62. Ong vs.
Ong 77
G.R. No. 153206. October 23, 2006. * VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006
ONG ENG KIAM a.k.a. WILLIAM ONG, petitioner, vs. LUCITA G. ONG,
respondent.
Family Code;  Marriages;  The Constitution provides that marriage is an
inviolable social institution and shall be protected by the State, thus the rule is
the preservation of the marital union and not its infringement; only for grounds
enumerated in Art. 55 of the Family Code, which grounds should be clearly and
convincingly proven, can the courts decree a legal separation among the
spouses.—The Constitution provides that marriage is an inviolable social
institution and shall be protected by the State, thus the rule is the preservation of
the marital union and not its infringement; only for grounds enumerated in Art.
55 of the Family Code, which grounds should be clearly and convincingly
proven, can the courts decree a legal separation among the spouses.
Courts;  Appeals;  The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and factual
findings of the RTC when confirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and may
not be reviewed on appeal.—This Court is not a trier of facts and factual findings
of the RTC when confirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and may not be
reviewed on appeal.
Same; Same; It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule finds more
stringent application where the CA upholds the findings of fact of the trial court.
In such instance, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined
by the lower courts.—It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule finds more
stringent application where the CA upholds the findings of fact of the trial court.
In such instance, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined
by the lower courts. The only instances when this Court reviews findings of fact
are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are
conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond
the issues of the case, or its findings are con-
_______________
*
 FIRST DIVISION.
77
Ong vs. Ong
trary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9)
when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion. As petitioner failed to show that the instant case
falls under any of the exceptional circumstances, the general rule applies.
Same; Evidence; The Supreme Court also gives a great amount of
consideration to the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of
witnesses as trial court judges enjoy the unique opportunity of observing the
deportment of witnesses on the stand, a vantage point denied appellate tribunals.
—The Court also gives a great amount of consideration to the assessment of the
trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses as trial court judges enjoy the
unique opportunity of observing the deportment of witnesses on the stand, a
vantage point denied appellate tribunals. Indeed, it is settled that the assessment
of the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and
weight having had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying.
Evidence; Relationship alone is not reason enough to discredit and label a
witness’ testimony as biased and unworthy of credence and a witness’
relationship to one of the parties does not automatically affect the veracity of his
or her testimony.—Relationship alone is not reason enough to discredit and label
a witness’s testimony as biased and unworthy of credence and a witness’
relationship to one of the parties does not automatically affect the veracity of his
or her testimony.
Family Code; Marriages; Abandonment; As it was established that Lucita
left William due to his abusive conduct, such does not constitute abandonment
contemplated by the said provision.—Also without merit is the argument of
William that since Lucita has abandoned the family, a decree of legal separation
should not be granted, following Art. 56, par. (4) of the Family Code which
provides that legal separation shall be denied when both parties have given
ground for legal separation. The abandonment referred to by the Family Code is
Page 1 of 8
abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year. As it was
established that Lucita left William due to his abusive
78
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ong vs. Ong
conduct, such does not constitute abandonment contemplated by the said
provision.
Same; Same; With the enactment of the Family Code, this has been
accomplished as it defines marriage and the family, spells out the corresponding
legal effects, imposes the limitations that affect married and family life, as well
as prescribes the grounds for declaration of nullity and those for legal
separation.—We reiterate that our Constitution is committed to the policy of
strengthening the family as a basic social institution. The Constitution itself
however does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage and the
family, as it remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of
marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it and put into
operation the constitutional provisions that protect the same. With the enactment
of the Family Code, this has been accomplished as it defines marriage and the
family, spells out the corresponding legal effects, imposes the limitations that
affect married and family life, as well as prescribes the grounds for declaration of
nullity and those for legal separation.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Renecio S. Espiritu, Jr. for petitioner.
     Hermogenes S. Decano for private respondent.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the
Decision  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59400 which
1
affirmed in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 41,
Dagupan City granting the petition for legal separation filed by herein
respondent, as well as the Resolution  of the CA dated April 26, 2002 which
2
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
_______________
1
 Rollo, pp. 30-44; penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and concurred
in by Associate Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Josefina Guevara-Salonga.
2
 Rollo, p. 46.
79
VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006 79
Ong vs. Ong
Ong Eng Kiam, also known as William Ong (William) and Lucita G. Ong
(Lucita) were married on July 13, 1975 at the San Agustin Church in Manila.
They have three children: Kingston, Charleston, and Princeton who are now
all of the age of majority. 3
On March 21, 1996, Lucita filed a Complaint for Legal Separation under
Article 55 par. (1) of the Family Code  before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
4
of Dagupan City, Branch 41 alleging that her life with William was marked
by physical violence, threats, intimidation and grossly abusive conduct. 5
Lucita claimed that: soon after three years of marriage, she and William
quarreled almost every day, with physical violence being inflicted upon her;
William would shout invectives at her like “putang ina mo,” “gago,”
“tanga,” and he would slap her, kick her, pull her hair, bang her head against
concrete wall and throw at her whatever he could reach with his hand; the
causes of these fights were petty things regarding their children or their
business; William would also scold and beat the children at different parts of
their bodies using the buckle of his belt; whenever she tried to stop William
from hitting the children, he would turn his ire on her and box her; on
December 9, 1995, after she protested with William’s decision to allow their
eldest son Kingston to go to Bacolod, William slapped her and said, “it is
none of your business”; on December 14, 1995, she asked William to bring
Kingston back from Bacolod; a violent quarrel ensued and William hit her on
her head, left cheek, eye, stomach, and arms; when William hit her on the
stomach and she bent down because of the pain, he hit her on the head then
pointed a gun at her and asked her to leave the house; she then went to her
sister’s house in Binondo where she was fetched by her other siblings and
brought to their
_______________
3
 See Records, p. 1.
4
 Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds:
Page 2 of 8
 (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, 6
 Rollo, pp. 49-51 (RTC Decision).
a common child, or a child of petitioner; 7
 Id., at p. 53 (RTC Decision).
xxx
8
 Rollo, p. 56.
 Records, p. 2.
5 81
80 VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006 81
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ong vs. Ong
Ong vs. Ong The plaintiff suffered and endured the mental and physical anguish of these
parents house in Dagupan; the following day, she went to her parent’s doctor, marital fights until December 14, 1995 when she had reached the limits of her
Dr. Vicente Elinzano for treatment of her injuries. 6 endurance. The more than twenty years of her marriage could not have been put
William for his part denied that he ever inflicted physical harm on his to waste by the plaintiff if the same had been lived in an atmosphere of love,
wife, used insulting language against her, or whipped the children with the harmony and peace. Worst, their children are also suffering. As very well stated
buckle of his belt. While he admits that he and Lucita quarreled on December in plaintiff’s memorandum, “it would be unthinkable for her to throw away this
twenty years of relationship, abandon the comforts of her home and be separated
9, 1995, at their house in Jose Abad Santos Avenue, Tondo, Manila, he
from her children, whom she loves, if there exists no cause, which is already
claimed that he left the same, stayed in their Greenhills condominium and
beyond her endurance.” 9

