SC Affirms a Husband’s Duty to Support His Wife Even If She Leaves the Conjugal Home

 

“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.”  -SC

Statement of the Case

Eloisa Goitia filed a case against her husband, Jose Campos Rueda, seeking financial support while living apart from the conjugal home. The lower court initially ruled that Jose could not be compelled to support Eloisa outside their shared residence unless there was a judicial decree granting separation or divorce. Consequently, the court dismissed the case on demurrer. Dissatisfied with the decision, Eloisa appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

1. Plaintiff's Arguments:
• Eloisa argued that she had a right to financial support from Jose despite not living in the conjugal home.
• She claimed that her departure was justified due to Jose’s repeated obscene demands and acts of maltreatment.
2. Defendant's Arguments:
• Jose contended that he could only be compelled to support his wife within their conjugal home.
• He asserted that Article 149 of the Civil Code gave him the right to provide support by maintaining Eloisa in the conjugal abode rather than paying her a separate pension.

Factual Background

January 7, 1915: Eloisa and Jose married in Manila.

They lived together at 115 Calle San Marcelino for one month.

During this time, Jose made obscene demands of Eloisa, which she refused.

After her refusals, Jose physically abused Eloisa, inflicting injuries on her lips, face, and body.

Eloisa left the conjugal home and sought refuge with her parents due to Jose’s behavior.

Issues

1. Can a husband be compelled to provide financial support to his wife outside the conjugal domicile without a judicial decree of separation or divorce?
2. Is the option under Article 149 of the Civil Code, allowing a husband to provide support within the conjugal home, absolute?

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Marriage as Both a Contract and an Institution

Marriage in the Philippines is formalized through mutual consent and compliance with legal requirements under General Orders No. 68. While it shares characteristics with contracts, such as requiring consent and solemnity, it transcends this definition by creating a legal relationship governed not by the parties' agreement but by general law. This relationship, defined by rights and obligations, reflects the public's interest in preserving marriage as a stable and enduring institution.

Public Interest in Regulating Marriage

The state regulates marriage because it serves as a cornerstone of societal stability and morality. Marriage is viewed as essential to the welfare of families and society, which gives the government a vested interest in ensuring its sanctity. The obligations within marriage are not merely private arrangements but are rooted in public policy, making them non-negotiable without proper legal procedures, such as annulment or separation.

Duties and Obligations of Spouses

The Law of Civil Marriage and the Civil Code impose mutual obligations on spouses, including fidelity, support, and cohabitation. The husband must live with and protect his wife, while the wife must obey and live with her husband unless justifiable reasons prevent her from doing so. Abuse, intolerable conditions, or moral grounds may justify a spouse’s departure from the conjugal home without negating the other's duty to provide support.

Support Obligations under Article 149

Article 149 of the Civil Code allows the person obligated to provide support to choose between maintaining the recipient in their home or paying a pension. However, this choice is not absolute and may be restricted when the obligor’s conduct makes cohabitation unsafe or intolerable. The law prioritizes the welfare of the recipient over the obligor's preference.

Restrictions on Article 149 from Spanish Jurisprudence

Spanish jurisprudence, which influenced Philippine law, established that the option to provide support within the conjugal home can be overridden by superior rights or justifiable causes. For instance, when abuse or moral considerations prevent cohabitation, courts have ruled that the obligated party must provide support through other means, such as a pension.

Philippine Context on Spousal Support

In the Philippine legal framework, the obligation to provide support persists even when the spouses live apart for valid reasons. Unlike other jurisdictions where divorce may be an option, the Philippines does not generally allow divorce under its legal system, reflecting the permanence and sanctity of marriage as a cornerstone of public policy. Instead, remedies such as annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage are available for terminating marriages, based on specific grounds provided by law.   

 

Spousal support remains an enduring obligation, irrespective of the spouses’ living arrangements, particularly when the separation is justified due to abuse or intolerable conditions. The duty to provide support is viewed as a legal and moral responsibility arising from the marital bond, ensuring that the aggrieved spouse's rights are protected even in the absence of cohabitation.

 

Separate Support vs. Divorce

The Supreme Court clarified that granting separate support does not equate to granting a divorce or legal separation. Support obligations arise naturally from marriage and continue as a legal and moral duty, even if the spouses live apart due to the wrongful actions of one party. This distinction ensures that support is viewed as a fundamental right rather than a consequence of marital dissolution.

Balancing Public Policy and Relief for the Aggrieved Spouse 

While the law prioritizes preserving the sanctity of marriage, it also provides relief to aggrieved spouses to ensure fairness and protection. The obligation to support serves as a mechanism to uphold public peace and morality while addressing the needs of a spouse who has been wronged or placed in an intolerable situation. This balance reflects the law's dual focus on maintaining the integrity of marriage and protecting individual rights.

Separate Opinions

Justice Moreland, concurring:

I base my vote on the principle that a husband cannot escape his legal duty to support his wife through his own wrongful actions. When a husband, through illegal, wrongful, and unbearable behavior, forces his wife to leave the marital home, he cannot use her departure as a justification to disregard the laws governing marital relations or to abandon his responsibilities. Legally speaking, the wife is still considered a member of the conjugal domicile.

This principle rests on a universally accepted legal doctrine: when a person’s wrongful and illegal actions create a situation that would ordinarily cause another person to lose their rights or legal status, the law intervenes to protect the affected individual. In such cases, the law treats the wrongful situation as though it does not exist and instead reverts to the original state of affairs to determine the rights and legal standing of the parties involved.

Therefore, I do not agree with the defendant's argument that this case hinges on the idea that the wife is outside the marital home. Based on the facts presented in the complaint, the wife is legally still considered to reside within the conjugal domicile.

ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA vs. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916, SC En Banc, Per Justice TRENT