8/12/2019 Juarez Turon

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-28643 March 19, 1928

NICOLAS JUARE,plaintiff-appellant,vs.RAMONA !. TURON, defendant-appellee.

Mateo D. Cipriano for appellant.No appearance for appellee.

STATEMENT

After the foral pleas, plaintiff!s coplaint filed on "ebruar# $%, $&'(, alle)es*

$. That the plaintiff and the defendant are of a)e, the forer residin) at No. $%+ Calle urbaran and the latter at No. $' Calle Castaos, both/ithin the 0urisdiction of this Cit# of Manila1

'. That the plaintiff and the defendant are husband and /ife, havin) contracted arria)e on 2ctober '3, $&'$1

. That durin) the arria)e of the plaintiff and the defendant a dau)hter /as born of it, 4no/n as 5ourdes 6uare7, /ho is a inor and /ho isat present in the possession of the defendant1

+. That after le)al proceedin)s, the defendant /as convicted of adulter# coitted /ith 8re)orio Raos in the Cit# of Manila, Philippine9slands, in criinal case No. '%%: of this court, the offended part# in said case bein) the plaintiff above naed1

:. That the 0ud)ent for adulter# entioned in the precedin) para)raph has becoe final and /as e;ecuted1

here it not for this reuireent said0ud)ent /ould be inadissible as evidence in this case, e;cept for the purpose of ipeachin) the veracit# of the defendant as /itness, ifshe had appeared and testified. ?pon this point the follo/in) doctrine is /ell 4no/n* ?pon the fore)oin) principle, it is obvious that, as a)eneral rule, a verdict and 0ud)ent in a criinal case, thou)h adissible to establish the fact of the ere rendition of the 0ud)ent, cannotbe )iven in evidence in a civil action, to establish the facts on /hich it /as rendered. ol. $, 8reenleaf on Evidence, par. :(. >hich doctrine

8/12/2019 Juarez Turon

2/3

/as cited and approved b# the Supree Court of these 9slands in the case of 2capo vs. 6en4ins $+ Phil., pp. ithout special pronounceent as to costs.

So ordered.

The findin) of the lo/er court, that the plaintiff 4ne/ of the alle)ed adulter# in Au)ust, $&'+, is /ell sustained b# his o/n evidence, and the coplaint in

this action /as filed on "ebruar# $%, $&'(, about t/o and a half #ears after the plaintiff 4ne/ of the adulter#, for /hich he no/ see4s a divorce.

All thin)s considered, the 0ud)ent of the lo/er court is affired, /ith costs. So ordered.

Malcolm, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

S#$ara%# O$&'&o'(

JO"NSON, J., concurrin)*

9 concur in the dispositive part of the a0orit# decision. 9 prefer to leave the discussion of the incon)ruities of section + of Act No. '($% until the uestionis suarel# presented, hopin) that in the eantie the 5e)islature a# have tie to a4e it ore plain if that sees necessar#. Section + containsthree periods of prescription or liitation of action for divorce*

Da ?nder said section an action for divorce cannot be filed e;cept /ithin one #ear fro and after the date on /hich the coplaint becae co)ni7ant ofthe cause1 Db an action for divorce ust be filed /ithin five #ears fro and after the date /hen such cause occurred1 and Dc /hen the cause occurredprior to the date on /hich this Act too4 effect DMarch $$, $&$(, then the action for divorce ust be coenced /ithin one #ear fro and after such

date.9t is difficult to haroni7e the provisions of para)raphs Da and Db above, said section +. The# ust ean, first, that the part# a))rieved ust brin) hisaction for divorce /ithin one #ear after he had 4no/led)e of the causeand, second, that such action cannot be aintained after the lapse of five #earsfro the date /hen such causeoccurred, /hether the coplaint /as co)ni7ant of the cause or not. 9n other /ords, an action for divorce under said Actust be coenced /ithin a period of one #ear fro the tie the coplainant has becoe co)ni7ant of the causes 0ustif#in) his divorce, but suchaction cannot be aintained after the lapse of five #ears fro and after the date /hen the cause for divorce occurred. That, in # 0ud)ent, ust be theinterpretation of that section as to the t/o causes of prescription or liitation of action. =o/ever, that conclusion leaves uch #et to be e;plained.

9n the present case the action /as not be)un /ithin one #ear fro and after the date on /hich the coplainant becae co)ni7ant of the causes0ustif#in) his divorce. =is action is theretofore clearl# barred.

)ILLAMOR, J., dissentin)*

The precedin) decision affirs the 0ud)ent of the lo/er court /ith costs.

The lo/er court!s decision is here reproduced in its entiret#, and this court, in affirin) it, a4es the follo/in) coent* The findin) of the lo/er court,that the plaintiff 4ne/ of the alle)ed adulter# in Au)ust, $&'+ is /ell sustained b# his o/n evidence, and the coplaint in this action /as filed on"ebruar# $%, $&'(, about t/o and a half #ears after the plaintiff 4ne/ of the adulter#, for /hich he no/ see4s a divorce.

9 vote for the reversal of the 0ud)ent appealed fro, on the )rounds hereinafter briefl# set forth.

The 0ud)ent appealed fro disissed the herein coplaint for divorce for t/o reasons* D$ Because the action /as instituted out of tie1 and D'because the final 0ud)ent in a criinal action for adulter# is sufficient evidence in a civil action for divorce. Both reasons are, in # opinion, untenable.

Accordin) to the evidence, the plaintiff learned of his /ife!s adulter# in Au)ust, $&'+1 or, ore correctl#, the adulter# too4 place on Au)ust $, $&'+. Theinforation for adulter# /as filed on 6anuar# '$, $&'

8/12/2019 Juarez Turon

3/3

that of the lo/er court /ere to prevail, the distinction established b# the la/ /ould disappear, and the la/ aended b# a 0udicial decision.

To # ind, the reason for the t/o prescriptive periods of action rest on the fact that /hen the cause of action too4 place before the @ivorce 5a/becae effective, the le)islator intended to liit the effects of this la/, so as not to favor the institution of divorce proceedin)s1 and /hen the cause ofaction occurred after said la/ had becoe effective, the sae le)islator probabl# too4 into account the precedents of several States of Aerica, such asAr4ansas, Gentuc4#, etc., /hich fi; the period of five #ears for the coenceent of the action, to be rec4oned fro the date of the act )ivin) rise to it.DSee =irsh, Tabulated @i)est of the @ivorce 5a/ of the ?nited States.

At an# rate, no atter ho/ arbitrar# the fi;in) of this second period a# see, the la/ has deeed it /ise to establish a period of five #ears to berec4oned fro the #ear follo/in) the date on /hich the plaintiff becae a/are of the cause of action for the filin) of the action for divorce, that is, Au)ust$, $&'+. Therefore, it is contrar# both to the letter and to the spirit of the la/ to hold that the action for divorce has prescribed because it /as instituted

t/o and a half #ears after the plaintiff becae a/are of the cause of action.>ith respect to the second )round for disissal, the 0ud)ent appealed fro cites the case of 2capo vs. 6en4ins and >orcester D$+ Phil.,