de ocampo vs florenciano digest

7/22/2019 De Ocampo vs Florenciano Digest

1/5

GOITIA VS. CAMPOS-RUEDA

Doctrine:

This is an action by the wife against her

husband for support outside of the

conjugal domicile. From a judgment

sustaining the defendants demurrer

upon the ground that the facts alleged in

the complaint do not state a cause of

action

GANDIOCO VS. PENERANDA

Facts:

Teresita Gandioco, legal wife ofpetitioner, Froilan Gandioco, filed with

the RTC of Misamis Oriental a

complaint against petitioner for legal

separation on the ground of

concubinage with a petition for support

and payment of damages. Teresita also

filed a complaint for concubinage

against petitioner with the MTC of

General Santos City. And again, for the

application for the provisional remedy ofsupportpendente lite. The respondent

judge

KALAW VS. FERNANDEZ

Doctrine: In the case, there are

grounds for legal separation but

not for psychological incapacity

under FC36

Facts:

Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw(Tyrone) and respondent Ma.

Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met

1973

Married in Hong Kong onNovember 4, 1976

Tyrone had extramarital affairwith Jocelyn who gave birth to

his son in March 1983

May 1985: Malyn left conjugalhome and her four children to

Tyrone. Tyrone started living

with Jocelyn who bore him more

children (3)

1990: Tyrone went to US togetherwith Jocelyn and their children

He left his four children from hismarriage with Malyn in a rented

house in Valle Verde with only ahousehelp and a driver.

Nine years since de factoseparation from his wife, Tyrone

filed a petition for declaration of

nullity of marriage based on

Article 36. Tyrone presented a

psychologist, Dr. Gates and a

catholic canon law expert, Fr.

Healy to testify

Dr. Gates: Malyn maysufferfrom psychological incapacity due

to evidence (madjong, frequent

nights out), reflect a narcissistic

personality disorder, based her

diagnosis on facts revealed in

interviews with Tyrone, Trinidad

Kalaw (sister-in-law) and their

son

Fr. Healy: her psych inc. is totesgrave and incurable: based his

opinion on interview with

Tyrone, trial transcripts as well as

reports from Dr. Dayan, Malyns

expert witness; clarified that he

did not verify the truthfulness of


2/5

the factual allegations regarding

Malyns habits, because he

believed it was the duty of the

court to do so

ISSUE: W o N Tyrone has sufficientlyproven that Malyn suffers from psych

inc?

HELD:

No. Burden of proving psychological

incapacity is on the plaintiff. He must

prove that it existed at the time of

marriage and must be grave and

incurable. Pet. Failed to prove that res

suffers from psych inc. He presented the

testimonies of two supposed expert

witnesses who concluded that

respondent is psychologically

incapacitated, but the conclusions of

these witnesses were premised on the

alleged acts or behavior of respondent

which had not been sufficiently proven.Petitioners experts heavily relied on

petitioners allegations of respondents

constant mahjong sessions, visits to the

beauty parlor, going out with friends,

adultery, and neglect of their children.

Petitioners experts opined that

respondents alleged habits, when

performed constantly to the detriment

of quality and quantity of time devoted

to her duties as mother and wife,

constitute a psychological incapacity in

the form of NPD.

But petitioners allegations, which

served as the bases or underlying

premises of the conclusions of his

experts, were not actually proven. In

fact, respondent presented contrary

evidence refuting these allegations of the

petitioner. What transpired between the

parties is acrimony and, perhaps,

infidelity, which may have constrained

them from dedicating the best of

themselves to each other and to their

children. There may be grounds

for legal separation, but certainlynot psychological incapacity that

voids a marriage.

Grounds for legal sep which may be

present in the case: 1) sexual infidelity,

2)physical abuse

REPUBLIC VS. QUINTOS

ALMELOR VS. RTC

CAMPOS VS. CAMPOS

LAPUZ VS. EUFEMIO

MATUBIS VS. PRAXEDES

PEOPLE VS. ZAPATA

ARANETA VS. CONCEPCION

DE OCAMPO VS. FLORENCIANO

Doctrine: No decree of legal

separation shall be promulgated


3/5

upon a stipulation of facts or by

confession of judgment.

