The wife is entitled of support. Art 149 is not absolute.

The husband cannot absolve himself

from support when it was a maltreatment caused by him is the reason why the wife left the
domicile.

Goitia vs Campos-Rueda
Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda
35 Phil 252

FACTS:

Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos y Rueda, respondent, were married on
January 7, 1915 and had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino Manila.  They stayed together for a
month before petitioner returned to her parent’s home.  Goitia filed a complaint against respondent
for support outside the conjugal home.  It was alleged that respondent demanded her to perform
unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs.  Petitioner refused to perform such acts and
demanded her husband other than the legal and valid cohabitation.  Since Goitia kept on refusing,
respondent maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and different body
parts.  The trial court ruled in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia could not compel her
husband to support her except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting
her separation or divorce from respondent.  Goitia filed motion for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal home.

HELD:

The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created merely in the act of marriage. 
The law provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the obligation
either by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option.  However,
this option given by law is not absolute.  The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate
his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from the conjugal home because of his
wrongful acts.  In the case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the
lewd designs and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore claim support from the husband
for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal home.  

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 11263             November 2, 1916

ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appellee.

Eduardo Gutierrez Repide and Felix Socias for appellant.

Sanz, Opisso and Luzuriaga for appellee.

TRENT, J.:

This is an action by the wife against her husband for support outside of the conjugal
domicile. From a judgment sustaining the defendant's demurrer upon the ground that
the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of action, followed by an order
dismissing the case after the plaintiff declined to amend, the latter appealed.

It was urged in the first instance, and the court so held, that the defendant cannot be
compelled to support the plaintiff, except in his own house, unless it be by virtue of a
judicial decree granting her a divorce or separation from the defendant.

The parties were legally married in the city of Manila on January 7, 1915, and
immediately thereafter established their residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino, where
they lived together for about a month, when the plaintiff returned to the home of her
parents. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are as follows:

That the defendant, one month after he had contracted marriage with the plaintiff,
demanded of her that she perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital
organs; that the plaintiff spurned the obscene demands of the defendant and
refused to perform any act other than legal and valid cohabitation; that the
defendant, since that date had continually on other successive dates, made
similar lewd and indecorous demands on his wife, the plaintiff, who always
spurned them, which just refusals of the plaintiff exasperated the defendant and
induce him to maltreat her by word and deed and inflict injuries upon her lips, her
face and different parts of her body; and that, as the plaintiff was unable by any
means to induce the defendant to desist from his repugnant desires and cease
from maltreating her, she was obliged to leave the conjugal abode and take
refuge in the home of her parents.

Marriage in this jurisdiction is a contract entered into in the manner and with the
solemnities established by General Orders No. 68, in so far as its civil effects are
concerned requiring the consent of the parties. (Garcia vs. Montague, 12 Phil. Rep.,
480, citing article 1261 of Civil Code.) Upon the termination of the marriage ceremony, a
conjugal partnership is formed between the parties. (Sy Joc Lieng vs. Encarnacion, 16
Phil. Rep., 137.) To this extent a marriage partakes of the nature of an ordinary
contract. But it is something more than a mere contract. It is a new relation, the rights,
duties, and obligations of which rest not upon the agreement of the parties but upon the
general law which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations .Marriage
is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested.
It is a relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of
any contract they may make .The reciprocal rights arising from this relation, so long as it
continues, are such as the law determines from time to time, and none other. When the
legal existence of the parties is merged into one by marriage, the new relation is
regulated and controlled by the state or government upon principles of public policy for
the benefit of society as well as the parties. And when the object of a marriage is
defeated by rendering its continuance intolerable to one of the parties and productive of
no possible good to the community, relief in some way should be obtainable. With these
principles to guide us, we will inquire into the status of the law touching and governing
the question under consideration.

Articles 42 to 107 of the Civil Code are not in force in the Philippine Islands (Benedicto
vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil .Rep., 34). Articles 44 to 78 of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870,
in force in the Peninsula, were extended to the Philippine Islands by royal decree on
April 13, 1883 (Ebreo vs. Sichon, 4 Phil. Rep., 705). Articles 44, 45, and 48 of this law
read:

ART. 44. The spouses are obliged to be faithful to each other and to mutually
assist each other.

