[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
100 views1 page

Matubis Vs Praxedes

Socorro Matubis filed a complaint for legal separation from her husband Zoilo Praxedes on the grounds of abandonment and concubinage. The lower court dismissed the complaint finding the action had prescribed and that Socorro had consented to the separation and concubinage. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the complaint was filed more than one year after Socorro became aware of the grounds for separation, making the action time-barred. The Court also found that the separation agreement between the parties included Socorro's condonation and consent to the separation and concubinage, precluding her complaint.

Uploaded by

IkangApostol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views1 page

Matubis Vs Praxedes

Socorro Matubis filed a complaint for legal separation from her husband Zoilo Praxedes on the grounds of abandonment and concubinage. The lower court dismissed the complaint finding the action had prescribed and that Socorro had consented to the separation and concubinage. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the complaint was filed more than one year after Socorro became aware of the grounds for separation, making the action time-barred. The Court also found that the separation agreement between the parties included Socorro's condonation and consent to the separation and concubinage, precluding her complaint.

Uploaded by

IkangApostol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Matubis vs Praxedes

G.R. No. L-11766, October 25, 1960

Facts:

In 1943, Socorro Matubis and Zoilo Praxedes were legally married. In 1948, they
entered into a contract wherein they agreed that they shall live separately and that
they should not prosecute each other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or
suit arising from their separation. In January 1955, Zoilo began cohabiting with
Asuncion, who later gave birth to their child. In April 1956, Socorro filed a complaint
for legal Separation on the ground of abandonment and concubinage against Zoilo.
The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription and
condonation/consent.

Issue:

Whether or not the action prescribed


Whether or not Socorro consented to the commission of concubinage by her
husband

Held:

Yes, the action already prescribed. Under Art. 102 of the Code Code, an action
for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on
which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from after the
date when cause occurred (now 5 years under Art. 57, FC). The complaint was filed
outside the periods provided for by the above Article. By the very admission of plaintiff,
she came to know the ground (concubinage) for the legal separation in January, 1955.
She instituted the complaint only on April 24, 1956.

Yes. The very wording of the agreement gives no room for interpretation other
than that given by the trial judge. Condonation and consent on the part of plaintiff
are necessarily the import of paragraph 6(b) of the agreement. The condonation
and consent here are not only implied but expressed. The law specifically provides
that legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has
been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Having condoned
and/or consented in writing, the plaintiff is now undeserving of the court's sympathy.

You might also like