FACTS: Plaintiff Benjamin Bugayong was a serviceman in the US Navy. He married defendant Leonila Ginez on August 27, 1949, at Asingan, Pangasinan while on leave.
As early as July, 1951, Benjamin Bugayong began receiving letters from Ginez’s sister-in-law; informing him of acts of infidelity of his wife. On cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that his wife also informed him by letter, which have been destroyed; that a certain “Eliong” kissed her.
All these communications prompted him to seek the advice of the Navy Chaplain on the possible legal separation between him and his wife; on account of the latter’s alleged acts of infidelity; and he was directed to consult instead the navy legal department.
Then Bugayong went to Pangasinan. He sought for his wife, who came along with him. They both proceeded to the house of Bugayong’s cousin. They stayed there and lived for two (2) nights and one (1) day as husband and wife. Then they repaired to the plaintiff’s house and again passed the night therein as husband and wife. Bugayong tried to verify from his wife the truth of the information he received that she had committed adultery. However, Leonila Ginez, instead of answering his query, merely packed up and left, which he took as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity imputed on her. After that and despite such belief, Bugayong exerted efforts to locate her but to no avail.
Bugayong filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a complaint for legal separation against his wife. Ginez timely filed an answer vehemently denying the averments of the complaint and setting up affirmative defenses. Ginez motion to dismiss was predicated on the following grounds: (1) Assuming arguendo the truth of the allegations of the commission of “acts of infidelity amounting to adultery”, the cause of action, if any, is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) That under the same assumption, the act charged have been condoned by the plaintiff-husband; and (3) That the complaint failed to state a cause of action sufficient for this court to render a valid judgment.
The motion to dismiss was granted by the Trial Court, on the ground of condonation.
RULING: The Supreme Court has held in the affirmative. The act of the husband of sleeping with his wife for two (2) nights despite his belief that she was unfaithful to him, amounts to condonation of her previous and supposed adulterous acts.
Article 100 of the Civil Code provides that, the legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided 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 separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.
Similarly, the US Supreme Court held, as cited by the Philippine Supreme Court, “A single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation. Where the parties live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation.
A divorce suit will not be granted for adultery where the parties continue to live together after it was known or there is sexual intercourse after knowledge of adultery or sleeping together for a single night.
There is no ruling on this matter in our jurisprudence but we have no reason to depart from the doctrines laid down in the decisions of the various supreme courts of the United States above quoted.
In this case, a detailed examination of the testimony of the plaintiff-husband clearly shows that there was a condonation on the part of the husband for the supposed “acts of infidelity amounting to adultery” committed by defendant-wife. Admitting for the sake of argument that the infidelities amounting to adultery were committed by the defendant, a reconciliation was effected between her and the husband. The act of the husband in persuading her to come along with him, and the fact that she went with him and consented to be brought to the house of his cousin and together they slept there as husband and wife for one day and one night; and the further fact that in the second night they again slept together in their house likewise as husband and wife, all these facts have no other meaning in the opinion of this court than that a reconciliation between them was effected; and that there was a condonation of the wife by the husband. The reconciliation occurred almost ten months after he came to know of the acts of infidelity amounting to adultery.
