De Ocampo v. Florenciano

Gretchen A.
Cañedo
JOSE DE OCAMPO vs. SERAFINA FLORENCIANO
GR. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960
Facts:
April 5, 1938, Jose and Serafina were married by a religious

ceremony in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and had lived thereafter as husband and
wife. They begot seven several children who are now living with Jose.
In March, 1951, Jose discovered on several occasions that his wife

was betraying his trust by maintaining illicit relations with one Jose Arcalas.
Having found the defendant carrying marital relations with another man
Jose sent her to Manila in June 1951 to study beauty culture, where she
stayed for one year. Again, Jose discovered that while in the said city
defendant was going out with several other men, aside from Jose Arcalas.
Towards the end of June, 1952, when defendant had finished studying her
course, she left Jose and since then they had lived separately.
On June 18, 1955, Jose surprised his wife in the act of having illicit
relations with another man by the name of Nelson Orzame. Jose signified
his intention of filing a petition for legal separation; to which defendant
manifested her conformity provided she is not charged with adultery in a
criminal action. On July 5, 1955, a petition for legal separation was then
filed.
When the Fiscal question her, she reiterated her conformity to the
legal separation even as she admitted having had sexual relations with
Nelson Orzame.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the confession made by Florenciano constitutes

the confession of judgment disallowed by the Family Code.
(2) Whether or Not the petition of Legal Separation be granted.
Held:
As we understand the article, it does not exclude, as evidence, any

admission or confession made by the defendant outside of the court. It
merely prohibits a decree of separation upon a confession of judgment.
Confession of judgment usually happens when the defendant appears in
court and confesses the right of plaintiff to judgment or files a pleading
expressly agreeing to the plaintiff's demand.
Yet, even supposing that the above statement of defendant

constituted practically a confession of judgment, inasmuch as there is
evidence of the adultery independently of such statement, the decree may
and should be granted, since it would not be based on her confession, but
upon evidence presented by the plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a
judgment based exclusively or mainly on defendant's confession. If a
confession defeats the action ipso facto, any defendant who opposes the
separation will immediately confess judgment, purposely to prevent it.
When she refused to answer the complaint, she indicated her

willingness to be separated. Yet, the law does not order the dismissal.
Allowing the proceeding to continue, it takes precautions against collusion,
which implies more than consent or lack of opposition to the agreement.
In this case, there would be collusion if the parties had arranged to

make it appear that a matrimonial offense had been committed although it
was not, or if the parties had connived to bring about a legal separation
even in the absence of grounds therefor.
Here, the offense of adultery had really taking place, according to the
evidence. The defendant could not have falsely told the adulterous acts to
the Fiscal, because her story might send her to jail the moment her
husband requests the Fiscal to prosecute. She could not have practiced
deception at such a personal risk.
In this connection, it has been held that collusion may not be inferred
from the mere fact that the guilty party confesses to the offense and thus
enables the other party to procure evidence necessary to prove it.
Two decisions are cited wherein from apparently similar
circumstances, this Court inferred the husband's consent to or condonation
of his wife's misconduct. However, upon careful examination, a vital
difference will be found: in both instances, the husband had abandoned his
wife; here it was the wife who "left" her husband.
Wherefore, finding no obstacles to the aggrieved husband's petition

we hereby reverse the appealed decision and decree a legal separation
between these spouses, all the consequent effects. Costs of all instances
against Serafina Florenciano.

De Ocampo v. Florenciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Ocampo v. Florenciano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Ocampo v. Florenciano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gretchen A.

JOSE DE OCAMPO vs. SERAFINA FLORENCIANO

GR. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960

April 5, 1938, Jose and Serafina were married by a religious

In March, 1951, Jose discovered on several occasions that his wife

(1) Whether or Not the confession made by Florenciano constitutes

As we understand the article, it does not exclude, as evidence, any

Yet, even supposing that the above statement of defendant

When she refused to answer the complaint, she indicated her

In this case, there would be collusion if the parties had arranged to

Wherefore, finding no obstacles to the aggrieved husband's petition

You might also like

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