146 Matubis v.

Praxedes
NCC 100, 102 October 25, 1960 Paredes, J.

Summary: Matubis and Praxedes were married. After over a year, for failure to agree on how they should live together as
husband and wife, they agreed to live separately. They entered into an agreement for separation. Praxedes started
cohabiting with another woman and the latter gave birth to a child, Matubis, alleging abandonment and concubinage,
filed a complaint for Legal Separation and change of surname against defendant. SC dismissed the complaint based on
prescription (Art. 102) and condonation (Art. 100).

FACTS
 Alleging abandonment and concubinage, plaintiff Socorro Matubis, filed a complaint for legal separation and
changed of surname against her husband defendant Zoilo Praxedes
 The allegations of the complaint were denied by defendant spouse, who interposed the defense that it was
plaintiff who left the conjugal home

 January 10, 1943: plaintiff and defendant were legally married

 May 30, 1944: for failure to agree on how they should live as husband and wife, the couple agreed to live
separately from each other, which status remained unchanged until the present
 April 3, 1948: plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement 1: (b) That both without any interference by any
of us, nor either of us can prosecute the other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or suit arising from
our separation
 On January, 1955, defendant began cohabiting with one Asuncion Rebulado
 On September 1, 1955: said Asuncion gave birth to a child who was recorded as the child of said defendant
 After the trial, the court a quo rendered judgment holding that the acts of defendant constituted concubinage, a
ground for legal separation
 Trial court rendered judgment holding that the defendant committed concubinage, which is a ground for legal
separation, but dismissed the case, citing Art. 100 and 102.

RATIO
W/N the complaint for legal separation should be granted
No. [The SC merely affirmed the decision of the trial court] The trial court held that while the act of the defendant
constituted concubinage, a ground for legal separation, the complaint should be dismissed because:
“Under Art. 102 of the new Civil Code, an action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year
from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from
and after the date when the cause occurred. The plaintiff became aware of the illegal cohabitation of her
husband with Asuncion Rebulado in January, 1955. The complaint was filed on April 24, 1956. The
present action was, therefore, filed out of time and for that reason the action is barred.”

Article 100 of the new Civil Code provides that the legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse,
provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. As shown in plaintiff and
defendant’s agreement, it was clear that plaintiff expressly condoned and consented to the concubinage. Her
consent is clear from the following stipulations:

“That both of us is free to get any mate and live with as husband and wife without any interference by any of
us, nor either of us can prosecute the other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or suit arising from
our separation.”

1
(a) That both of us relinquish our right over the other as legal husband and wife
(b) That both without any interference by any of us, nor either of us can prosecute the other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime
or suit arising from our separation
(c) That I, the, wife, is no longer entitled for any support from my husband or any benefits he may received thereafter, nor I the husband is
not entitled for anything from my wife
(d) That neither of us can claim anything from the other from the time we verbally separated, that is from May 30, 1944 to the present
when we made our verbal separation into writing