Scribd
Upload
45 views2 pages

1913 Quintana - v. - Lerma20210424 14 7azjlb

This document summarizes a court case between Maria Quintana and Gelasio Lerma regarding support. It finds that: 1) An agreement between a husband and wife to separate and divide property is void unless allowed in their marriage contract. 2) Adultery is a valid defense for a husband in an action by his wife for support. 3) The agreement between Quintana and Lerma providing support payments was void, but she still had a right to support. Adultery, if proved, would defeat her action for support. The case was reversed and remanded to allow the defense of adultery.

Uploaded by

Erinnea Pascual
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views2 pages

1913 Quintana - v. - Lerma20210424 14 7azjlb

This document summarizes a court case between Maria Quintana and Gelasio Lerma regarding support. It finds that: 1) An agreement between a husband and wife to separate and divide property is void unless allowed in their marriage contract. 2) Adultery is a valid defense for a husband in an action by his wife for support. 3) The agreement between Quintana and Lerma providing support payments was void, but she still had a right to support. Adultery, if proved, would defeat her action for support. The case was reversed and remanded to allow the defense of adultery.

Uploaded by

Erinnea Pascual
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7426. February 5, 1913.]

MARIA QUINTANA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GELASIO LERMA,


defendant-appellant.

Singson, Ledesma & Lim, and Tirso de Irureta Goyena for appellant.
Jose Ma. de Marcaida for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; SEPARATION BY PRIVATE AGREEMENT. —


An agreement between husband and wife providing for a separation and a
division of the conjugal property between them is void unless provisions
permitting such a separation and division are contained in the marriage
contract.
2. ADULTERY AS DEFENSE TO ACTION FOR SUPPORT. — Under the
general principles of the law as expressed in the Civil Code, a wife has a
right of action against her husband for support and maintenance; adultery
by the wife is a good defense to such action.

DECISION

PER CURIAM, : p

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of


money due upon a contract between the plaintiff and defendant husband
and wife, for support.

The action is by a wife against her husband for support. It is based


upon a written contract. The evidence shows that the parties were lawfully
married in 1901 and that in February, 1905, they entered into a written
agreement of separation whereby each renounced certain rights as against
the other and divided the conjugal property between them, the defendant
undertaking in consideration of the premises to pay the plaintiff within the
first three days of each month the sum of P20 for her support and
maintenance.
In the original answer, the defendant set up as a special defense that
the wife had forfeited her right to support by committing adultery. This
allegation was stricken out by the court on motion, upon the ground that
under the provisions of article 152 of the Civil Code the commission of
adultery is not recognized as a ground upon which the obligation to support
ceases. Notwithstanding that such special defense was stricken out by order
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
of the court, the defendant, after plaintiff had filed an amended complaint,
inserted the same defense in his answer to the amended complaint. The
court upon the trial, however, refused to recognize such defense or to permit
any evidence to be introduced in support thereof, to which the defendant
duly excepted.
Article 1432 of the civil Code provides: "In default of express
declarations in the marriage contract, the separation of the property of the
consorts, during marriage, shall only take place by virtue of a judicial decree,
except in the case provided by article 50."
Under this article the agreement in suit is void. The wife, however, has
a right of action against her husband for support under the provisions of the
Civil Code and, although the contract in question is void, her right of action
does not for that reason fail.
We are of the opinion that the special defense of adultery set up by the
defendant in his answer both to the original and the amended complaint is a
good defense, and if properly proved and sustained will defeat the action.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded
for a new trial, with instructions to permit the interposition of the special
defense of adultery and such amendments of the complaint and answer as
may be necessary to carry this judgment into effect. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like