SORIANO, Portia Wynona G.

UST 4B

ELOISA GOITIA Y DE LA CAMARA v. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA

G.R. No. 11263 | November 2, 1916 | J. Trent

TOPIC – Marriage: The concept of and nature of marriage

FACTS:
Eloisa Goitia (Eloisa) and Jose Campos Rueda (Jose) married each other in 1915.
One month after their marriage, Jose repeatedly demanded from Eloisa that she
perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs. However, Eloisa refused the
requests of Jose. Eloisa alleged that her repeated refusals infuriated Jose causing the
latter to maltreat her and inflict injuries to her body. Because of this, Eloisa was obliged
to leave the conjugal abode and take refuge in the home of her parents.

Thereafter, Eloisa filed an action against Jose for support outside of the conjugal
domicile. The lower court held that Jose cannot be compelled to support Eloisa, except
in his own house or unless it be by virtue of a judicial decree granting a divorce or
separation between them. From this judgment, a petition was filed by Eloisa before the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Jose was obliged to support Eloisa even outside of the conjugal
domicile.

RULING:
YES. Marriage is more than a mere contract. It is a new relation and the rights, duties,
and obligations arising from it do not rest upon the agreement of the parties but upon the
general law which defines and prescribes these rights, duties, and obligations. Marriage is an
institution and the public is deeply interested in its maintenance. The reciprocal rights arising
from marriage, as long as it continues, are determined from time to time by the law only and
none other. When the object of marriage is defeated by rendering its continuance intolerable to
one of the parties and productive of no possible good to the community, relief in some way
should be obtainable.

Given this characterization of marriage, the Court held that Jose was obliged to support
Eloisa. The Civil Code during this time required that consorts should support each other
reciprocally. The law provided that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill
the obligation by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his
option. However, this option is not absolute as held by jurisprudence. Further, the law also did
not provide that the failure of the wife to live with her husband as one of the instances when the
obligation to give support shall cease.

The obligation of the husband to support his wife is founded not so much on the express
or implied terms of the contract of marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband; an
obligation, the enforcement of which is of such vital concern to the state itself that the laws will
Page 1 of 2
not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection in
the parental home. A judgment for separate maintenance is a judgment calling for the
performance of a duty made specific by the mandate of the sovereign. This is done from
necessity and with a view to preserve the public peace and the purity of the wife; as where the
husband makes so base demands upon his wife and indulges in the habit of assaulting her.

Page 2 of 2