Conejos Haulo Ampong Laylo Chavez Celles
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CONEJOS HAULO AMPONG LAYLO CHAVEZ Pilapil CELLES LAW Atty. Legarda 1 211. Atilano v Chua Ching Beng (₱) March 29, 1958 – Felix *“Monster-in-laws” Facts: 1. Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were married in Zamboanga in 1951, after that they sailed to Manila and started living with Ching Beng’s parents (well they tried to, at least). Two years later, the wifey filed a complaint for support with the CFI of Zamboanga, alleging estrangement due to incessant bickering and quarrels as the main reason. She also complained about the fact that they had to live with his parents. She claimed that she’d rather stay with her own parents while receiving his support. 2. The hubby contended that their married life was actually harmonious, and the problem came about only because of the wifey’s parents (who he claimed alienated her from him). He said that he wants her back and that he is willing to establish his own dwelling away from his folks if that was what she really wanted. 3. Trial ensued and the decision was made in favor of the wifey (with the requested support reduced to a more reasonable amount). Upon learning about this the hubby filed a petition for the court to allow him to fulfill his obligation by receiving her in his own house (by then he already had one) in Pasay, and that he be left alone by the law if she still refused. 4. That petition was denied, and the poor guy went to the one Supreme Court :) Issue: Is the wife still entitled to support if she refuses to live with him just because she can’t stand his parents? Held: No. The decision was MODIFIED. Ruling: The court (with all the wisdom and confidence brought about by first-hand experience), started off by saying that disagreement among in-laws is a problem as old as the world itself, and that life will forever be miserable if we do not learn to deal with this fact :) While the husband here does not dispute the fact that the civil code imposes on him the duty of maintaining and supporting his wife and the rest of his family, he nevertheless argues that Article 229 of that code gives him the option to fulfill that duty in two ways. He can either pay an allowance fixed by the court, or maintain and support them in his own home (how it should really be done). The same article provides that the only way the second option will be prohibited is if there is a moral or legal obstacle. These obstacles need to be serious to be considered sufficient ground, like physical maltreatment. Disagreement with the in-laws, who can be treated as third parties to any marriage, is not one of these obstacles. While the court did say that they cannot compel a wife to live with her husband (despite their obligation to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and shit), it also said that there is likewise no provision of law which grants her the right to support if she has no moral or legal justification for leaving. Concept: The law, in giving the husband authority to fix the conjugal residence, does not prohibit him from establishing the same at the patriarchal home (or anywhere, for that matter) :) 39. Goitia vs. Campos Rueda (¥) November 2, 1916- TRENT * Atty Legarda to Mr. Maronilla: “BLOW JOB”; girls reminder this is still a GOOD LAW Facts: 1. The wife left her husband because if unusual demands made by her husband during sexual intercourse. 2. He demanded that the wife perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organ. 3. Because she spurned such obscene demands, refusing any act other than normal sexual intercourse, he maltreated her and inflicted bodily harm upon her. 4. This made her leave the conjugal home and demand for a separate maintenance Issue: Can the wife demand support or maintenance from her husband? Held: Yes. Ruling: 1. She was entitled to separate maintenance, because she was forced to leave the marital home without the fault on her part. 2. When the object of a marriage is defeated by rendering its continuance intolerable to one of the spouses and productive of no possible good to the community, relief in some ways be obtainable Source: Tolentino page 340 212. Mariano ARROYO v. Dolores VASQUEZ DE ARROYO (₳) 1921 – Street, J.: *hubby can’t compel wife to come back Facts: 1. In 1910, the two were married in the year 1910, and since that date, with a few short intervals of separation, they have lived together as man and wife until 1920 when the wife went away from their common home with the intention of living separate from her husband CONEJOS HAULO AMPONG LAYLO CHAVEZ Pilapil CELLES LAW Atty. Legarda 2 2. After efforts had been made by the husband without avail to induce her to resume marital relations, this action was initiated by him to compel her to return to the matrimonial home and live with him as a dutiful wife 3. Wife in defense said that she was compelled to leave by cruel treatment on the part of her husband; she in turn prayed for legal separation (this wasn’t granted because of lack of sufficient justification) 4. Evidence showed that wife’s leaving was not justified Issue: Can the Court order the wife to come back to husband? Held: No Ruling: 1. It’s not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. 2. Court is unable to hold that Mariano B. Arroyo is entitled to the unconditional and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile 3. Court declared that wife Dolores has absented herself from the marital home without sufficient cause; and she is admonished that it is her duty to return. P.S. it’s just her duty to return- but she’s not being ordered to return. So if she didn’t return to Mariano, no contempt issues. She was just admonished, nothing serious 213. Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno (£) 28 Nov 1964 – Barrera *wife wants to be a billionaire so freaking bad Facts: 1. Husband: Angel Cuaderno and Wife: Lourdes Ramirez. 2. Lived separately since 17 Nov 1956 after Angel inflicted bodily injuries to Lourdes and brought her back to her mother’s house. 3. On 15 Aug 1957, Lourdes filed a complaint for support. Grounds: maltreatment and abandonment. 4. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court granted complaint and ordered Angel for a monthly support of ₱150. 5. Court of Appeals reversed so that they may again resume cohabitation. They were admonished to live together. Issue: Is Lourdes entitled to support from Angel? Held: Yes. Even before the filing of the complaint, he had been giving support. He’s also the reason for the separation. Ruling: 1. Even before the filing of the complaint, Angel had been giving support for her. He only stopped when she asked for more. 2. He inflicted injuries on Lourdes and was even the one who brought her to her mother’s house. Thus, the separation was brought about by him. On Court of Appeals order to live together 1. Even if marriage entitles both parties to cohabitation, it should be because of spontaneous, mutual affection between them and not because of any legal mandate or court order. 214. Lacson vs. Lacson (₵) August 30, 1968---Castro *Mother agrees to an agreement in order to takes custody of her children and then retreats Facts: Note: This focuses only on property 1. Alfono and Carmen Lacson were married and had 4 children. 2. Carmen left Alfonso and the conjugal home in Bacolod City and began to live in Manila. 3. She filed a case for custody of all their children and support for them and herself. 4. Both spouses reached an amicable settlement or compromise agreement, which included the separation of property. 5. Carmen later filed a motion to dismiss the agreement on the grounds that she only signed it in order to obtain immediate custody over their children. 6. She questions the legality of the agreement, especially the part concerning the custody of their children. Issue: Is the separation of property which is cited in the agreement valid? Held: Yes Ruling: 1. The law provides that the husband and wife may agree upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage, subject to judicial approval. 2. The court cannot force the spouses to live together. Concept: 1. Court does not legalize the de facto separation of spouses, which is an abnormal state fraught with grave danger. 2. In this jurisdiction, the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. The law therefore makes it as difficult as possible for married couples to abandon each other’s company. CONEJOS HAULO AMPONG LAYLO CHAVEZ Pilapil CELLES LAW Atty. Legarda 3 215. POTENCIANO ILUSORIO vs MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER (¥) May 12, 2000- Pardo *Wife filed writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her. Facts: 1. H&W: Potenciano Ilusorio and Erlinda Kalaw 2. Potenciano Ilusorio a lawyer and a rich business man is married to Erlinda Kalaw and had 6 children 3. 1972, they separate from bed and board 4. December 30, 1997, Upon Potenciano’s arrival from the US he stayed in Antipolo with Erlinda for 5 months 5. Their children alleged that their mother overdosed him as a result of his deteriorating health 6.