1.) After they got married, Nikki discovered that Christian was having an affair with another woman. But Nikki decided to give it a try and lived with him for two (2) years. After two (2) years, Nikki filed an action for legal separation on the ground of Christian’s sexual infidelity. Will the action prosper? Explain.
Nikki’s action will not prosper on account at condonation. Although the action for legal separation has not yet prescribed, the prescriptive period being five years, the decision of Nikki to live with Christian after discovering his affair amounts to condonation of such act. However, if such affair is still continuing, Nikki's action would prosper because the action will surely be within (5) years from the commission of the latest act of sexual infidelity. Every act or sexual liaison is a ground for legal separation.
2.) Rosa and Ariel were married in the Catholic Church of Tarlac, Tarlac on January 5, 1988. In 1990, Ariel went to Saudi Arabia to work. There, after being converted into Islam, Ariel married Mystica. Rosa learned of the second marriage of Ariel on January 1, 1992 when Ariel returned to the Philippines with Mystica. Rosa filed an action for legal separation on February 5, 1994. 1) Does Rosa have legal grounds to ask for legal separation? 2) Has the action prescribed?
1) a) Yes, the abandonment of Rosa by Ariel for more than one (1) year is a ground for legal separation unless upon returning to the Philippines, Rosa agrees to cohabit with Ariel which is allowed under the Muslim Code. In this case, there is condonation.
b) Yes. The contracting of a subsequent bigamous marriage whether in the Philippines or abroad is a ground for legal separation under Art. 55(7) of the Family Code. Whether the second marriage is valid or not, Ariel having converted into Islam is immaterial.
2) No. Under Art. 57 of the Family Code, the aggrieved spouse must file the action within five (5) years from the occurrence of the cause. The subsequent marriage of Ariel could not have occurred earlier than 1990, the time he went to Saudi Arabia. Hence, Rosa has until 1995 to bring the action under the Family Code.
3.) Saul, a married man, had an adulterous relation with Tessie. In one of the trysts, Saul's wife, Cecile, caught them in flagrante. Armed with a gun, Cecile shot Saul in a fit of extreme jealousy, nearly killing him. Four (4) years after the incident, Saul filed an action for legal separation against Cecile on the ground that she attempted to kill him. 1) If you were Saul's counsel, how will you argue his case? 2) If you were the lawyer of Cecile, what will be your defense? 3) If you were the judge, how will you decide the case?
1) As the counsel of Saul, I will argue that an attempt by the wife against the life of the husband is one of the grounds enumerated by the Family Code for legal separation and there is no need for criminal conviction for the ground to be invoked. (Art. 55, par. 9, FC)
2) If I were the lawyer of Cecile, I will interpose the defense that the attempt on his life was without criminal intent but was impelled solely by passion and obfuscation. This is the reason why under the Revised Penal Code, even killing him when caught in the act would be justified. To be a ground for legal separation, the attempt must be intentional and wrongful.
3) As judge, I will deny the petition. Petition for legal separation may be filed only by the aggrieved spouse. Since Saul was unfaithful and was in fact caught in flagrante by his wife, he is not an “aggrieved” spouse entitled to the relief. He who comes to court must come with clean hands. And even assuming that the attempt on his life by the wife is a ground for legal separation, he is still not entitled to the relief because of his infidelity. The law does not allow legal separation if both parties have given ground for legal separation.
4.) True or False If a man commits several acts of sexual infidelity, particularly in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, the prescriptive period to file for legal separation runs from 2002.
FALSE. The five-year prescriptive period for filing legal separation runs from the occurrence of sexual infidelity committed in 2002 runs from 2002, for the sexual infidelity committed in 2003, the prescriptive period runs from 2003 and so on. The action for legal separation for the last act of sexual infidelity in 2005 will prescribe in 2010.
5.) Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to marry. After one year of cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regularly sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because she did not give her consent to the sale. 1. Will Dorothy's suit prosper? Decide with reasons. 2. Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and household, is her consent to the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain.
Yes, Dorothy’s suit will prosper, unless the buyer is a buyer in good faith and for The rule of co-ownership governs the property relationship in a union without marriage between a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. Article 147 of the Family Code is specifically applicable. Under this article, neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation, thus, Bernard may not validly dispose of the lot without the consent of Dorothy as the lot was acquired through their work during their cohabitation.
Yes, if Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot, her consent is still a prerequisite to the validity of the Under the same article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and the household. In this case, although the money used to buy the lot was solely from Bernard, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions in the acquisition of the lot. Article 147, 2ndparagraph is applicable, as the lot is deemed owned in common by the common-law spouses in equal shares as the same was acquired during their cohabitation, without prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.