Atilano v. Chua Ching Beng, G.R. No. L-11086, March 29, 1958
Summary: Wife Pilar Atilano had difficulty with her in laws. When she and her husband Chua Ching Beng visited her family in Zamboanga City, she related this difficulty with her parents. Parents convinced husband to return first to Manila, and wife would just follow him later. However, Pilar did not return to Manila instead she filed a complaint for support and alimony pendente lite against her husband, alleging that they had been estranged and living separately since October, 1952. CFI Zamboanga granted the petition.
Chua filed a petition praying that he be allowed to fulfill his obligation “by receiving and maintaining in his house” , apart from the house of his parents, the wife “who has a right to receive support” in pursuant to Art 299 of CC. This was denied by the CFI, but SC granted this option, and even ruled that if the wife did not choose to live with her husband, husband has no more obligation to give any support to the wife.
-------------------------------
Ponente: FELIX, J.
Facts:
Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were married in Zamboanga City on May of 1951. The couple established their residence with the parents of the husband.
When the couple visited wife's family in Zamboanga City, her parents convinced husband to return first to Manila, and wife would just follow him later. Pilar did not return to Manila instead she filed a complaint for support and alimony pendente lite against her husband by reason of incessant marital bickerings and quarrels brought about by incompatibility of temperament and above all, by defendant's inability to provide for themselves a home separate from the latter's parents.
The wife's refusal to return to Manila was caused by her aversion to stay with the parents of her husband after she had experienced some previous in-law troubles.
Defendant husband contended that
(1)
their married life was characterized by harmony and understanding
(2)
plaintiff's parents caused her to be alienated from him resulting in her
refusal to return to Manila and live with her husband again
(3)
that defendant went back to Zamboanga City to fetch her, but through force and
intimidation she was prevented by her parents from going with him; and
(4) that her parents exerted undue pressure and influence upon his wife to file the complaint.
Defendant further averred that while he was not evading his obligation to support his, he preferred to fulfill said duty by receiving and maintaining her in Manila; that as the husband, defendant had the right to fix the residence of his family, and he would even be willing to establish a conjugal dwelling in Manila separate from that of his parents if that was the plaintiff's desire.
CFI Zamboanga rendered judgment granting the wife a monthly allowance of PhP75.00.
Defendant filed a petition electing to fulfill his wife; obligation as thus fixed by the trial court by receiving and maintaining plaintiff at his residence at Pasay City, which was, apart, from that of his parents, with the prayer that in the event, plaintiff would refuse to receive support under that set-up, that he be declared under, no compulsion to remit the allowance to her at Zamboanga City.
This was denied by the CFI, hence this petition filed before the SC.
---------------------------------------------
Issue:
WON a wife is entitled to received support from his husband where she refused
to live with him on account of some misunderstanding she had with the husband's
immediate relatives.
Held:
No.
ART. 299 of CC: The person obliged to give support may, at his option, fulfill his obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in his house the person who has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in this case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto;
Husband in this case is given the option to fulfill the said duty either by paying the allowance as fixed by the Court or receiving and maintaining the person entitled thereto in his house. In giving the obligor the option to fulfill his duty, it provides for only one occasion when the second alternative could not be availed of i.e., when there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto. While physical ill-treatment may be ground to compel a husband to provide a separate maintenance for his wife ( Arroyo vs. Vasquez de Arroyo, 42 Phil., 54 ) said allegation was not proved during the trial. Instead, the lower court found that the root-cause of all their differences could be traced to disagreements common among relatives by affinity. That misunderstanding with in-laws, who may be considered third parties to the marriage, is not the moral nor legal obstacle that the lawmakers contemplated in the drafting of said provision.
DECISION: The decision appealed from CFI is hereby modified by giving the defendant husband Chua Ching Beng the option of supporting his wife at their conjugal dwelling apart from the home of the parents of the husband. Should plaintiff wife refuse to abide by the terms of this decision, then the defendant-appellant Chua shall be considered relieved from the obligation of giving any support to his wife.
Comments
Post a Comment