CIVIL LAW; PERSONS; SUPPORT

COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF ADULTERY NECESSARILY FORFEITS THE RIGHT OF

THE SPOUSE FOR SUPPORT
The special defense of adultery set up by the defendant in his answer both to the original and the
amended complaint is a good defense, and if properly proved and sustained will defeat the action
for support (Quinatana v. Lerma, G.R. No. L-7426, February 5, 1913).
 COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF ADULTERY NECESSARILY FORFEITS THE RIGHT OF
THE SPOUSE FOR SUPPORT

QUINTANA V. LERMA
G.R. No. L-7426; February 5, 1913
Goddard, J.

FACTS:
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of money due upon a contract
between the plaintiff wife and defendant husband for support.

Evidence shows that parties were lawfully married in 1901. However, in February of 1905, the
parties entered into a written agreement of separation whereby each renounced certain rights as
against the other and divided the conjugal property between them. The agreement also indicated
the undertaking of the defendant husband to pay the plaintiff wife within the first three days of
each month the sum of P20 for her support and maintenance. As a consequence of the defendant
husband’s nonpayment, the wife was prompted to file an action for support.

The defendant set up as a special defense that the wife had forfeited her right to support by
committing adultery. The court ordered that such allegation be stricken out of record for the reason
that under the provision of Article 152 of the Civil Code the commission of adultery is not
recognized as a ground upon which the obligation to support ceases. Despite the plaintiff’s
amendment of her complaint, the defendant husband still raised the very same defense in his
answer.

ISSUE:
Is the lower court correct when it refused to recognize the defense of the defendant or to permit
any evidence to be introduced in support thereof?

RULING:
No, the lower court is not correct when it refused to recognize the defense of the husband that
the commission of adultery operates to forfeit the wife’s claim for support every month.

The court ruled that the special defense of adultery set up by the defendant in his answer both to
the original and the amended complaint is a good defense, and if properly proved and sustained
will defeat the action. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded for a
new trial, with instructions to permit the interposition of the special defense of adultery and such
amendments of the complaint and answer as may be necessary to carry this judgment into effect.

Thus, the commission of the crime of adultery may be considered as a proper ground for the
forfeiture of the plaintiff wife’s support from her husband.