Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Filomena Del Prado

    Uploaded by

    Kiel
    This document summarizes a court case from 1914 in which Filomena del Prado filed for divorce from her husband Tirso de la Fuente. The key details are: 1) Filomena del Prado argued that divorce should be granted because Tirso de la Fuente had committed adultery by living with and having children with another woman, Basilisa Padilla, from 1910 to the present. 2) Tirso de la Fuente was acquitted of adultery charges because he did not know that Basilisa Padilla was married. However, Basilisa Padilla was found guilty of adultery. 3) The court ruled that divorce should be granted to Filomena

    Copyright:

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

    Filomena Del Prado

    Uploaded by

    Kiel
    93 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from 1914 in which Filomena del Prado filed for divorce from her husband Tirso de la Fuente. The key details are: 1) Filomena del Prado argued that divorce should be granted because Tirso de la Fuente had committed adultery by living with and having children with another woman, Basilisa Padilla, from 1910 to the present. 2) Tirso de la Fuente was acquitted of adultery charges because he did not know that Basilisa Padilla was married. However, Basilisa Padilla was found guilty of adultery. 3) The court ruled that divorce should be granted to Filomena

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from 1914 in which Filomena del Prado filed for divorce from her husband Tirso de la Fuente. The key details are: 1) Filomena del Prado argued that divorce should be granted because Tirso de la Fuente had committed adultery by living with and having children with another woman, Basilisa Padilla, from 1910 to the present. 2) Tirso de la Fuente was acquitted of adultery charges because he did not know that Basilisa Padilla was married. However, Basilisa Padilla was found guilty of adultery. 3) The court ruled that divorce should be granted to Filomena

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    93 views2 pages

    Filomena Del Prado

    Uploaded by

    Kiel
    This document summarizes a court case from 1914 in which Filomena del Prado filed for divorce from her husband Tirso de la Fuente. The key details are: 1) Filomena del Prado argued that divorce should be granted because Tirso de la Fuente had committed adultery by living with and having children with another woman, Basilisa Padilla, from 1910 to the present. 2) Tirso de la Fuente was acquitted of adultery charges because he did not know that Basilisa Padilla was married. However, Basilisa Padilla was found guilty of adultery. 3) The court ruled that divorce should be granted to Filomena

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    FILOMENA DEL PRADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TIRSO DE LA FUENTE, Defendant-Appellee.

    G.R. No. 9274 September 14, 1914

    The plaintiff-appellant is Filomena del Prado who is with Pedro Ma. Sison as her legal

    counsel. While the defendant-appellee is Tirso dela Fuente whos legal counsel is E. S. Smith.

    Filomena del Prado and Tirso dela Fuente was lawfully wedded. The marriage between Filomena

    del Prado and Tirso dela Fuente was consumated on or about June 17,1983 in the town of

    Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife, bore several children of whom

    only one survived, Emilio, who is 10 years of age at the year 1914. The petition for divorce was

    filed by Pedro Ma. Sison, counsel for Filomena del Prado in the Court of First Instance of

    Pangasinan. The case was tried on June 9, 1913 and the court, in light of the evidence presented

    by both parties, rendered the judgment set forth. However, Filomena del Prado is asking that she

    be legally separated from her lawful husband. The concubinage committed by her husband

    constituted the ground for petition for divorce, in that he was illegally united with another woman

    who was not his wife. Filomena del Prado said that since the period from June to November

    1910, her said husband had separated from and abandoned her, and lived in marital relations

    with Basilisa Padilla, a resident of Santa Barbara of the same province and wife of Isidro Nicolas.

    In the trial for adultery, it was not successfully manifested nor proven that the Tirso dela

    Fuente knew that his concubine Basilisa Padilla was a married woman. In order to commit the

    crime of adultery, the married woman must be with a man other than her husband and he who lies

    with her must know that she is married. Since Tirso dela Fuente did not know that his concubine

    was a married woman, he was acquitted of the charge of adultery. On the other hand, the

    accused woman, Basilisa Padilla, was found guilty of adultery since it was proven that she was

    joined in lawful matrimony with her husband, Isidro Nicolas. Further aggravating her case was

    that she had separated from him and had lived with her co-defendant Tirso dela Fuente.

    The decision declaring the divorce to have been properly granted in the suit, on the ground

    that concubinage of the Tirso dela Fuente with the adulteress Basilisa Padilla has been proven,

    does not conflict with the final judgment rendered in said case for adultery, prosecuted at the

    instance if the husband of the adulteress, because the fact that the adultery has been punished

    on account of the offense committed against Isidro Nicolas thereby and the judgment of acquittal

    in favor of the Tirso dela Fuente in that case, for the reason stated, do not affect her rights, nor

    form an obstacle to granting this petition, after the fact of the concubinage of the Tirso dela

    Fuente has been held to be established in this case.


    The judgment appealed from should be reversed and the divorce sought by the plaintiff be

    granted. And also to order the separation and suspension of the common life of the litigating

    spouses and the partition of the property of the conjugal partnership between the plaintiff and

    defendant, their minor child, Emilio, remain in the possession and under the care of his mother,

    the plaintiff. And costs of both instances to be imposed upon the defendant.

    Prepared and submitted by:

    MA. KIEL PATRICIA R. ETCOBANEZ


    AB Political Science I-B

    Submitted to:

    Prof. KRISMELLEH CASSANDRA LORENZITA BELARO


    English Professor

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy