Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13553)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13553)
Facts:
Jose de Ocampo v. Serafina Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jose de Ocampo (husband) sued respondent Serafina Florenciano (wife) for legal separation on the ground of adultery.On July 5, 1955 the complaint for legal separation was filed (as amended, it alleged a marriage in 1938 and two episodes of adultery: in March 1951 with Jose Arcalas and in June 1955 with Nelson Orzame). The defendant did not answer, so the trial court of Nueva Ecija entered her default. Pursuant to Art. 101 of the New Civil Code the trial court directed the provincial fiscal to inquire into possible collusion; the fiscal examined the defendant under oath and reported to the court that there was no collusion. The plaintiff then presented witnesses (Vicente Medina, Ernesto de Ocampo, Cesar Enriquez, Mateo Damo, Jose de Ocampo and Capt. Serafin Gubat) to prove the adultery.
The court of first instance dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that (1) the claim as to adultery with Arcalas was prescribed because plaintiff did not sue within one year from discovery (citing Art. 102), and (2) as to the adultery with Orzame the defendant’s statements to the fiscal and her expressed conformity to a separation amounted to a confession of judgment (or evidenced condonation/consent and collusion), which under Art. 101 precluded a decree of legal separation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the application of Arts. 100 and 101 (and related rules) to these facts. Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Issues:
- Was the action for legal separation based on the alleged adultery with Jose Arcalas barred by prescription?
- Does the defendant’s out-of-court admission or expressed consent to legal separation constitute a "confession of judgment" under Article 101 that forbids a decree of legal separation?
- Did the husband’s failure to search for the wife after she left, or the wife’s acquiescence to separation, amount to condonation or consent that would bar the legal separation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)