08 Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

85 Pilapil vs.
Ibay-Somera
Facts:
- Petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent Erich Ekkehard
Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births, marriage and Deaths at
Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany.
o The marriage started auspiciously enough and the couple lived together for some time
in Malate, Manila where their only child, Isabella, was born.
- Thereafter, marital discord sets in with mutual recriminations between the spouses, followed by
a separation de facto between them.
- After 3 and a half years of marriage, such connubial disharmony eventuated in private
respondent initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg
Local Court.
o He claimed that there was failure of their marriage and that they were living apart.
- Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of
property before the RTC of Manila.
- Schoneberg Local Court promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of
the spouses.
o The custody of the child was granted to petitioner.
- Records show that under German law, said court was locally and internationally competent for
the divorce proceedings and that the dissolution of said marriage was legally founded on and
authorized by applicable law of that foreign jurisdiction.
- More than 5 months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed 2
complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to said
respondent petition had an affair with a certain William Chia and another man named Jesus
Chua.
o Fiscal approved a resolution directing the filing of two complaints for adultery against
petitioner.
- Petitioner filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to suspend further
proceedings on the criminal cases.
o The criminal case against Jesus Chua was suspended
o But the criminal case against William Chia continued and was set for arraignment
- Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for TRO which
was granted and enjoined the respondents from further proceeding with the Criminal Case.
Issue:
- Whether or not the criminal cases would prosper despite a divorce decree validly obtained in
the German Court. NO
Ruling:
- Under Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes
against chastity, cannot be prosecute except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the
offended spouse. It has long since been established, that compliance with this rule is
jurisdictional, and not merely formal requirement.
- The law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage, the person who
can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else.
- Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it is
necessary that the initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at
the time of the filing of the criminal action.
o Lack of legal capacity to sue is one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss in civil cases.
- Article 344 presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the
institution of the criminal action for adultery.
o This is a logical consequence since the raison d’etre of said provision of law would be
absent where the supposed offended party had ceased to be the spouse of the alleged
offender at the time of the filing of the criminal case.
- In these cases, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the complainant to commence
the action be definitely established and such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the
time he initiates the action.
o It would be absurd if his capacity to bring the action would be determined by his status
before or subsequent to the commencement thereof, where such capacity or status
existed prior to but ceased before or was acquired subsequent to but did not exist at the
time of the institution of the case.
- In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is
concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of
persons.
- American jurisprudence, on cases involving statutes in that jurisdiction which are in pari materia
with ours, yields the rule that after a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer
has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders where the statute provides that the
innocent spouse shall have the exclusive right to institute a prosecution for adultery.
o Where, however, proceedings have been properly commenced, a divorce subsequently
granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the criminal proceedings to a
conclusion.
- The SC see no reason why the same doctrinal rule should not apply in this case and in our
jurisdiction, considering our statutory law and jural policy on the matter.
o SC is convinced that in cases of such nature, the status of the complainant vis-a-vis the
accused must be determined as of the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the person
who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that
he is still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.
- Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being no longer the husband
of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that
he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

08 Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

08 Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

08 Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

85 Pilapil vs.

You might also like