32 Bugayong v Ginez
G.R. No. L-10033; 1956 | Felix | Myk RATIO
FACTS
1.) 27 Aug 1949 – Bugayong, a serviceman in the US Navy, and Ginez
got married while the former was on furlough leave.
2.) After their marriage they lived with Bugayong’s sister, who later moved
to Sampaloc.
3.) Jul 1951 – Ginez left the dwelling of her sister-in-law and informed her
husband, thru letter, that she had back to Asingan to live with her
mother. She later moved to Dagupan to study in the local college.
4.) July 1951 – Bugayong began receiving letters from Polangco (Ginez’s
sister) and some anonymous ones (not produced at the hearing)
informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife.
5.) Aug 1952 – Bugayong went to Asingan and sought for his wife whom
he met in the house of Ginez’s grandmother. They spent 2N/1D
together as husband and wife.
a. On the second day, Bugayong tried to verify from his wife the
truth of the information he received. But instead of answering
the question she packed up and left, which he took as a
confirmation of the acts of infidelity imputed on her.
b. Bugayong exerted effort to locate her. But he failed.  So he
went to Bacarra, Ilocos Norte to soothe his wounded feelings.
6.) 18 Nov 1952 – Bugayong filed a complaint for legal separation against
his wife before the CFI of Pangasinan. She denied the averments of
the complaint in her answer.
7.) After the issues were joined and convinced that a reconciliation was
not possible, the court set the case for hearing.
8.) After the presentation of Bugayong’s first witness, counsel for Ginez
orally moved for the dismissal of the complaint. He was ordered to file
a written motion and to give P 10 days to answer.
9.) The MD was predicated on the following grounds:
a. assuming arguendo the truth of the allegations of the
commission of "acts of rank infidelity amounting to adultery",
the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations;
b. under the same assumption, the act charged have been
condoned by the plaintiff-husband; and
c. the complaint failed to state a cause of action sufficient for this
court to render a valid judgment.
10.) CFI: granted the MD based on condonation of the charges of adultery.
ISSUE
WON condonation can be a ground for the dismissal of the action.
HELD
Yes, the decision of the CFI was affirmed.
1.) The SC took into consideration Bugayong’s line of conduct – under
the assumption that he really believed his wife guilty of adultery:
a. He went to Asingan to look for his wife and after finding her
they lived together as husband and wife for 2N/1D, after which
he says he verified the truth but failed to attain his purpose
because his wife deserted him. And yet, he tried to locate her,
though in vain.
b. It is important to note that when he testified he admitted that
they slept together during their brief reunion.
2.) DO THE HUSBAND’S ACTIONS DESPITE THE ALLEGED BELIEF
THAT SHE WAS UNFAITHFUL TO HIM, AMOUNT TO
CONDONATION OF HER SUPPOSED ADULTEROUS ACTS?
a. The rules are –
i. Art 97 (1) – a petition for legal separation may be filed
for adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage
on the part of the husband as defined by the RPC.
ii. Art 100 – legal separation may be claimed only by the
innocent spouse, provided there has been no
condonation of or consent to the adultery or
concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders,
legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them.
Collusion between the parties to obtain legal
separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.
b. Based on the testimony of the husband and the
circumstances surrounding their meeting 10 months after
having knowledge of the alleged infidelity, it showed that there
was a condonation on the part of the husband for the
supposed "acts of rank infidelity amounting to adultery"
committed by Ginez. Assuming that the rumors were true, a
reconciliation was effected between her and Bugayong.
3.) In a long line of cases, it has been held that condonation is implied
from sexual intercourse after knowledge of the other infidelity. Such
act is an implied forgiveness. It is entirely consonant with reason and
justice that if the wife freely consents to sexual intercourse after she
has full knowledge of the husband's guilt, her consent should operate
as a pardon of his wrong. A single voluntary act of sexual intercourse
by the innocent spouse after discovery of the offense is ordinarily
sufficient to constitute condonation, especially as against the
husband.
4.) Therefore, the conduct of Bugayong despite his belief that his wife was
unfaithful, deprives him, as alleged the offended spouse, of any action
for legal separation against the offending wife, because his said
conduct comes within the restriction of Art 100 (condonation).
 5.) The GR in American jurisprudence is that any cohabitation with the
guilty party, after the commission of the offense, and with the
knowledge or belief on the part of the injured party of its commission,
will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation; but this
presumption may be rebutted by evidence
a. If there had been cohabitation, to what extent must it be to
constitute condonation?
i. Single voluntary act of marital intercourse between
the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute
condonation, and where the parties live in the same
house, it is presumed that they live on terms of
matrimonial cohabitation
ii. A divorce suit will not be granted for adultery where
the parties continue to live together after it was known
or there is sexual intercourse after knowledge of
adultery or sleeping together for a single night. The
resumption of marital cohabitation as a basis of
condonation will generally be inferred, nothing
appearing to the contrary, from the fact of the living
together as husband and wife, especially as against
the husband
6.) There is no rule in PH jurisprudence but the SC saw no reason to
depart from the doctrines laid down in US jurisprudence.

FALLO
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing, the order appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. It is so ordered.