and the further fact that in the
second night they again slept together in their house likewise as husband and wife — all these
facts have no other meaning in the opinion of this court than that a reconciliation between them
was effected and that there was a condonation of the wife by the husband. The reconciliation
occurred almost ten months after he came to know of the acts of infidelity amounting to adultery.

Laperal vs. Republic

Facts:

Elisea Laperal was married to Enrique R. Santamaria in March 1939. However, a decree of
legal separation was later on issued to the spouses. Aside from that, Elisea ceased to live with
Enrique. During their marriage, she naturally uses Elisea L. Santamaria. She filed this petition
to be permitted to resume using her maiden name Elisea Laperal. This was opposed by the
City Attorney of Baguio on the ground that it violates Art. 372 of the Civil Code. She was
claiming that continuing to use her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances
and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets.

Issue:

Whether Rule 103 which refers to change of name in general will prevail over the specific
provision of Art. 372 of the Civil Code with regard to a married woman legally separated from his
husband.

Held:

No. Article 372 provides that:

ART. 372. When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and
surname employed before the legal separation.

The language of the statute is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal separation has been
decreed, shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation.

This is so because her married status is unaffected by the separation, there being no severance
(breaking) of the vinculum (bond).

It seems to be the policy of the law that the wife should continue to use the name indicative of
her unchanged status for the benefit of all concerned.
Even applying Rule 103, the fact of legal separation alone — which is the only basis for the
petition — is not a sufficient ground to justify a change of the name of petitioner, for to hold
otherwise would be to provide an easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of Article 372.

The finding that petitioner’s continued use of her husband surname may cause undue confusion
in her finances was without basis. It must be considered that the issuance of the decree of legal
separation in 1958, necessitated that the conjugal partnership between her and Enrique had
automatically been dissolved and liquidated. Hence, there could be no more occasion for an
eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets.

Ong vs. Ong

Facts:

Ong Eng Kiam, also known as William Ong (William) and Lucita G. Ong (Lucita) were married
on July 13, 1975 at the San Agustin Church in Manila. They have three children: Kingston,
Charleston, and Princeton who are now all of the age of majority.

On March 21, 1996, Lucita filed a Complaint for Legal Separation under Article 55 par. (1) of the
Family Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 41 alleging that her
life with William was marked by physical violence, threats, intimidation and grossly abusive
conduct.

RTC rendered its Decision decreeing legal separation, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC
Decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of abandonment thus the petition for legal separation
should be denied.

Held:

No.

The argument of William that since Lucita has abandoned the family, a decree of legal
separation should not be granted is without merit, following Art. 56, par. (4) of the Family Code
which provides that legal separation shall be denied when both parties have given ground for
legal separation. The abandonment referred to by the Family Code is abandonment without
justifiable cause for more than one year. As it was established that Lucita left William due to his
abusive conduct, such does not constitute abandonment contemplated by the said provision.