GOITIA VS.CAMPOS-RUEDA Doctrine: 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 GANDIOCO VS. PENERANDA Facts: Teresita Gandioco, legal wife of petitioner, Froilan Gandioco, filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint against petitioner for legal separation on the ground of concubinage with a petition for support and payment of damages. Teresita also filed a complaint for concubinage against petitioner with the MTC of General Santos City. And again, for the application for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite. The respondent judge KALAW VS. FERNANDEZ Doctrine: In the case, there are grounds for legal separation but not for psychological incapacity under FC36 Facts: Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met 1973 Married in Hong Kong on November 4, 1976 Tyrone had extramarital affair with Jocelyn who gave birth to his son in March 1983 May 1985: Malyn left conjugal home and her four children to Tyrone. Tyrone started living with Jocelyn who bore him more children (3) 1990: Tyrone went to US together with Jocelyn and their children He left his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde with only a househelp and a driver. Nine years since de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Gates and a catholic canon law expert, Fr. Healy to testify Dr. Gates: Malyn may suffer from psychological incapacity due to evidence (madjong, frequent nights out), reflect a narcissistic personality disorder, based her diagnosis on facts revealed in interviews with Tyrone, Trinidad Kalaw (sister-in-law) and their son Fr. Healy: her psych inc. is totes grave and incurable: based his opinion on interview with Tyrone, trial transcripts as well as reports from Dr. Dayan, Malyn’s expert witness; clarified that he did not verify the truthfulness of going out with friends. CONCEPCION DE OCAMPO VS. Burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff. constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD. adultery.the factual allegations regarding Malyn’s “habits”. ZAPATA ARANETA VS. There may be grounds for legal separation. which served as the bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts. PRAXEDES PEOPLE VS. Failed to prove that res suffers from psych inc. 2)physical abuse REPUBLIC VS. In fact. But petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner’s experts opined that respondent’s alleged habits. were not actually proven. and neglect of their children. which may have constrained them from dedicating the best of themselves to each other and to their children. infidelity. but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. respondent presented contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the petitioner. perhaps. EUFEMIO MATUBIS VS. because he believed it was the duty of the court to do so ISSUE: W o N Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malyn suffers from psych inc? HELD: No. visits to the beauty parlor. Petitioner’s experts heavily relied on petitioner’s allegations of respondent’s constant mahjong sessions. when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and wife. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated. Pet. but certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a marriage. CAMPOS LAPUZ VS. What transpired between the parties is acrimony and. QUINTOS ALMELOR VS. Grounds for legal sep which may be present in the case: 1) sexual infidelity. FLORENCIANO Doctrine: No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated . RTC CAMPOS VS. He must prove that it existed at the time of marriage and must be grave and incurable. a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them. on ground of adultery. and Capt. 101 above. CA affirmed holding that there was confession of judgment. NCC 100: Legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse. If there is no collusion.adultery with Nelson Orzame Defendant made no answer to the allegations against her. plus condonation or consent to the adultery and prescription. on 1951. the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not collusion between the parties exists. p signified his intention of filing a petition for legal . This case is about an action for legal separation by Jose de Ocampo against his wife Serafina. Mateo Damo. 1938. The court of Nueva Ecija dismissed the petition. and pursuant to Art. Cesar Enriquez. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition. provided that there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Ernesto Ocampo. Where both spouses are offenders.marriage of Serafina and Jose March 1951. plaintiff found out on several occasions of his wife’s infidelity o June 1951: sent her to Manila to study o 1952: lived separately o 1955: plaintiff surprised and caught his wife in the act of having illicit relations with husband. This present petition for certiorari was granted to consider the application of articles 100 and 101 of the NCC. In case of non-appearance of the defendant.upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. directed the provincial fiscal to investigate presence of collusion between parties. court defaulted her. NCC 101: No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment.adultery of Serafina to Jose Arcalas June 1955. Jose de Ocampo. Serafin Gubat. CA: o Evidence presented by plaintiff showed that they did marry (Plaintiff and Defendant) on 1938. the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to Facts: take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated. fiscal said there was no collusion. plaintiff presented his evidence thru testimony of Vicente Medina. SAMOSA VS. Where there is evidence of the adultery independent of the defendant’s statement agreeing to the legal separation. she admitted to having sexual relations with Nelson Orzame. to which d manifested her agreeance provided she need not be charged criminally o CA said that husband’s right to legal sep has prescribed. QUIAC LAPERAL VS. 1955: husband upon finding out illicit connection. REPUBLIC MACADANGDANG VS. VASQUEZ-ARROYO . BUGAYONG BROWN VS. VILLAREAL SABALONES VS. CA YANGCO VS. CA REPUBLIC VS. CARIAGA DE LA VINA VS. HELD: Florenciano’s admission to the investigating fiscal that she committed adultery. What is prohibited is a confession of judgment in done in court or through a pleading. action was not filed a year after March 1951. when p first discovered her infidelity (NCC 102) o As to 2nd infidelity (with Nelson Orzame). MACADAEG QUIAO VS.separation. in the existence of evidence of adultery other than such confession. MOLINA ARROYO VS. Petition should be granted because action for second adultery has not prescribed. RHODE RAMOS VS. What the law prohibits is a judgment based exclusively on defendant’s confession. CA MATUTUE VS. CA PEOPLE VS. is not the confession of judgment disallowed by NCC 102. And when she was questioned by the fiscal upon orders of the court. this was interpreted as a judicial confession ISSUE: W o N her confession constitutes a confession of judgment disallowed by the law. VAMENTA PACETE VS. SANSANO PEOPLE VS. expressed his wish to file for legal sep and defendant readiy agreed to such filing. SCHNECKENBERGER GINEZ VS. YAMBAO REPUBLIC VS. the decree of separation should be granted since it would not be based on confession but upon evidence presented by plaintiff. VAMENTA LERMA VS. SPOUSES TAN SAN DIEGO VS.CUADERNO VS. BILDNER ABELLA VS. SHARIAH COURT SHARICA MARI GO TAN VS. CUADERNO ILUSORIO VS. DE LOS SANTOS SSS VS. RTC . ROXAS YASIN VS. FAVILA CALDERON VS. COMELEC SSS VS.