only went back to their Tondo house to work in their office below. In the
William appealed to the CA which affirmed in toto the RTC decision. In its
afternoon of December 14, 1995, their laundrywoman told him that Lucita
Decision dated October 8, 2001, the CA found that the testimonies for Lucita
left the house. 7

were straightforward and credible and the ground for legal separation under
On January 5, 1998, the RTC rendered its Decision decreeing legal
Art. 55, par. 1 of the Family Code, i.e., physical violence and grossly abusive
separation, thus:
conduct directed against Lucita, were adequately proven. 10

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered decreeing

As the CA explained:
the legal separation of plaintiff and defendant, with all the legal effects attendant
“The straightforward and candid testimonies of the witnesses were
thereto, particularly the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership
uncontroverted and credible. Dr. Elinzano’s testimony was able to show that the
properties, for which purpose the parties are hereby ordered to submit a complete
[Lucita] suffered several injuries inflicted by [William]. It is clear that on
inventory of said properties so that the Court can make a just and proper
December 14, 1995, she sustained redness in her cheek, black eye on her left eye,
division, such division to be embodied in a supplemental decision.
fist blow on the stomach, blood clot and a blackish discoloration on both
SO ORDERED.” 8

shoulders and a “bump” or “bukol” on her head. The presence of these injuries
The RTC found that:
was established by the testimonies of [Lucita] herself and her sister, Linda Lim.
“It is indubitable that plaintiff (Lucita) and defendant (William) had their
The Memorandum/Medical Certificate also confirmed the evidence presented
frequent quarrels and misunderstanding which made both of their lives miserable
and does not deviate from the doctor’s main testimony—that [Lucita] suffered
and hellish. This is even admitted by the defendant when he said that there was
physical violence on [sic] the hands of her husband, caused by physical trauma,
no day that he did not quarrel with his wife. Defendant had regarded the plaintiff
slapping of the cheek, boxing and fist blows. The effect of the so-called
negligent in the performance of her wifely duties and had blamed her for not
alterations in the Memorandum/Medical Certificate questioned by [William]
reporting to him about the wrongdoings of their children. (citations omitted)
does not depart from the main thrust of the testimony of the said doctor.
These quarrels were always punctuated by acts of physical violence, threats
Also, the testimony of [Lucita] herself consistently and constantly established
and intimidation by the defendant against the plaintiff and on the children. In the
that [William] inflicted repeated physical violence upon her during their
process, insulting words and language were heaped upon her.
marriage and that she had been subjected to grossly abusive conduct when he
_______________ constantly hurled invectives at her even in front of their customers
Page 3 of 8
_______________
 Id., at p. 55.
9
 Id., at pp. 40-44.
10
82
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ong vs. Ong
and employees, shouting words like, “gaga,” “putang ina mo,” “tanga,” and
“you don’t know anything.”
These were further corroborated by several incidents narrated by Linda Lim
who lived in their conjugal home from 1989 to 1991. She saw her sister after the
December 14, 1995 incident when she (Lucita) was fetched by the latter on the
same date. She was a witness to the kind of relationship her sister and [William]
had during the three years she lived with them. She observed that [William] has
an “explosive temper, easily gets angry and becomes very violent.” She cited
several instances which proved that William Ong indeed treated her wife
shabbily and despicably, in words and deeds.
xxx
That the physical violence and grossly abusive conduct were brought to bear
upon [Lucita] by [William] have been duly established by [Lucita] and her
witnesses. These incidents were not explained nor controverted by [William],
except by making a general denial thereof. Consequently, as between an
affirmative assertion and a general denial, weight must be accorded to the
affirmative assertion.
The grossly abusive conduct is also apparent in the instances testified to by
[Lucita] and her sister. The injurious invectives hurled at [Lucita] and his
treatment of her, in its entirety, in front of their employees and friends, are
enough to constitute grossly abusive conduct. The aggregate behavior of
[William] warrants legal separation under grossly abusive conduct. x x x”11
William filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA on
April 26, 2002. 12
Hence the present petition where William claims that:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN
DISREGARDING CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE PETITION FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION WAS INSTITUTED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF REMOVING FROM PETITIONER THE
CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP OF THEIR CONJUGAL PROPERTIES AND
TO TRANSFER THE SAME TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S FAMILY.
_______________
 Rollo, pp. 40-42.
11
