Ong Eng Kiam a.k.a.

William Ong, petitioner from pushing for the financial interests of her family at
the expense of her marriage of 20 years and the
vs Lucita Ong, respondent companionship of her husband and children

FACTS: The assessment of the trial court regarding the

credibility of witnesses is given great respect.
William Ong and Lucita Ong have been married
Relationship alone is not enough to discredit and label a
for more than 20 years when Lucita filed a complaint for
witness’ testimony as biased and unworthy of credence.
Legal separation under Article 55 par. (1) of the Family
Witnesses Linda Lim and Dr. Elinzano gave detailed and
Code.
straightforward testimonies, The court finds that their
Lucita alleged that since their third year of marriage, her testimonies are not tainted with bias.
husband William subjected her to physical violence like
The abandonment referred to by the Family
slapping, kicking and pulling her hair and bang her head
Code is abandonment without justifiable cause for more
against the concrete wall. William had been violent
than one year. Lucita left William due to his abusive
towards their three children. He would scold them by
conduct, such does not constitute abandonment
using his belt buckle to beat them. One day after a
contemplated in the said provision
violent quarrel wherein William hit Lucita on several
different parts of her body, pointed a gun at her and The SC affirmed the ruling in RTC and CA.
asked her to leave the house which she did.Lucita’s The petition of William is denied, thus Lucita should
statements about her husband’s abusive behavior were be granted a decree of legal separation.
corroborated by her sister Linda Lim. Also, Dr. Vicente
Elinzan whom Lucita consulted the day after she left her
conjugal home also testified about her injuries.

The trial court granted Lucitas petition for legal

separation which the CA affirmed. William then filed this
petition for review on certiorari on the decision denying
all of Lucita’s allegations and that he never inflicted
physical harm on her or their children. He argued that
the real motive of Lucita and her family in filing the
complaint is to deprive him of his control and ownership
over his conjugal properties with Lucita. He also
contended that the CA overlooked some facts of the
case which warrant an exception to the general rule that
questions of fact cannot be the subject for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and the CA erred in
relying on the testimonies of Lucita her sister and their
parents’ doctor Dr. Elinzan since their testimonies are
tainted with relationship and fraud. Since Lucita
abandoned the family home she has also given a ground
for legal separation and therefore should NOT- be
granted one pursuant to Art. 56 par. 4 of The family
code – Where both parties have given ground for legal
separation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lucita Ong should be granted a

decree on legal separation?- YES

HELD: The claim that the real motive of Lucita in filing

the case is for her family to take control of the conjugal
properties is absurd. Lucita left because of her
husband’s repeated physical violence and grossly
abusive conduct. That the physical violence and grossly
abusive conduct were brought to bear upon Lucita have
been duly established. He can derive no personal gain
G.R. No. 196842 October 9, 2013
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman committed
ALFREDO ROMULO A. BUSUEGO, Petitioner,
grave abuse of discretion when it found probable
vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN MINDANAO and cause?- NO
ROSA S. BUSUEGO, Respondents., RULING:
Although no acts of infidelity might have been
‘Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense committed by the wife, the SC agree with the trial judge
constituting a ground for legal separation or, as stated in that the conduct of the plaintiff-husband above narrated
I Bouver’s Law Dictionary, p. 585, condonation is the despite his belief that his wife was unfaithful, deprives
‘conditional forgiveness or remission, by a husband or him, as alleged the offended spouse, of any action for
wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has legal separation against the offending wife, because his
committed.’ said conduct comes within the restriction of Article 100 of
the Civil Code.
‘In Shackleton vs. Shackleton, 48 N. J. Eq. 364; 21 Atl.
935, it has been held that ‘condonation is implied from Although the foregoing speaks of condonation of
sexual intercourse after knowledge of the other infidelity. concubinage as a ground for legal separation, the
Such acts necessarily implied forgiveness. It is entirely holding therein applies with equal force in a prosecution
consonant with reason and justice that if the wife freely for concubinage as a felony. Indeed, Rosa’s admission
consents to sexual intercourse after she has full was that she believed her husband had stopped
knowledge of the husband’s guilt, her consent should womanizing, not that she had knowledge of Alfredo’s
operate as a pardon of his wrong.’ specific acts of concubinage with Sia and de Leon,
specifically keeping them in the conjugal dwelling. This
FACTS: admission set against the specific acts of concubinage
Respondent Rosa filed for concubinage, listed in Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code does not
Violence Against Women and Children, and grave amount to condonation. Their continued cohabitation as
threats before the Office of Ombudsman again her husband and wife construed from Rosa’s annual visits to
husband Alfredo Busuego, the Chief of the Davao Davao City is not acquiescence to Alfredo’s relations
Regional Hospital. Rosa saw evidence of the husband’s with his concubines.
infidelity but he denied it. Thereafter, she went to New
York USA to work as a nurse. Her husband was against The SC held that they find nothing in the record
on her decision; before leaving, he took his gun and which can be construed as pardon or condonation. It is
pointed it at his wife’s temple. true that the offended party has to a considerable extent
been patient with her husband’s shortcomings, but that
Rosa learned that a woman was living at their seems to have been due to his promises of
home. He asked Alfredo about it, he said she was a improvement; nowhere does it appear that she has
nurse at the Regional Hospital and was allegedly raped consented to her husband’s immorality or that she has
by his brother that is why he allowed her to sleep at the acquiesced in his relations with his concubine.
maid’s room.
The Ombudsman’s resolution was affirmed.
Rosa together with the help of her children
gathered evidences against her husband. She filed a
case against her husband before the Ombudsman,
impleading the mistress who did not file the answer. The
Ombudsman finds that there is sufficient case for
concubinage against the husband and his mistress.
The other charges were dismissed for lack of merit.

Petitioner appeal to the SC saying that it glossed

over the wife’s condonation of the supposed
concubinage when she alleged in the complaint that she
had known of her husband’s womanizing and believed to
have change his ways.
ISSUE:
Soccoro Matubis, plaintiff-appellant
Vs Zoilo Praxedes, defendant-appelle

FACTS:

Plaintiff and defendant were legally married on

January 10, 1943 at Camarines Sur. For failure to agree
on how they should live as husband and wife, the couple
on May 30, 1994 agreed to live separately from each
other, which status remain unchannge until the present.
On April 3,1948, they entered into an agreement where it
was stipulated that neither of them can prosecute the
other for adultery or concubinage.

In January 1955, defendant began cohabiting

with another woman, Asuncion Rebulado. On
September 1, 1995 Asuncion gave birth.

Alleging abandonment and concubinage,

Socorro filed a complaint for legal separation against
Zoilo. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the agreement between Socorro and Zoilo is
a tacit expression of her consent to the commission of
concubinage by her husband.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was condonation?- Yes

RULING:

Condonation and consent on the part of the

plaintiff are necessarily part of the agreement. The
condonation and consent here are not only implied but
expressed. Soccoro gave her husband permission to
commit concubinage, having consented to the
concubinage, plaintiff Soccoro cannot claim legal
separation.