Case Digest (G.R. No. L- 10028)
Facts:
This case involves Hipolita Almacen, the plaintiff and appellee, and Teodoro N. Baltazar, the defendant and appellant. The two were legally married on March 24, 1923. In 1937, the plaintiff committed adultery with Jose Navarro, a cousin of the defendant. Prior to the wife's infidelity, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had also been unfaithful; it was proven that the defendant had been hospitalized for a venereal disease and later lived with another woman named Lourdes Alvarez after separating from the plaintiff. Though they lived separately, the defendant had been sending money to the plaintiff for her support. The lower court found that despite both spouses being guilty of infidelity (“in pari delicto”), the defendant was still obligated to support the plaintiff due to their reconciliation or condonation of her wrongful acts. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the plaintiff's adultery should exempt him from providing support and that there was no
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L- 10028)
Facts:
- Background and marriage
- Plaintiff (Hipolita Almacen) and defendant (Teodoro N. Baltazar) were legally married on March 24, 1923.
- In 1937, plaintiff committed adultery with one Jose Navarro, who was a cousin of the defendant.
- Infidelity of the defendant and subsequent separation
- Prior to the plaintiff's adultery, the defendant was unfaithful to her as well, having been confined to a hospital for venereal disease.
- The defendant separated from the plaintiff after learning of her infidelity.
- During the separation, the defendant lived maritally with another woman named Lourdes Alvarez.
- Reconciliation and support after separation
- After the separation, there was at least a reconciliation or condonation by the defendant of the plaintiff’s adulterous acts.
- Defendant had been sending money to plaintiff for her support after the separation.
- Both husband and wife were in pari delicto (equally at fault) due to their respective adulterous acts.
- Trial court ruling
- The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff monthly support of P50.00, starting August 1955.
Issues:
- Whether the plaintiff’s act of adultery can be used as a defense to deny her claim for support.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish condonation or reconciliation between plaintiff and defendant.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)