 Id., at p. 46.
12
83
VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006 83
Ong vs. Ong
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN
DISREGARDING CLEAR EVIDENCE REPUDIATING PRIVATE
RESPONDENT’S CLAIM OF REPEATED PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND
GROSSLY ABUSIVE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF PETITIONER. 13
William argues that: the real motive of Lucita and her family in filing the
case is to wrest control and ownership of properties belonging to the conjugal
partnership; these properties, which include real properties in Hong Kong,
Metro Manila, Baguio and Dagupan, were acquired during the marriage
through his (William’s) sole efforts; the only parties who will benefit from a
decree of legal separation are Lucita’s parents and siblings while such decree
would condemn him as a violent and cruel person, a wife-beater and child
abuser, and will taint his reputation, especially among the Filipino-Chinese
community; substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked which
warrant an exception to the general rule that factual findings of the trial court
will not be disturbed on appeal; the findings of the trial court that he
committed acts of repeated physical violence against Lucita and their
children were not sufficiently established; what took place were
disagreements regarding the manner of raising and disciplining the children
particularly Charleston, Lucita’s favorite son; marriage being a social
contract cannot be impaired by mere verbal disagreements and the
complaining party must adduce clear and convincing evidence to justify legal
separation; the CA erred in relying on the testimonies of Lucita and her
witnesses, her sister Linda Lim, and their parent’s doctor, Dr. Vicente
Elinzanzo, whose testimonies are tainted with relationship and fraud; in the
20 years of their marriage, Lucita has not complained of any cruel behavior
Page 4 of 8
on the part of William in relation to their marital and family life; William
expressed his willingness to receive respondent unconditionally however, it
is Lucita who abandoned the conjugal dwelling on December 14, 1995 and
instituted the complaint below in order to appropriate for herself and her
relatives the conjugal properties; the Constitution provides that marriage is an
inviolable social institution and shall be
_______________
 Id., at pp. 8-9.
13
84
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ong vs. Ong
protected by the State, thus the rule is the preservation of the marital union
and not its infringement; only for grounds enumerated in Art. 55 of the
Family Code, which grounds should be clearly and convincingly proven, can
the courts decree a legal separation among the spouses. 14
Respondent Lucita in her Comment, meanwhile, asserts that: the issues
raised in the present petition are factual; the findings of both lower courts rest
on strong and clear evidence borne by the records; this Court is not a trier of
facts and factual findings of the RTC when confirmed by the CA are final
and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal; the contention of
William that Lucita filed the case for legal separation in order to remove
from William the control and ownership of their conjugal properties and to
transfer the same to Lucita’s family is absurd; Lucita will not just throw her
marriage of 20 years and forego the companionship of William and her
children just to serve the interest of her family; Lucita left the conjugal home
because of the repeated physical violence and grossly abusive conduct of
petitioner. 15
Petitioner filed a Reply, reasserting his claims in his petition,  as well as a
16
Memorandum where he averred for the first time that since respondent is
guilty of abandonment, the petition for legal separation should be denied
following Art. 56, par. (4) of the Family Code.  Petitioner argues that since
17
respondent herself has given ground for legal separation by abandoning the
family simply because of a quarrel and refusing to return thereto unless the
conjugal properties were placed
_______________
 Rollo, pp. 9-24.
14
 Id., at pp. 149-152.
15
 Id., at pp. 157-169.
16
 Art. 56. The petition for legal separation shall be denied on any of the following
17
grounds:
xxx
(4) Where both parties have given ground for legal separation;
xxx
Rollo, pp. 210-236.
85
VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006 85
Ong vs. Ong
in the administration of petitioner’s in-laws, no decree of legal separation
should be issued in her favor. 18
Respondent likewise filed a Memorandum reiterating her earlier
assertions.19
We resolve to deny the petition.
It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule finds more stringent
application where the CA upholds the findings of fact of the trial court. In
such instance, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined
by the lower courts. 20
The only instances when this Court reviews findings of fact are:
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are
conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10)
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals
manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 21
Page 5 of 8
As petitioner failed to show that the instant case falls under any of the  Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 405-406; 401 SCRA 391, 398 (2003).
22

