Dadivas de Villanueva v. Villanueva, 54 Phil 93

"The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose incurable propensity towards other women makes common habitation with him unbearable...xxx"

My dears, this case happened even before World War 2, think 1927-ish era.  Nevertheless, the story seems familiar, in fact, this is still good case law as it is still cited in one of my Remedial law books.
 

Villanueva v. Villanueva
G.R.  No. L-33352

Facts

The wife (Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva) files for support against the husband (Rafael Villanueva) to obtain separate maintenance as she decided to live separately from the marital home (a month before filing this case) due to the husband's cruelty and repeated infidelity with other women outside their marital ties. The wife also wants to obtain custody of their 2 younger children, aged 10 and 9 as well as reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred for this case.

It appears that during the ten years prior to the filing of this case, the defendant has been involved in illicit relations with four different women, including another different one while this case was pending.

The complainant for the purpose of keeping the marriage intact, continued to bear with the infidelity of the defendant. It was only on April 20, 1927 when due to the cruelty of the defendant, the complainant decided to live their conjugal home.

The Lower Court's decision

The lower court absolved the defendant husband and abrogated a previous order approving support, hence the wife's appeal to the Court of Appeals.  Said decision was later affirmed hence this appeal.

Issue

Whether the complainant is entitled to support (separate maintenance) on the ground of cruelty and marital infidelity.

Ruling

Yes. The complainant is entitled to support.

It was held by the Supreme Court that (to quote)

"The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose incurable propensity towards other women makes common habitation with him unbearable.

Deeply rooted instincts of human nature sanction the separation in such a case, and the law is not so unreasonable as to require as acquiescence on the part of the injured party which is beyond the capacity of nature.

Inn order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate maintenance from her husband it is not necessary that the husband should bring a concubine into the marital domicile. Perverse and illicit relations with women outside of the marital establishment are enough.

As was said by Justice Moreland in Goitia v. Campos Rueda (35 Phil 252, 262),  a husband cannot, by his own wrongful acts, relieve himself from the duty to support his wife imposed by law; and where a husband by wrongful, illegal, and unbearable conduct, drives his wife from the domicile fixed by him, he cannot take advantage of her departure to abrogate the law applicable to the marital relations and repudiate his duties thereunder.