Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Maquilan vs. Maquilan

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

GR NO. 155409, June 8,2007.

MAQUILAN vs. MAQUILAN


FACTS:

Herein petitioner and herein private respondent are spouses who once had a blissful married life and
out of which were blessed to have a son. However, their once sugar coated romance turned bitter when
petitioner discovered that private respondent was having illicit sexual affair with her paramour, which
thus, prompted the petitioner to file a case of adultery against private respondent and the latter's
paramour. Consequently, both accused were convicted of the crime charged.

Thereafter, private respondent, through counsel, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages imputing psychological
incapacity on the part of the petitioner. During the pre-trial of the said case, petitioner and private
respondent entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for the repudiation of the AGREEMENT. This motion was
denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals on the
ground that the convictions of the respondent of the crime of adultery disqualify her from sharing in
the conjugal property. The Petition was dismissed.

ISSUE:

Is the conviction of the respondent of the crime of adultery a disqualification for her to share in the
conjugal property?

RULING:

No. The conviction of adultery does not carry the accessory of civil interdiction. Article 34 of the Revised
Penal Code provides for the consequences of civil interdiction:

Art. 34. Civil Interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence
of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of
marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by
any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

Under Article 333 of the same Code, the penalty for adultery is prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods. Article 333 should be read with Article 43 of the same Code. The latter provides:

Art. 43. Prision correccional — its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision correccional shall carry
with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall
exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this article although
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

It is clear, therefore, and as correctly held by the CA that the crime of adultery does not carry the
accessory penalty of civil interdiction which deprives the person of the rights to manage her property
and to dispose of such property inter vivos.

CASUPANG SHERWIN LAMPUYAS 1-E CRIMINAL LAW 1

You might also like