P58 - Arroyo V Vasquez de Arroyo PDF

G.R. No.
17014| August 11, 1921 Rights and obligations between husband and wife
Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo
I. Recit-ready Summary defendant Dolores left their common home and decided to live
Mariano and Dolores were married 1910. They lived together with a separately from plaintiff. The
few short intervals of separation. In 1920, Dolores left their common defendant answered, admitting the fact of marriage, and that she had
home and decided to live separately from Mariano. Mariano induced left her husband's home without his consent; but she averred by way of
Dolores to return home but the latter refused. Hence, Mariano filed a defense and cross-complaint that she had been compelled to leave by
petition for permanent mandatory injunction requiring the Dolores to cruel treatment on the part of her husband. She in turn prayed for a
return to the conjugal home and live with him as a wife under pain of decree of separation, a liquidation of their conjugal partnership, and an
contempt. The allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate maintenance.
defendant answered, admitting the fact of marriage, and that she had
left her husband's home without his consent; but she averred by way of The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant and she was granted
defense and cross-complaint that she had been compelled to leave by alimony amounting to P400, also other fees.
cruel treatment on the part of her husband. She in turn prayed for a
decree of separation, a liquidation of their conjugal partnership, and an Plaintiff then asked for a restitution of conjugal rights, and a
allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate maintenance. The permanent mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to return to
trial court ruled in favor of Dolores. the conjugal home and live with him as his wife and make her liable
for contempt in case of disobedience.
On appeal, the SC ruled that Mariano has done nothing to forfeit his
right to the marital society of Dolores and that she is under an III. Issue/s
obligation, both moral and legal, to return to the common home and 1) W/N the court can compel Dolores to return to their conjugal
cohabit with Mariano. The only question is whether it is within the home under the pain of contempt (NO)
province of the courts to attempt to compel one of the spouses to
cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. IV. Holding
1) No. It is not within the province of the courts to compel one of the
The issue at hand was whether or not the courts can order Dolores to spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other.
return to the conjugal home under pain of contempt. In the case of property rights, such an action may be maintained.
Said order, at best, would have no other purpose than to compel
The Court held that it is not within the province of the courts of this the spouses to live together. Other countries, such as England and
country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and Scotland have done this with much criticism.
render conjugal rights to, the other. Cohabitation is a purely personal
obligation - an obligation to do. To compel the wife to comply with Plaintiff is entitled to a judicial declaration that the defendant
such obligation would be an infringement of her personal liberty. absented herself without sufficient cause and it is her duty to
return. Cruelty done by plaintiff to defendant was greatly
II. Facts of the Case exaggerated. The wife was inflicted with a disposition of jealousy
Mariano B. Arroyo (plaintiff) and Dolores C. Vazquez de Arroyo towards her husband in an aggravated degree. No sufficient cause
(defendant) were married in 1910, and lived in Iloilo City. They lived was present. She is also not entitled to support.
together with a few short intervals of separation. On July 4, 1920,
1
Persons I (2019) PETITIONER/APPELLANT: Mariano B. Mariano
DIGEST AUTHOR: Kerwin C. Aguilar RESPONDENT: Dolores Velazquez de Arroyo
G.R. No. 17014| August 11, 1921 Rights and obligations between husband and wife
Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo
V. Law or Doctrine Applied VI. Disposition

We are therefore unable to hold that Mariano B. Arroyo in this case is
Family Code entitled to the unconditional and absolute order for the return of the
Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe wife to the marital domicile which is sought in the petitory part of the
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. complaint; though he is, without doubt, entitled to a judicial
declaration that his wife has absented herself without sufficient cause
Matrimonial Cases Act (1884, England) and that it is her duty to return.
Abolished the remedy of imprisonment in case of disobedience to
cohabit; though a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights can still Therefore, reversing the judgment appealed from, in respect both to
be procured and in case of disobedience may serve in appropriate the original complaint and the cross-bill, it is declared that Dolores
cases as the basis of an order for the periodical payment of a stipend in Vazquez de Arroyo has absented herself from the marital home
the character of alimony. without sufficient cause; and she is admonished that it is her duty to
return. The plaintiff is absolved from the cross-complaint,
Separate Maintenance of the Wife without special pronouncement as to costs of either instance.
Where the wife is forced to leave the marital home by ill-treatment
from her husband, he can be compelled to provide for her separate VII. Separate Opinions
maintenance, without regard to whether a cause for divorce exists or None.
not.
Necessity for Separation VIII. Additional Notes

Nevertheless, the interests of both parties as well as of society at large • In the voluminous jurisprudence of the United States, only one
require that the courts should move with caution in enforcing the duty court, so far as we can discover, has ever attempted to make a
to provide for the separate maintenance of the wife, for this step peremptory order requiring one of the spouses to live with the
involves a recognition of the anomalous de facto separation of the other; and that was in a case where a wife was ordered to follow
spouses. From this consideration it follows that provision should not and live with her husband, who had changed his domicile to the
be made for separate maintenance in favor of the wife unless it appears City of New Orleans. In other states of the American Union the
that the continued cohabitation of the pair has become impossible and idea of enforcing cohabitation by process of contempt is rejected.
separation necessary from the fault of the husband.
IX. Random Facts
Action for Restitution • Ponente – Street, J.
In an action by the husband against a wife to obtain a restitution of
conjugal rights, the court entered a judicial declaration to the effect
that the wife had absented herself from the marital home without
sufficient cause, and she was admonished that it was her duty to
return. The court, however, refrained from making an order absolute
requiring her to return.
2
Persons I (2019) PETITIONER/APPELLANT: Mariano B. Mariano
DIGEST AUTHOR: Kerwin C. Aguilar RESPONDENT: Dolores Velazquez de Arroyo

P58 - Arroyo V Vasquez de Arroyo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P58 - Arroyo V Vasquez de Arroyo PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P58 - Arroyo V Vasquez de Arroyo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

V. Law or Doctrine Applied VI. Disposition

Necessity for Separation VIII. Additional Notes

You might also like