 TSN, Ong Eng Kiam, September 25, 1997, pp. 29-32.

exceptional circumstances, the general rule applies.
23

 TSN, Lucita Ong, June 11, 1997, p. 14.

24

Indeed, this Court cannot review factual findings on appeal, especially  Id., at p. 20.
25

when they are borne out by the records or are based on sub-  Id., at p. 21.
26

 Id., at p. 23.
27

_______________  TSN, Linda Lim, June 25, 1997, p. 5.

28

 Id., at pp. 5-6.

29

 Id., at p. 221.
18
 Id., at pp. 7-8.
30

 Id., at pp. 188-203.

19
 TSN, Lucita Ong, May 9, 1997, pp. 9-11, 16.
31

 Mangonon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 1.

20
87
 Id.
VOL. 505, 87
21

86
OCTOBER 23,
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ong vs. Ong 2006
stantial evidence.  In this case, the findings of the RTC were affirmed by the
22
Ong vs. Ong
CA and are adequately supported by the records. “q You stated on cross examination that the injuries
As correctly observed by the trial court, William himself admitted that you sustained on December 14, 1995 were the
there was no day that he did not quarrel with his wife, which made his life most serious?
miserable, and he blames her for being negligent of her wifely duties and for a. Unlike before I considered December 14, 1995
not reporting to him the wrongdoings of their children. 23 the very serious because before it is only on the
Lucita and her sister, Linda Lim, also gave numerous accounts of the arm and black eye, but on this De-cember 14, I
instances when William displayed violent temper against Lucita and their suffered bruises in all parts of my body, sir.” 32

children; such as: when William threw a steel chair at Lucita;  threw chairs at
24
To these, all William and his witnesses, could offer are denials and attempts
their children;  slapped Lucita and utter insulting words at her;  use the
25 26
to downplay the said incidents. 33

buckle of the belt in whipping the children;  pinned Lucita against the wall
27
As between the detailed accounts given for Lucita and the general denial
with his strong arms almost strangling her, and smashed the flower vase and for William, the Court gives more weight to those of the former. The Court
brick rocks and moldings leaving the bedroom in disarray;  shouted at Lucita
28
also gives a great amount of consideration to the assessment of the trial court
and threw a directory at her, in front of Linda and the employees of their regarding the credibility of witnesses as trial court judges enjoy the unique
business, because he could not find a draft letter on his table;  got mad at 29
opportunity of observing the deportment of witnesses on the stand, a vantage
Charleston for cooking steak with vetchin prompting William to smash the point denied appellate tribunals.  Indeed, it is settled that the assessment of
34

plate with steak and hit Charleston, then slapped Lucita and shouted at her
“putang ina mo, gago, wala kang pakialam, tarantado” when she sided with
Charleston;  and the December 9 and December 14, 1995 incidents which
30
the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and
weight having had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of
the witnesses while testifying. 35

