FILOMENA DEL PRADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TIRSO DE LA FUENTE, Defendant-Appellee.

G.R. No. 9274 September 14, 1914

The plaintiff-appellant is Filomena del Prado who is with Pedro Ma. Sison as her legal

counsel. While the defendant-appellee is Tirso dela Fuente whos legal counsel is E. S. Smith.

Filomena del Prado and Tirso dela Fuente was lawfully wedded. The marriage between Filomena

del Prado and Tirso dela Fuente was consumated on or about June 17,1983 in the town of

Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife, bore several children of whom

only one survived, Emilio, who is 10 years of age at the year 1914. The petition for divorce was

filed by Pedro Ma. Sison, counsel for Filomena del Prado in the Court of First Instance of

Pangasinan. The case was tried on June 9, 1913 and the court, in light of the evidence presented

by both parties, rendered the judgment set forth. However, Filomena del Prado is asking that she

be legally separated from her lawful husband. The concubinage committed by her husband

constituted the ground for petition for divorce, in that he was illegally united with another woman

who was not his wife. Filomena del Prado said that since the period from June to November

1910, her said husband had separated from and abandoned her, and lived in marital relations

with Basilisa Padilla, a resident of Santa Barbara of the same province and wife of Isidro Nicolas.

In the trial for adultery, it was not successfully manifested nor proven that the Tirso dela

Fuente knew that his concubine Basilisa Padilla was a married woman. In order to commit the

crime of adultery, the married woman must be with a man other than her husband and he who lies

with her must know that she is married. Since Tirso dela Fuente did not know that his concubine

was a married woman, he was acquitted of the charge of adultery. On the other hand, the

accused woman, Basilisa Padilla, was found guilty of adultery since it was proven that she was

joined in lawful matrimony with her husband, Isidro Nicolas. Further aggravating her case was

that she had separated from him and had lived with her co-defendant Tirso dela Fuente.

The decision declaring the divorce to have been properly granted in the suit, on the ground

that concubinage of the Tirso dela Fuente with the adulteress Basilisa Padilla has been proven,

does not conflict with the final judgment rendered in said case for adultery, prosecuted at the

instance if the husband of the adulteress, because the fact that the adultery has been punished

on account of the offense committed against Isidro Nicolas thereby and the judgment of acquittal

in favor of the Tirso dela Fuente in that case, for the reason stated, do not affect her rights, nor

form an obstacle to granting this petition, after the fact of the concubinage of the Tirso dela

Fuente has been held to be established in this case.



The judgment appealed from should be reversed and the divorce sought by the plaintiff be

granted. And also to order the separation and suspension of the common life of the litigating

spouses and the partition of the property of the conjugal partnership between the plaintiff and

defendant, their minor child, Emilio, remain in the possession and under the care of his mother,

the plaintiff. And costs of both instances to be imposed upon the defendant.

Prepared and submitted by:

MA. KIEL PATRICIA R. ETCOBANEZ

AB Political Science I-B

Submitted to:

Prof. KRISMELLEH CASSANDRA LORENZITA BELARO

English Professor