ART. 45. The husband must live with and protect his wife. (The second
paragraph deals with the management of the wife's property.)

ART. 48. The wife must obey her husband, live with him, and follow him when he
charges his domicile or residence.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, the court may for just
cause relieve her from this duty when the husband removes his residence to a
foreign country.

And articles 143 and 149 of the Civil Code are as follows:

ART. 143. The following are obliged to support each other reciprocally to the
whole extent specified in the preceding article.

1. The consorts.

xxx     xxx     xxx

ART. (149) 49. The person obliged to give support may, at his option, satisfy it,
either by paying the pension that may be fixed or by receiving and maintaining in
his own home the person having the right to the same.
Article 152 of the Civil Code gives the instances when the obligation to give support
shall cease. The failure of the wife to live with her husband is not one of them.

The above quoted provisions of the Law of Civil Marriage and the Civil Code fix the
duties and obligations of the spouses. The spouses must be faithful to, assist, and
support each other. The husband must live with and protect his wife. The wife must
obey and live with her husband and follow him when he changes his domicile or
residence, except when he removes to a foreign country. But the husband who is
obliged to support his wife may, at his option, do so by paying her a fixed pension or by
receiving and maintaining her in his own home. May the husband, on account of his
conduct toward his wife, lose this option and be compelled to pay the pension? Is the
rule established by article 149 of the Civil Code absolute? The supreme court of Spain
in its decision of December 5, 1903, held:.

That in accordance with the ruling of the supreme court of Spain in its decisions
dated May 11, 1897, November 25, 1899, and July 5, 1901, the option which
article 149 grants the person, obliged to furnish subsistence, between paying the
pension fixed or receiving and keeping in his own house the party who is entitled
to the same, is not so absolute as to prevent cases being considered wherein,
either because this right would be opposed to the exercise of a preferential right
or because of the existence of some justifiable cause morally opposed to the
removal of the party enjoying the maintenance, the right of selection must be
understood as being thereby restricted.

Whereas the only question discussed in the case which gave rise to this appeal
was whether there was any reason to prevent the exercise of the option granted
by article 149 of the Civil Code to the person obliged to furnish subsistence, to
receive and maintain in his own house the one who is entitled to receive it; and
inasmuch as nothing has been alleged or discussed with regard to the parental
authority of Pedro Alcantara Calvo, which he ha not exercised, and it having
been set forth that the natural father simply claims his child for the purpose of
thus better attending to her maintenance, no action having been taken by him
toward providing the support until, owing to such negligence, the mother was
obliged to demand it; it is seen that these circumstances, together with the fact of
the marriage of Pedro Alcantara, and that it would be difficult for the mother to
maintain relations with her daughter, all constitute an impediment of such a
nature as to prevent the exercise of the option in the present case, without
prejudice to such decision as may be deemed proper with regard to the other
questions previously cited in respect to which no opinion should be expressed at
this time.

The above was quoted with approval in United States and De Jesus vs. Alvir (9 Phil.
Rep., 576), wherein the court held that the rule laid down in article 149 of the Civil Code
"is not absolute." but it is insisted that there existed a preexisting or preferential right in
each of these cases which was opposed to the removal of the one entitled to support. It
is true that in the first the person claiming the option was the natural father of the child
and had married a woman other than the child's mother, and in the second the right to
support had already been established by a final judgment in a criminal case.
Notwithstanding these facts the two cases clearly established the proposition that the
option given by article 149 of the Civil Code may not be exercised in any and all cases.

Counsel for the defendant cite, in support of their contention, the decision of the
supreme court of Spain, dated November 3, 1905. In this case Don Berno Comas, as a
result of certain business reverses and in order no to prejudice his wife, conferred upon
her powers to administer and dispose of her property. When she left him he gave her all
the muniments of title, mortgage credits, notes, P10,000 in accounts receivable, and the
key to the safe in which he kept a large amount of jewels, thus depriving himself of all
his possessions and being reduced in consequence to want. Subsequently he instituted
this civil action against his wife, who was then living in opulence, for support and the
revocation of the powers heretofore granted in reference to the administration and
disposal of her property. In her answer the wife claimed that the plaintiff (her husband)
was not legally in a situation to claim support and that the powers voluntarily conferred
and accepted by her were bilateral and could not be canceled by the plaintiff. From a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant wife appealed to the Audencia
Territorial wherein, after due trial, judgment was rendered in her favor dismissing the
action upon the merits. The plaintiff appealed to the supreme court and that high
tribunal, in affirming the judgment of the Audencia Territorial, said:

