Case Summary (G.R. No. 140420)
Marriage History and Family Circumstances
William and Lucita married July 13, 1975 and had three children—Kingston, Charleston, and Princeton—now of age. The marriage endured frequent quarrels purportedly marked by physical violence and verbal abuse.
Grounds for Legal Separation: Allegations of Abuse
Lucita’s complaint alleged that William committed repeated physical violence and used grossly abusive conduct against her and the children, including slapping, kicking, hair-pulling, head‐banging, brandishing a firearm, and hurling invectives in and out of the home environment.
Respondent’s Denial and Counter‐Account
William denied all allegations of violence and abuse, characterizing disagreements as ordinary marital disputes. He claimed absence from the marital home on key dates and asserted no prior complaints over 20 years of marriage.
RTC Ruling on Legal Separation
The RTC granted legal separation under Article 55(1) of the Family Code, ordering dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership properties and instructing the parties to submit inventories for division.
RTC’s Factual Findings
The trial court found Lucita’s testimony and that of corroborating witnesses credible, documenting frequent quarrels “punctuated by acts of physical violence, threats and intimidation” and concluding Lucita endured “mental and physical anguish” beyond endurance. The court noted William’s own admission of daily quarrels and disparaging remarks toward his wife and children.
Court of Appeals’ Affirmation
The CA affirmed in toto, emphasizing the straightforward, uncontroverted, and credible testimonies of Lucita, her sister Linda Lim, and Dr. Vicente Elinzano, whose medical findings corroborated multiple injuries from December 14, 1995. The CA accorded more weight to affirmative allegations over William’s general denials.
Issues on Review and Petitioner’s Arguments
William’s petition to the Supreme Court contends that Lucita’s true motive was to divest him of property interests held in conjugal partnership, that the evidence of abuse was insufficient and tainted by bias, and that the CA erred in failing to apply Article 56(4) to deny legal separation on grounds of mutual fault (Lucita’s abandonment).
Respondent’s Defense and Factual Findings Emphasis
Lucita’s comment stressed that factual findings of the trial and appellate courts—supported by detailed, consistent evidence—are final and conclusive. She reaffirmed that she left the conjugal home only after enduring repeated violence and abusive conduct.
Standard of Review and Factual Findings
Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court refrains from disturbing factual findings affirmed by the CA except in exceptional circumstances (e.g., findings grounded on speculation, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts). William failed to demonstrate any such exception, rendering the CA’s factual determinations binding.
Credibility and Weight of Evidence
The Court upheld the RTC’s credibility assessments, noting its opportunity to observe witness demeanor. It found Lucita’s and her witnesses’ detailed recounting of incidents far outweighed the petitioner’s general denials and biased testimony from employment‐dependent witnesses.
Rejection of Collusion Allegation
The assertion that Lucita’s motive was property appropriation was deemed implausible. The Court observed that abandoning a 20-year marriage and separation from beloved children would not be undertaken merely for familial
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 140420)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006, First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeking reversal of:
• Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 59400 affirming the RTC’s grant of legal separation
• Resolution of the CA dated April 26, 2002 denying motion for reconsideration
Parties and Marriage Background
- Petitioner: Ong Eng Kiam, also known as William Ong
- Respondent: Lucita G. Ong
- Married on July 13, 1975, at San Agustin Church, Manila
- Three children—Kingston, Charleston, and Princeton—all of whom have reached majority
Complaint for Legal Separation
- Filed by Lucita on March 21, 1996, before RTC, Dagupan City, Branch 41
- Ground invoked: repeated physical violence and grossly abusive conduct (Art. 55(1), Family Code)
- Allegations included:
• Almost daily quarrels commencing three years after marriage
• Physical violence: slaps, kicks, hair-pulling, head-banging, throwing objects
• Verbal invectives: “putang ina mo,” “gago,” “tanga,” “you don’t know anything”
• Violence against children, including corporal punishment with belt buckle
• December 9 & 14, 1995 incidents culminating in gun-point threat and expulsion from home
• Medical treatment for injuries by Dr. Vicente Elinzano on December 15, 1995
Petitioner’s Denial and Version of Events
- William denied physical harm, insulting language, or belt-whipping of children
- Admitted quarrel on December 9, 1995, but claimed separation of dwelling thereafter
- Asserted Lucita left voluntarily on December 14, 1995; laundrywoman informed him of her departure
RTC Decision
- RTC Branch 41, Dagupan City, rendered judgment on January 5, 1998, decreeing legal separation
- Ordered dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership properties
- Factual findings:
• Frequent quarrels rendering life “miserable and hellish”
• Physical