[ G.R. No. 28643. March 19, 1928 ] 51 Phil. 736
[ G.R. No. 28643. March 19, 1928 ]
NICOLAS JUAREZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. RAMONA D. TURON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
STATEMENT
After the formal pleas, plaintiff’s complaint filed on February 10, 1927, alleges:
“1. That the plaintiff and the defendant are of age, the former residing at No. 104 Calle Zurbaran and the latter at No. 132 Calle Castanos, both within the jurisdiction of this City of Manila;
“2. That the plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife, having contracted marriage on October 28, 1921;
“3. That during the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant a daughter was born of it, known as Lourdes Juarez, who is a minor and who is at present in the possession of the defendant;
“4. That after legal proceedings, the defendant was convicted of adultery committed with Gregorio Ramos in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, in criminal case No. 32005 of this court, the offended party in said case being the plaintiff above named;
“5. That the judgment for adultery mentioned in the preceding paragraph has become final and was executed;
“6. That the plaintiff and the defendant have no conjugal property; and
“7. That the plaintiff has also no private property.”
And plaintiff prays that he be decreed a divorce and have judgment for costs.
August 11, 1927, the complaint was amended as follows:
“After paragraph 5 and before 6 let the following new paragraphs be inserted which shall be called 5A, 5B, and 5C and which shall read as follows:
“5A. That the plaintiff, one year before the filing of this complaint, was domiciled and residing at the City of Manila, Philippine Islands.
“5B. That the adultery committed by the herein defendant has never been consented to nor pardoned by the plaintiff.
“5C. That this action is filed within one year following the date when the plaintiff obtained knowledge of the cause.”
The defendant made a default. For the purpose of proving his case, the plaintiff offered in evidence the record in and by which his wife was convicted of adultery, and was called and testified as a witness in his own behalf. The lower court denied plaintiff any relief, and dismissed the complaint, from which he appeals and assigns the following errors:
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING:
“1. That the document Exhibit B, which is a certified copy of the judgment of conviction rendered in criminal case No. 32005 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, for the crime of adultery instituted against tfie defendant, is not an evidence that she had committed said crime.
“2. That this action was commenced out of the time in which it should have been brought according to the provisions of Act No. 2710; and
“3. In refusing to decree the divorce prayed for in the complaint that initiated this action.”
JOHNS, J.:
The decision of the lower court is as follows:
“This is a complaint for divorce wherein it is alleged by the plaintiff among other things:
“That the defendant, after legal proceedings, was convicted of adultery committed with Gregorio Ramos in the City of Manila, P. I., in criminal case No. 32005 of this court, the offended party in said case being the plaintiff. himself above named; and
“That the judgment for adultery mentioned in the preceding paragraph has become final and was executed.
“The defendant having been summoned, she was later declared in default at the instance of the plaintiff whose evidence was received by the court in the absence of the defendant. The plaintiff, however, has not presented any evidence upon the adultery committed by the defendant and which can be the only ground for the action herein brought. He did present the judgment render in the aforesaid criminal case for adultery against the same defendant, proving, moreover, that said judgment has become final; but this being a civil action, completely different from the criminal one for adultery against the same defendant, and in which the parties are also different, although in fact and substance the cause of action is the same in the two cases, in the one now before the court for divorce evidence must have been presented that adultery was committed by the defendant, the judgment of conviction rendered in the criminal case against the same defendant not being sufficient, since as evidence it has no effect in this action other than to show that the guilt of the defendant was proven in a final judgment rendered in a criminal case, which is a condition required by section 8 of Act No. 2710 before divorce can be granted. Where it not for this requirement said judgment would be inadmissible as evidence in this case, except for the purpose of impeaching the veracity of the defendant as witness, if she had appeared and testified. Upon this point the following doctrine is well known: ‘Upon the foregoing principle, it is obvious that, as a general rule, a verdict and judgment in a criminal case, though admissible to establish the fact of the mere rendition of the judgment, cannot be given in evidence in a civil action, to establish the facts on which it was rendered, Vol. 1, Greenleaf on Evidence, par. 537. Which doctrine was cited and approved by the Supreme Court of these Islands in the case of ‘Ocampo vs. Jenkins, 14 Phil., pp. 681, 689.’
“On the other hand, the law requires that the action for divorce be brought within one year from the date when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the cause of action brought by him, but the herein complaint was filed on February 10, 1927, notwithstanding that according to plaintiff himself, he acquired knowledge of the adultery of the defendant about August, 1924.
“For the foregoing, the court overrules the complaint, holding that judgment cannot be rendered for divorce as prayed for by the plaintiff. Without special pronouncement as to costs.
“So ordered.”
The finding of the lower court, that the plaintiff knew of the alleged adultery in August, 1924, is well sustained by his own evidence, and the complaint in this action was filed on February 10, 1927, about two and a half years after the plaintiff knew of the adultery, for which he now seeks a divorce.
All things considered, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Malcolm, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.