Considering that article 143, No. 1, of the Civil Code, providing that the spouses
are mutually obliged to provide each other with support, cannot but be
subordinate to the other provisions of said Code which regulates the family
organization and the duties of spouses not legally separated, among which
duties are those of their living together and mutually helping each other, as
provided in article 56 of the aforementioned code; and taking this for granted, the
obligation of the spouse who has property to furnish support to the one who has
no property and is in need of it for subsistence, is to be understood as limited to
the case where, in accordance with law, their separation has been decreed,
either temporarily or finally and this case, with respect to the husband, cannot
occur until a judgment of divorce is rendered, since, until then, if he is culpable,
he is not deprived of the management of his wife's property and of the product of
the other property belonging to the conjugal partnership; and

Considering that, should the doctrine maintained in the appeal prevail, it would
allow married persons to disregard the marriage bond and separate from each
other of their own free will, thus establishing, contrary to the legal provision
contained in said article 56 of the Civil Code, a legal status entirely incompatible
with the nature and effects of marriage in disregard of the duties inherent therein
and disturbing the unity of the family, in opposition to what the law, in conformity
with good morals, has established; and.

Considering that, as the spouses D. Ramon Benso and Doña Adela Galindo are
not legally separated, it is their duty to live together and afford each other help
 and support; and for this reason, it cannot be held that the former has need of
support from his wife so that he may live apart from her without the conjugal
abode where it is his place to be, nor of her conferring power upon him to
dispose even of the fruits of her property in order therewith to pay the
matrimonial expenses and, consequently, those of his own support without need
of going to his wife; wherefore the judgment appealed from, denying the petition
of D. Ramon Benso for support, has not violated the articles of the Civil Code
and the doctrine invoked in the assignments of error 1 and 5 of the appeal.

From a careful reading of the case just cited and quoted from it appears quite clearly
that the spouses separated voluntarily in accordance with an agreement previously
made. At least there are strong indications to this effect, for the court says, "should the
doctrine maintained in the appeal prevail, it would allow married persons to disregard
the marriage bond and separate from each other of their own free will." If this be the true
basis upon which the supreme court of Spain rested its decision, then the doctrine
therein enunciated would not be controlling in cases where one of the spouses was
compelled to leave the conjugal abode by the other or where the husband voluntarily
abandons such abode and the wife seeks to force him to furnish support. That this is
true appears from the decision of the same high tribunal, dated October 16, 1903. In
this case the wife brought an action for support against her husband who had willfully
and voluntarily abandoned the conjugal abode without any cause whatever. The
supreme court, reversing the judgment absolving the defendant upon the ground that no
action for divorce, etc., had been instituted, said:

In the case at bar, it has been proven that it was Don Teodoro Exposito who left
the conjugal abode, although he claims, without however proving his contention,
that the person responsible for this situation was his wife, as she turned him out
of the house. From this state of affairs it results that it is the wife who is party
abandoned, the husband not having prosecuted any action to keep her in his
company and he therefore finds himself, as long as he consents to the situation,
under the ineluctable obligation to support his wife in fulfillment of the natural
duty sanctioned in article 56 of the Code in relation with paragraph 1 of article
143. In not so holding, the trial court, on the mistaken ground that for the
fulfillment of this duty the situation or relation of the spouses should be regulated
in the manner it indicates, has made the errors of law assigned in the first three
grounds alleged, because the nature of the duty of affording mutual support is
compatible and enforcible in all situations, so long as the needy spouse does not
create any illicit situation of the court above described.lawphil.net

