Bugayong vs. Ginez, 100 Phil.

616, December 28, 1956

FELIX, J.:

Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for divorce

and bars the right to a divorce. But it is on the condition, implied by the law when not
express, that the wrongdoer shall not again commit the offense; and also, that he shall
thereafter treat the other spouse with conjugal kindness (Tiffany’s Domestic and
Family Relations, section 107).

A single voluntary act of sexual intercourse by the innocent spouse after discovery of
the offense is ordinarily sufficient to constitute condonation, especially as against the
husband’ (27 Corpus Juris Secundum, section 61 and cases cited therein).

LEGAL DOCTRINES: Articles 97 (petition for legal separation), 100 (who may claim
xxx provided that there is no condonation or consent), and 102 (prescription) of the
Civil Code.
FACTS:

 Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the United States Navy, was married to

defendant Leonila Ginez on August 27, 1949. Immediately after their marriage,
the couple lived with the sisters of the husband in said municipality, but before
the latter left to report back to duty, he and his wife came to an agreement that
Leonila would stay with his sisters who later moved to Sampaloc, Manila.

 As early as July, 1951, Benjamín Bugayong began receiving letters from Valeriana
Polangco (plaintiff’s sisterin-law) and some from anonymous writers (which
were not produced at the hearing) informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of
his wife which he did not even care to mention. On cross-examination, plaintiff
admitted that his wife also informed him by letter, which he claims to have
destroyed, that a certain “Eliong” kissed her.

 In August, 1952, plaintiff went to Asingan, Pangasinan, and sought for his wife
whom he met in the house of one Mrs. Malalang, defendant’s godmother. She
came along with him and both proceeded to the house of Pedro Bugayong, a
cousin of the plaintiff-husband, where they stayed and lived for 2 nights and 1
day as husband and wife.

 On November 18, 1952, Benjamin Bugayong filed in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan a complaint for legal separation against his wife, Leonila Ginez, who
timely filed an answer vehemently denying the averments of the complaint and
setting up affirmative defenses. After the issues were joined and convinced that a
reconciliation was not possible, the court set the case for hearing on June 9, 1953.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a condonation on the part of plaintiff-husband.
HELD/RULING:

 Yes. Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for

legal separation or, as stated in I Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 585, condonation is
 the “conditional forgiveness or remission, by a husband or wife of a matrimonial
offense which the latter has committed”.

 A detailed examination of the testimony of the plaintiff-husband clearly shows

that there was a condonation on the part of the husband for the supposed ‘acts of
rank infidelity amounting to adultery’ committed by defendant-wife. This
reconciliation occurred almost ten months after he came to know of the acts of
infidelity amounting to adultery.

 In Shackleton vs. Shackleton, 48 N.J. Eq. 364; 21 Atl. 935, it has been held that
‘condonation is implied from sexual intercourse after knowledge of the other
infidelity. Such acts necessarily implied forgiveness. It is entirely consonant with
reason and justice that if the wife freely consents to sexual intercourse after she
has full knowledge of the husband’s guilt, her consent should operate as a
pardon of his wrong.

 Granting that the infidelities amounting to adultery were committed by the wife,
the act of the husband in persuading her to come along with him, and the fact
that she went with-him and together they slept as husband and wife, deprives
him, as the alleged offended spouse, of any action for legal separation against the
offending wife, because his said conduct comes within the restriction of Article
100 of the Civil Code.

 The only general rule in American jurisprudence is that any cohabitation with
the guilty party, after the commission of the offense, and with the knowledge or
belief on the part of the injured party of its commission, will amount to
conclusive evidence of condonation; but this presumption may be rebutted by
evidence.