Facts:
Filomena del Prado v. Tirso de la Fuente, G.R. No. 9274, September 14, 1914, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant
Filomena del Prado sued defendant-appellee
Tirso de la Fuente in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan by a complaint filed December 29, 1910, alleging marriage on June 17, 1893 in Urdaneta, cohabitation and several children of whom only one,
Emilio, then about ten years old, survived and was in plaintiff’s possession. The complaint alleged that between June and November 1910 the husband separated and abandoned the plaintiff and thereafter lived in marital relations with
Basilisa Padilla, a woman who was married to
Isidro Nicolas. Filomena prayed for legal separation (divorce under the applicable law), custody of the child, partition of the conjugal property, and other reliefs incident to divorce.
The defendant denied the allegations and specially pleaded that he had been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 2787 (adultery) based on the same facts and moved for dismissal, with costs. The plaintiff requested leave to annex a statement of the conjugal property to her complaint. The case was tried June 9, 1913, at which both parties introduced evidence, including the record of the criminal prosecution for adultery.
On June 23, 1913 Judge Richard Campbell rendered judgment in favor of the defendant (denying the divorce petition), without special finding as to costs. The plaintiff moved for a new trial; that motion was denied on June 25 and she excepted, prepared a bill of exceptions, which was approved and brought to the Supreme Court by appeal via bill of exceptions. The Supreme Court considered applicable law (noting the suspension of certain Civil Code provisions and reliance on the laws of the Partidas and Section 56 of the Organic Act) and the prior authorities cited, including
Benedicto v. De la Rama (3 Phil. Rep., 34). The Court examined whether the husband’s concubinage (as characterized by the Partidas and Spanish authorities) had been proven notwithstanding his acquittal in the criminal adultery prosecution. The Court found sufficient proof of cohabitation and carnal relations between De la Fuente and Basilisa Padilla (they ate together and slept in th...
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does a criminal acquittal of a husband in an adultery prosecution bar a marital action for divorce/separation by the injured wife based on the husband’s concubinage?
- Were the facts and evidence sufficient to establish the husband’s concubinage and thus justify granting the wife’s petition for separation, suspension of the common life, and partition of the conjugal property under...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: