Civil Law Review 2020 Pilapil v Ibay-Somera

Legal separation distinguished from absolute divorce 1989 Regalado, J.

FACTS
Imelda Pilapil married Erich Geiling in Germany. They lived in Malate, Manila and had one child. Due to marital
discord, they separated and eventually, Geiling sought a divorce against Pilapil in Germany (Schoenberg Local
Court) in January 1983 or after 3 years. Pilapil filed an action for legal separation, support, and separation of
property in RTC Manila on January 23, 1983 (which was still pending as of the issuance of this case’s decision).
The Divorce decree was promulgated in January 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage. On June 1986,
Geiling filed 2 complaints of adultery in Manila against Pilapil allegeing that she had an affair with 2 men in
1982-83.

RATIO
Whether the spouse who obtained a divorce decree abroad has standing to file a complaint for
adultery against the other spouse during the pendency of an action for legal separation
NO.
● The status and capacity of the complainant to commence the action must be established. For a case of
adultery, it is necessary that the marital bonds between complainant and accused be unsevered and
existing at the time of the institution of the action.
○ The person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse (meaning, he must
still be married to the other)
● The fact that Geiling obtained a valid divorce in his country was admitted as evidence
○ The divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as Geiling is
concerned, in view of the nationality principle
● When he initiated the divorce proceeding, he knew that there would no longer be a family nor
marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage has been decreed. Neither would there
be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is one of the reason for the particular
formulation of our adultery law.
● Severance of marital bond had the effect of dissociating former spouses from each other.