forced Lucita to leave the conjugal dwelling. 31

Lucita also explained that the injuries she received on December 14,
1995, were not the first. As she related before the trial court:
_______________
In this case, the RTC noted that:
“[William]’s denial and that of his witnesses of the imputation of physical
violence committed by him could not be given much credence by the Court.
Since the office secretary Ofelia Rosal and the family laundrywoman Rosalino
Morco are dependent upon defendant for their livelihood, their testimonies may
Page 6 of 8
be tainted with bias and they could not be considered as impartial and credible children whom she loves, if there exists no cause, which is already beyond her
witnesses. So with Kingston Ong who lives with defendant and depends upon endurance.” 39

him for support.” 36

The claim of William that a decree of legal separation would taint his
Parenthetically, William claims that that the witnesses of Lucita are not reputation and label him as a wife-beater and child-abuser also does not elicit
credible because of their relationship with her. We do not sympathy from this Court. If there would be such a smear on his reputation
then it would not be because of Lucita’s decision to seek relief from the
_______________
courts, but because he gave Lucita reason to go to court in the first place.
 Id., at p. 21.
32
Also without merit is the argument of William that since Lucita has
 See TSN, Ong Eng Kiam, September 25, 1997, pp. 11, 53; TSN, Kingston Ong,
33 abandoned the family, a decree of legal separation should not be
September 24, 1997, pp. 16-18.
 Roca v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 326, 333; 350 SCRA 414, 420 (2001).
34 _______________
 Cirelos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 146523, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 625; Antonio v.
35

Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 353, 364.  Roca v. Court of Appeals, supra note 34 at p. 334; p. 421.
37

 Rollo, p. 56.
36  Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127473, December 8, 2003, 417
38

88 SCRA 196, 207.

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  Rollo, p. 55.
39

89
Ong vs. Ong
agree. Relationship alone is not reason enough to discredit and label a VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006 89
witness’s testimony as biased and unworthy of credence  and a witness’
37
Ong vs. Ong
granted, following Art. 56, par. (4) of the Family Code which provides that
relationship to one of the parties does not automatically affect the veracity of
legal separation shall be denied when both parties have given ground for
his or her testimony.  Considering the detailed and straightforward
38

legal separation. The abandonment referred to by the Family Code is

testimonies given by Linda Lim and Dr. Vicente Elinzano, bolstered by the
abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year.  As it was 40

credence accorded them by the trial court, the Court finds that their
established that Lucita left William due to his abusive conduct, such does not
testimonies are not tainted with bias.
constitute abandonment contemplated by the said provision.
William also posits that the real motive of Lucita in filing the case for
As a final note, we reiterate that our Constitution is committed to the
legal separation is in order for her side of the family to gain control of the
policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution.  The 41

conjugal properties; that Lucita was willing to destroy his reputation by filing
Constitution itself however does not establish the parameters of state
the legal separation case just so her parents and her siblings could control the
protection to marriage and the family, as it remains the province of the
properties he worked hard for. The Court finds such reasoning hard to
legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy
believe. What benefit would Lucita personally gain by pushing for her
and the modalities to protect it and put into operation the constitutional
parents’ and siblings’ financial interests at the expense of her marriage?
provisions that protect the same.  With the enactment of the Family Code,
42

What is more probable is that there truly exists a ground for legal separation,
this has been accomplished as it defines marriage and the family, spells out
a cause so strong, that Lucita had to seek redress from the courts. As aptly
the corresponding legal effects, imposes the limitations that affect married
stated by the RTC,
and family life, as well as prescribes the grounds for declaration of nullity
“...it would be unthinkable for her to throw away this twenty years of
relationship, abandon the comforts of her home and be separated from her and those for legal separation.  As Lucita has adequately proven the presence
43

of a ground for legal separation, the Court has no reason but to affirm the

Page 7 of 8
findings of the RTC and the CA, and grant her the relief she is entitled to
under the law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Costs against petitioner.

_______________

 Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds:
40

…
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one
year.
 Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 169, 180; 256 SCRA 158, 168-169 (1996).
41

 Antonio v. Reyes, supra note 35 at p. 372.

42

 Id., at p. 372.
43

90
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
SO ORDERED.
     Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago, Callejo,
Sr. and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Notes.—Marriage is an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulations. (Acebedo vs. Arquero, 399 SCRA 10 [2003])
Neither is Article 36 of the Family Code to be equated with legal
separation, in which the ground need not be rooted in psychological
incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil
interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity,
abandonment and the like. (Marcos vs. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755 [2000])

——o0o——

Page 8 of 8