Brown vs.
Yambao, 102 Phil 168 (October 18, 1957
Plaintiff – Appellant: William H H.. Bro
row
wn
Defe
Defend
ndanantt – Appe
Appellllee
ee:: Juan
Juanititaa Yam
Yambabaoo
Ponente: Justice JBL Rees
APP!AL from a "ud#ment of t$e %ourt of &irst 'nstance of (anila
!"#$% O! $&' #"%'
William H. Brown filed a petition for le#al separation from $is wife) Juanita Yambao
Yambao)) before t$e %ourt of &irst 'nstance
of (anila on t$e #round of adulter.
adulter.
Accordin# to Brown) w$ile $e was interned b t$e Japanese in*aders from +,- to +,-/ at t$e 0ni*ersit of 1anto
2omas internment camp) $is wife en#a#ed in adulterous relations wit$ a certain Carlos Field of w$om s$e be#ot a
bab #irl. Brown said t$at $e learned of $is wife3s misconduct onl in +,-/ upon $is release from internment and t$at
t$e $a*e li*ed separatel t$ereafter.
Brown is now prain# for t$e confirmation of t$eir li4uidation a#reement5 for custod of t$e c$ildren issued of t$e
marria#e5 and t$at t$e defendant be declared dis4ualified to succeed t$e plaintiff and for ot$er remed as mi#$t be
"ust and e4uitable.
6ow) because Juanita Yambao
Yambao failed to file $er answer to t$e petition in due time) t$e trial court declared $er in
default and ordered t$e %it &iscal to represent t$e state and in*esti#ate) in accordance wit$ Article +7+ of t$e 6ew
%i*il %ode) if collusion e8ists between t$e parties.
Durin# t$e cross9e8amination of t$e plaintiff b Assistant City Fiscal Rafael
Rafael Jose)
Jose) it was found out t$at after t$e
liberation) Brown $ad li*ed martiall wit$ anot$er woman and $ad be#otten c$ildren b $er. Because of t$is fact) t$e
trial court denied t$e petition for le#al separation on t$e #round t$at) w$ile $is wife3s adulter was establis$ed) Brown
$ad incurred a misconduct of similar nature t$at barred $is ri#$t of action under Article +77 of t$e new %i*il %ode) and
t$at t$ere $ad been consent and conni*ance in addition to Brown3s action for filin# a petition for le#al separation
prescribin#.
Brown is now appealin# t$e decision of t$e lower court before t$e 1upreme %ourt.
)%%*'%
+. W$et$er
W$et$er or not t$e court erred
erred in allowin#
allowin# Assista
Assistant
nt &iscal Rafael
Rafael Jose to act as
as counsel for t$e
t$e defendant)
defendant)
. w$o
W$et$defaulted
W$et$erer or not
not t$e petition
petition for
for le#al
le#al separatio
separationn s$ould
s$ould be #ranted
#ranted
+'#)%)O
6o. 6o. Decision appealed from affirmed.
-"$)O"'
ISSUE #1: Accordin# to t$e 1upreme %ourt) %ollusion in matrimonial cases is defined as ;t$e act of married of
persons in procurin# a di*orce b mutual consent) w$et$er b pre9concerted commission b one of a matrimonial
offense) or b failure) in pursuance of a#reement to defend di*orce proceedin#s<
'n t$e case at bar) t$e 1% said t$at it was le#itimate for t$e fiscal to brin# to li#$t an circumstances t$at could #i*e
rise to t$e inference t$at t$e wife3s default was calculated) or a#reed upon) to enable t$e appellant to obtain t$e
decree of le#al separation t$at $e sou#$t wit$out re#ard to t$e le#al merits of $is case.
2$e fact t$at t$ere was e*idence of misconduct on t$e part of t$e $usband and t$e failure of t$e wife to set it up b
wa of defense) were proper sub"ect of in4uir as t$e ma "ustifiabl be considered circumstantial e*idence of
collusion between t$e spouses.
2$e 1% also said t$at t$e re4uirement of inter*ention of t$e state attorne in case of uncontested proceedin#s for
le#al separation =and of annulment of marria#es>) is to emp$asi?e t$at marria#e is more t$an a mere contract5 t$at it
is a social institution in w$ic$ t$e state is *itall interested) so t$at its continuation or interruption cannot be made to
depend upon t$e parties t$emsel*es.
't is consonant wit$ t$is polic t$at t$e in4uir b t$e &iscal s$ould be allowed to focus upon an rele*ant matter t$at
ma indicate w$et$er t$e proceedin#s for separation or annulment are full "ustified or not.
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
ISSUE #2: 'n t$e case at bar) t$e 1% said t$at t$e petition for le#al separation s$ould not be #ranted it bein# e*ident
t$at Brown is also #uilt of co9$abitin# wit$ a woman ot$er t$an $is wife. 2$is misconduct bars $im from claimin#
le#al separation in accordance wit$ t$e e8press pro*ision of Article +77 of t$e new %i*il %ode.
Anot$er reason w$ t$e petition for le#al separation cannot be #ranted is t$at t$e action for le#al separation in t$e
case at bar $as alread prescribed) since Brown did not institute t$e proceedin# until +7ears after $e learned of $is
wife3s adulter in +,-/ =$e filed
filed it on +,//> and Arti
Article
cle +7 of t$e new %i*il %ode st
states
ates t$at ;an action for le#al
separation cannot be filed e8cept wit$in +ear from and after t$e plaintiff became co#ni?ant of t$e cause and wit$in
/ears from and after t$e date w$en suc$ cause occurred<
@'t is true t$at t$e wife $as not interposed prescription as a defense. 6e*ert$eless) t$e courts can tae co#ni?ance
t$ereof) because actions seein# a decree of le#al separation) or annulment of marria#e) in*ol*e public interest) and
it is t$e polic of our law t$at no suc$ decree be issued if an le#al obstacles t$ereto appear upon t$e record