This case is about an action for legal

separation by Jose de Ocampo against

his wife Serafina, on ground of adultery.The court of Nueva Ecija dismissed the

petition. CA affirmed holding that there

was confession of judgment, plus

condonation or consent to the adultery

and prescription.

This present petition for certiorariwas

granted to consider the application of

articles 100 and 101 of the NCC.

NCC 100: Legal separation maybe claimed only by the innocent

spouse, provided that there has

been no condonation of or

consent to the adultery or

concubinage. Where both spouses

are offenders, a legal separation

cannot be claimed by either of

them. Collusion between the

parties to obtain legal separationshall cause the dismissal of the

petition.

NCC 101: No decree of legalseparation shall be

promulgated upon a

stipulation of facts or by

confession of judgment.

In case of non-appearance of the

defendant, the court shall orderthe prosecuting attorney to

inquire whether or not collusion

between the parties exists. If

there is no collusion, the

prosecuting attorney shall

intervene for the State in order to

take care that the evidence for the

plaintiff is not fabricated.

Facts:

1938- marriage of Serafina andJose

March 1951- adultery of Serafinato Jose Arcalas

June 1955- adultery with NelsonOrzame

Defendant made no answer tothe allegations against her, court

defaulted her, and pursuant to

Art. 101 above, directed the

provincial fiscal to investigatepresence of collusion between

parties, fiscal said there was no

collusion, plaintiff presented his

evidence thru testimony of

Vicente Medina, Ernesto

Ocampo, Cesar Enriquez, Mateo

Damo, Jose de Ocampo, and

Capt. Serafin Gubat.

CA:o Evidence presented by

plaintiff showed that they

did marry (Plaintiff and

Defendant) on 1938, on

1951, plaintiff found out

on several occasions of his

wifes infidelity

o June 1951: sent her toManila to study

o1952: lived separately

o 1955: plaintiff surprisedand caught his wife in the

act of having illicit

relations with husband, p

signified his intention of

filing a petition for legal


4/5

separation, to which d

manifested her agreeance

provided she need not be

charged criminally

o CA said that husbandsright to legal sep has

prescribed, action was not

filed a year after March

1951, when p first

discovered her infidelity

(NCC 102)

o As to 2nd infidelity (withNelson Orzame), 1955:

husband upon finding out

illicit connection,

expressed his wish to file

for legal sep and

defendant readiy

agreed to such filing.

And when she was

questioned by the fiscal

upon orders of the court,

she admitted to having

sexual relations with

Nelson Orzame, thiswas interpreted as a

judicial confession

ISSUE: W o N her confession constitutes

a confession of judgment disallowed by

the law.

HELD: Florencianos admission to the

investigating fiscal that she committed

adultery, in the existence of evidence of

adultery other than such confession, is

not the confession of judgment

disallowed by NCC 102. What is

prohibited is a confession of judgment

in done in court or through a pleading.

Where there is evidence of the adultery

independent of the defendants

statement agreeing to the legal

separation, the decree of separation

should be granted since it would not be

based on confession but upon evidence

presented by plaintiff. What the law

prohibits is a judgment based

exclusively on defendants confession.

Petition should be granted because

action for second adultery has not

prescribed.

SAMOSA VS. VAMENTA

PACETE VS. CARIAGA

DE LA VINA VS. VILLAREAL

SABALONES VS. CA

YANGCO VS. RHODE

RAMOS VS. VAMENTA

LERMA VS. CA

PEOPLE VS. SANSANO

PEOPLE VS. SCHNECKENBERGER

GINEZ VS. BUGAYONG

BROWN VS. YAMBAO

REPUBLIC VS. CA

MATUTUE VS. MACADAEG

QUIAO VS. QUIACLAPERAL VS. REPUBLIC

MACADANGDANG VS. CA

REPUBLIC VS. MOLINA

ARROYO VS. VASQUEZ-ARROYO


5/5

CUADERNO VS. CUADERNO

ILUSORIO VS. BILDNER

ABELLA VS. COMELEC

SSS VS. DE LOS SANTOS

SSS VS. FAVILA

CALDERON VS. ROXAS

YASIN VS. SHARIAH COURT

SHARICA MARI GO TAN VS. SPOUSES

TAN

SAN DIEGO VS. RTC

de ocampo vs florenciano digest

Documents