Facts:
Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were
married on May 1951 in Zamboanga City. After their marriage, they went to
Manila and live with Chua's parents. In October 1951, the couple went to
Zamboanga to visit Pilar’s parents. Chua returned to Manila with the
understanding that Pilar would follow him, but she did not.
In 1953, Pilar filed a complaint for
support against Chua alleging that they have been living separately for
two years due to constant fights and Chua's inability to provide a home
for themselves apart from his parents.
Chua stated that he was willing to
support his wife but only if she lives in Manila with him. He was also willing
to establish a conjugal dwelling separate from his parents.
Meanwhile, Pilar filed a petition for
alimony pendente lite. Based on a stipulation of facts agreed upon by the
parties, the court rendered judgment granting the Pilar’s allowance after
finding that the latter's refusal to return was caused by her aversion to stay
with the parents of Chua after she had experienced some previous in-law
troubles.
Chua filed a petition electing to
fulfill his obligation as thus fixed by the court by receiving and maintaining
Pilar at his residence in Pasay, which was, apart, from that of his parents and
that if the Pilar refuses, he will not be compelled to remit allowance to her
in Zamboanga.
His petition was denied, thus this
case.
Issue:
Whether or not Pilar is entitled to
support when she refused to live with Chua
Held:
The court found that while the wife
strongly wanted to be separated from the husband, the husband was open to fix
the problem, acknowledging his obligation to support her and even expressing
his willingness to abide by her wishes to have a conjugal dwelling apart from
his parents, although this might be financially taxing for him to sustain. The
defendant acknowledges that the Art. 111, CC imposes on the husband the
responsibility of maintaining and supporting his wide and family but he insists
that under Art. 209, CC he is given the option to fulfill said duty either by
paying the allowance as fixed by the Court or by receiving and maintaining the
person entitled thereto in his house. He has thus elected to perform his
obligation by the second means allowed by the law. The law affords moral and
legal obstacle as aground to compel husband to provide separate maintenance for
the wife. However, misunderstanding with in-laws is not a valid moral and legal
obstacle. Art. 110 does not preclude the husband from fixing the conjugal
residence at the patriarchal home, nor is it against any recognized norm of
morality.
Although the husband
and the wife are, obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity
and render mutual help and assistance (Art. 109), and that the wife is entitled
to be supported, our laws contain no provision compelling the wife to live with
her husband where even without legal justification she establishes her
residence apart from that provided for by the former, yet and in such
event We would see no plausible reason why she should be allowed any support
from the husband.
Judgment was modified. Chua was given
the option of supporting his wife at their conjugal dwelling apart from the
home of his parents, and should Pilar refuse to abide by the terms, then
Chua would be relieved from the obligation of giving any support. (G.R. No. L-11086, March 29, 1958)
0
Comments