If we are in error as to the doctrine enunciated by the supreme court of Spain in its
decision of November 3, 1905, and if the court did hold, as contended by counsel for the
defendant in the case under consideration, that neither spouse can be compelled to
support the other outside of the conjugal abode, unless it be by virtue of a final
judgment granting the injured one a divorce or separation from the other, still such
doctrine or holding would not necessarily control in this jurisdiction for the reason that
the substantive law is not in every particular the same here as it is in Spain. As we have
already stated, articles 42 to 107 of the Civil Code in force in the Peninsula are not in
force in the Philippine Islands. The law governing the duties and obligations of husband
and wife in this country are articles 44 to 78 of the Law of Civil Marriage of 1870 .In
Spain the complaining spouse has, under article 105 of the Civil Code, various causes
for divorce, such as adultery on the part of the wife in every case and on the part of the
husband when public scandal or disgrace of the wife results therefrom; personal
violence actually inflicted or grave insults: violence exercised by the husband toward the
wife in order to force her to change her religion; the proposal of the husband to
prostitute his wife; the attempts of the husband or wife to corrupt their sons or to
prostitute their daughters; the connivance in their corruption or prostitution; and the
condemnation of a spouse to perpetual chains or hard labor, while in this jurisdiction the
only ground for a divorce is adultery. (Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil .Rep., 34, 45.)
This positive and absolute doctrine was announced by this court in the case just cited
after an exhaustive examination of the entire subject. Although the case was appealed
to the Supreme Court of the United States and the judgment rendered by this court was
there reversed, the reversal did not affect in any way or weaken the doctrine in
reference to adultery being the only ground for a divorce. And since the decision was
promulgated by this court in that case in December, 1903, no change or modification of
the rule has been announced. It is, therefore, the well settled and accepted doctrine in
this jurisdiction.

But it is argued that to grant support in an independent suit is equivalent to granting

divorce or separation, as it necessitates a determination of the question whether the
wife has a good and sufficient cause for living separate from her husband; and,
consequently, if a court lacks power to decree a divorce, as in the instant case, power to
grant a separate maintenance must also be lacking. The weakness of this argument lies
in the assumption that the power to grant support in a separate action is dependent
upon a power to grant a divorce. That the one is not dependent upon the other is
apparent from the very nature of the marital obligations of the spouses. The mere act of
marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife. This
obligation is founded not so much on the express or implied terms of the contract of
marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband; an obligation, the
enforcement of which is of such vital concern to the state itself that the laws will not
permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection
in the parental home. A judgment for separate maintenance is not due and payable
either as damages or as a penalty; nor is it a debt in the strict legal sense of the term,
but rather a judgment calling for the performance of a duty made specific by the
mandate of the sovereign. This is done from necessity and with a view to preserve the
public peace and the purity of the wife; as where the husband makes so base demands
upon his wife and indulges in the habit of assaulting her. The pro tanto separation
resulting from a decree for separate support is not an impeachment of that public policy
by which marriage is regarded as so sacred and inviolable in its nature; it is merely a
stronger policy overruling a weaker one; and except in so far only as such separation is
tolerated as a means of preserving the public peace and morals may be considered, it
does not in any respect whatever impair the marriage contract or for any purpose place
the wife in the situation of a feme sole.
The foregoing are the grounds upon which our short opinion and order for judgment,
heretofore filed in this case, rest.

Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

MORELAND, J., concurring:

I based my vote in this case upon the ground that a husband cannot, by his own
wrongful acts, relieve himself from the duty to support his wife imposed by law; and
where a husband, by wrongful, illegal, and unbearable conduct, drives his wife from the
domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure to abrogate the law
applicable to the marital relation and repudiate his duties thereunder. In law and for all
purposes within its purview, the wife still remains an inmate of the conjugal domicile; for
I regard it as a principle of law universally recognized that where a person by his
wrongful and illegal acts creates a condition which under ordinary circumstances would
produce the loss of rights or status pertaining to another, the law will, whenever
necessary to protect fully the rights or status of the person affected by such acts, regard
the condition by such acts created as not existing and will recur to and act upon the
original situation of the parties to determine their relative rights or the status of the
person adversely affected.

I do not believe, therefore, that the case is properly conceived by defendant, when the
consideration thereof proceeds solely on the theory that the wife is outside the domicile
fixed by the husband. Under the facts alleged in the complainant the wife is legally still
within the conjugal domicile.