CONFLICT OF LAWS | IMELDA M. PILAPIL V. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA G.R. NO. 80116, JUNE 30, 1989
IMELDA
M. PILAPIL V. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA
G.R.
NO. 80116, JUNE 30, 1989
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
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.
FACTS
On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil,
a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German
national, were married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at
Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Thereafter, marital discord set in, with mutual
recriminations between the spouses, followed by a separation de facto between
them. On January 15, 1986, Division 20 of the Schoneberg
Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on
the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.
On June 27, 1986, or more than five months
after the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two
complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while
still married to said respondent, petitioner “had an affair with a certain
William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another man named Jesus Chua
sometime in 1983”
ISSUE
Whether private respondent being no longer the husband of
petitioner has no legal standing to commence the adultery case.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that 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. Article 344
of the Revised Penal Code presupposes that the marital relationship is still
subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for adultery. In prosecutions for adultery and
concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the
offended spouse and nobody else.
Here, the court ruled that fact that private respondent obtained a valid
divorce in his country is admitted and its legal effects may be recognized in
the Philippines. Private respondent being no longer the husband of
petitioner has no legal standing to commence the adultery case. There being no marriage from the beginning, any complaint
for adultery filed after said declaration of nullity would no longer have a leg
to stand on.