LEGAL SEPARATION

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

Agreement to Separate: CASE No. 74
A.M. No. 1637 July 6, 1976
IN RE: ATTY. RUFILLO D. BUCANA, respondent.
PONENTE: ANTONIO, J.:
FACTS:

A case of disciplinary action against Atty. Rufillo D.

Bucana; SC acting upon the letter of Mrs. Angela
Drilon Baltazar, Barangay Captain of Victories,
Dumangas, Iloilo, dated February 26, 1976.
Notary Public Rufillo D. Bucana was required by SC in
its Resolution of March 23, 1976, to show cause
within ten (10) days from notice, why he should not
be disciplinarily dealt with for having notarized on
November 10, 1975 at Dumangas, Iloilo an
Agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo
Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon.
The spouses agreed therein that "in case anyone of
them will remarry both parties offer no objection and
waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and
that it was "entered into for the purpose of
agreement to allow each and everyone of them to
remarry without objection or reservation ..." (like
Panganiban vs. Borromeo case)
April 21, 1976 Bucana submitted his explanation,
admitting that he notarized the document and that
the Agreement is "immoral and against public
policy".

In mitigation, Bucana asserted that the document

was:
1. prepared by his clerk, Lucia D. Doctolero
without his previous knowledge;
2. that when said document was presented to
him for signature, he refused to sign it and
informed the spouses that the document was
immoral;
3. that he placed the said document on his table
among his files and more than a week later,
he asked his clerk where the document was
for the purpose of destroying it, but to his
surprise he found that the same was notarized
by him;
4. that he dispatched his clerk to get the copy
from the parties, but the they could not be
found;
5. that he must have unconsciously notarized the
same in view of the numerous documents
on his table and at that time he was
emotionally disturbed as his father (now
deceased) was then seriously ill.
These were verified substantially by the separate
sworn statements of Doctolero and Baltazar, both
dated April 20, 1976.

ISSUE: WON Spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon

could have a legal agreement allowing the other to remarry
or to commit concubinage or adultery or to have an
agreement concerning their separation
HELD: No. Legal separation can only be decided by the
court, not by any agreement amending the marriage which
is an inviolable social institution. It should be filed to
courts for trial provided that the petition for legal
separation revolve around the grounds specified by the

*New Civil Code (3 grounds; as in this case; dont know

what are they) or by the Family Code (10 grounds).
DECISION: Guilty of malpractice and is hereby suspended
from the office of notary public for a period of 6 months,
with the admonition that a repetition of the same or a
similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

compelled to give support if Goitia lived outside of

the conjugal home, unless there was legal
separation.
ISSUE:

LEGAL SEPARATION

WON Goitia can compel her husband to support her

outside the conjugal home
WON there is a present ground for legal separation
(Family Code)

Prepared by: Michael Joseph Nogoy, JD 1

Grounds for Legal Separation: CASE No. 75
[G.R. No. 11263. November 2, 1916.]

HELD:

ELOISA GOITIA Y DE LA CAMARA, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appellee.
PONENTE: TRENT, J.:
FACTS:

Luisa Goitia y de la Camara and Jose Campos y

Rueda were married on January 7, 1915 and had a
residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino, Manila.
After 1 mo. of marriage, Rueda repeatedly demanded
from Goitia to perform "unchaste and lascivious acts
on Rueda's genitals." Goitia refused, Rueda
maltreated Goitia by word and deed, inflicting bodily
injuries on Goitia.
To escape Rueda's lewd designs and avoid further
harm, Goitia left the conjugal home and took refuge
in her parent's house.
Goitia filed an action for support with the trial court.
Dismissed on the ground that Rueda could not be

Yes. The obligation on the part of the husband to

support his wife is created merely in the act of
marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is
obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the obligation
either by paying her a fixed pension or by
maintaining her in his own home at his option.
However, this option given by law is not absolute.
The law will not permit the husband to evade or
terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife
is driven away from the conjugal home because of
his wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was
forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the
lewd designs and physical assault of the husband,
she can therefore claim support from the husband for
separate maintenance even outside the conjugal
home.
Based on the Family Code, Yes. It says that
Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive
conduct directed against the petitioner, a common
child, or a child of the petitioner, Art. 55(1) of the
Family Code. The repeated maltreatment by word

and deed by Rueda to Goitia which caused bodily

injuries to the latter is already sufficient to file an
action for legal separation, based from the Family

Code. *I just dont know what provisions prevail in

1916.