Wife who leaves home with just cause still entitled to husband’s support

Dear PAO,
My wife left our family residence one year ago. Last month, I received a call from her asking for support because she lost her job. I refused because she was the one who left our house and we don’t have a child so I don’t have an obligation to give support. Is my reasoning correct?
Frank

Dear Frank,
Family relation creates legal rights and obligations between and among the members of the family. One of the legal rights and obligations arising from family ties is support, which comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation (Art. 194, Family Code). As provided by law, the following persons are obliged to support each other:

(1)The spouses;

(2)Legitimate ascendants and descendants;

(3)Parents and their legitimate children, and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;

(4)Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter; and

(5)Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood (Art. 195, Ibid).

It is clear from the above provision of law that support between spouses is separate from support between parent and child. It is an independent legal right that exists on its own, and which the person obliged to give support is mandated to fulfill. Thus, even though a couple has no child, they are still obliged to support each other. Yet, the right to receive support has limitations, and it may be lost in certain instances.

One instance where the right to support is lost is when a spouse leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause (Art. 100, Id.). Under this law, there are two requisites before the right to support may be withdrawn under this provision of law, to wit: desertion or refusal to live in the family home, and there is no just cause for such action. The term just cause refers to a reasonable and lawful ground for action. It is a standard of reasonableness used to evaluate a person’s actions in a given set of circumstances (http://legal dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/just+cause). As emphasized by Prof. Santa Maria, the mere fact of separating from the family home is not a reason to withdraw the right to support unless there is evidence of any fault or guilt on the spouse who leaves (Persons and Family Relations Law, p. 451 citing Sumulong vs. Cembrano, 51 Phil. 719).

Applying the foregoing to your case, the fact that you and your wife have no child, and that she left the house you live in do not automatically disqualify her from receiving support. Your obligation to support subsists unless you can show that she left your house and refused to live there without just cause.

Please bear in mind that this opinion is based on the facts you narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary if facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chaief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Marriage voidable when either party is forced into it

Dear PAO,
My brother was forced to marry his girlfriend when he got her pregnant because the father of his girlfriend physically threatened him and even sent him death threats. Now that the father of his girlfriend passed away, my brother is wondering if he can have his marriage annulled considering that he only agreed to marry the girl because of the threats of his father-in-law against him. I hope you can advise us on what we can do about this. Thank you!
Edmayne

Dear Edmayne,
One of the essential requirements of a valid marriage is the consent of the parties freely given during their marriage (Article 2, Family Code of the Philippines). In situations when consent in marriage was obtained through force, intimidation or undue influence, the marriage is still considered valid until a proper action for its annulment on such ground is filed, proven and granted by the courts.

Based on your narration, your brother alleges that his consent to marry his girlfriend was caused by the threats made by his father-in-law. If this is true, then there is a defect in the essential requisites in the marriage of your brother since his consent was not freely given. This therefore makes his marriage voidable or valid until annulled.

Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides for the grounds for the annulment of a marriage. This law is relevant to the situation of your brother since it provides that:

“Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

xxx

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

xxx”

Thus, if indeed your brother was merely forced, coerced or threatened to obtain his consent to the marriage, then he may and he should bring the appropriate petition for annulment of marriage before the courts provided that he did not willingly cohabit with his wife after the exertion of the duress has ceased.

It is important to note that a petition for annulment of marriage must be filed before the lapse of a specific period otherwise the action will be barred by prescription. Under the law, the period within which to file a petition for annulment based on the ground of vitiated consent is “…within five years from the time the force, intimidation or undue influence disappeared or ceased” (Article 47(4), Family Code of the Philippines). Therefore, if the force and/or intimidation exerted by your brother’s father-in-law has ceased, then he must file the aforementioned petition in court within five (5) years counting from the time the said force and/or intimidation ceased.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net