Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Zulueta Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Gavero
    1. Cecilia Zulueta forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic, including private correspondence and photographs, to use as evidence in a legal separation case against him. 2. The trial court ruled the documents were the exclusive property of Alfredo Martin and barred Cecilia from using them as evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, stating the documents were inadmissible due to constitutional protections of privacy of communication and correspondence, and that ransacking a spouse's belongings violated their right to privacy as an individual.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zulueta Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Gavero
    62 views2 pages
    1. Cecilia Zulueta forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic, including private correspondence and photographs, to use as evidence in a legal separation case against him. 2. The trial court ruled the documents were the exclusive property of Alfredo Martin and barred Cecilia from using them as evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, stating the documents were inadmissible due to constitutional protections of privacy of communication and correspondence, and that ransacking a spouse's belongings violated their right to privacy as an individual.

    Original Title

    Zulueta vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Cecilia Zulueta forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic, including private correspondence and photographs, to use as evidence in a legal separation case against him. 2. The trial court ruled the documents were the exclusive property of Alfredo Martin and barred Cecilia from using them as evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, stating the documents were inadmissible due to constitutional protections of privacy of communication and correspondence, and that ransacking a spouse's belongings violated their right to privacy as an individual.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views2 pages

    Zulueta Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Gavero
    1. Cecilia Zulueta forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic, including private correspondence and photographs, to use as evidence in a legal separation case against him. 2. The trial court ruled the documents were the exclusive property of Alfredo Martin and barred Cecilia from using them as evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, stating the documents were inadmissible due to constitutional protections of privacy of communication and correspondence, and that ransacking a spouse's belongings violated their right to privacy as an individual.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Zulueta vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 107383
    February 20, 1996

    FACTS:

    1. Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March
    26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in
    the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly
    opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents
    consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged
    paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and
    photographs.
    2. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal
    separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner
    had filed against her husband.
    3. Dr. Martin brought an action for the recovery of documents and papers, as well as
    damages against her wife before the RTC. The RTC ruled in his favor, declaring him
    to be the exclusive owner of such documents. The writ of preliminary injunction was
    made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and representatives
    were enjoined from using or submitting/admitting as evidence the documents and
    papers in question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
    Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence

    RULING:

    No.  Indeed, the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
    constitutional injunction declaring “the privacy of communication and correspondence to
    be inviolable” is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
    aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
    provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if
    there is a “lawful order from court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
    prescribed by law.”  Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
    inadmissible “for any purpose in any proceeding.” 

    The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the
    drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
    marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his
    right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or
    to her.

    The law ensures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it
    privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the
    consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.  Neither may be examined
    without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one
    from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom
    of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows
    with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the
    other. 

    The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit. 

    You might also like