Munoz vs. Barrios (CA) Parties: FELICIDAD P. MUOZ, petitioner and appellant, vs.

JOSE DEL BARRIO, respondent and appellee Facts: Felicidad P. Muoz and Jose del Barrio were married both civilly and canonically. They had (2) kids, Felix Luis del Barrio and Maria Teresa del Barrio who were at the time, 11 and 9 years old respectively. They had frequent quarrels, on which occasions the husband maltreated his wife which led to their separation of dwellings. Nonetheless, they still met with each other and the wife claims that she was again maltreated by her husband. This moved her to institute the present action for legal separation alleging among other things, that the system of conjugal partnership of gains governs their marriage; that no property has been acquired during the marriage, except a portion of a residential land located in Meycawayan, Bulacan, from which no rentals are derived; that the husband made several attempts on the life of the petitioner which compelled her to live separately and apart from the respondent since 1947; and that respondent has not provided support for petitioner and their children. Hence she prays the court: (a) that a decree be entered for the legal separation of petitioner from respondent; (b) that petitioner be awarded the custody of their minor children Felix del Barrio and Maria Teresa del Barrio by herein respondent; (c) that respondent be directed to contribute to the support of said children; (d) that petitioner be allowed costs, plus attorneys fees in the sum of P200 in this instance, to be charged against the conjugal partnership property referred to in paragraph 4 above, pursuant to Article 293 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; (e) that whatever shall remain of said conjugal partnership property after deduction of the expenses mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, be divided and adjudicated in equal parts to herein petitioner and respondent and the conjugal partnership dissolved and liquidated; and (f) that petitioner be granted such further and complete relief as may be just and equitable in the premises. The court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence, the wife appealed. The alleged maltreatment that occurred before their separation in fact must not have amounted to an attempt on the life of the wife since she did not institute any action for legal separation until Oct 1951, after the alleged maltreatment on September 1951. Issue: Whether or not the maltreatments that appellant suffered at the hands of the respondent after their separation of dwelling, which allegedly occurred in December, 1950, or January, 1951, and September of the latter year, furnish a ground for the legal separation Held: No Ratio: An attempt on the life of a person implies that the actor in the attempt is moved by an intention to kill the person against whom the attempt is made, and after a careful examination of the evidence produced by appellant we cannot make up our mind to declare that the alleged maltreatments of respondent to his wife were moved by such intent to kill. On the contrary, we share the opinion of the trial judge who declared that said maltreatments cannot constitute attempts on the life of appellant as provided in Article 97, No.2, of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In the maltreatments complained of in this case, the husband only used at most his bare fists or hands and desisted from giving further chastisement after the first blows were given at the spur of the impulse. It is argued, however, that this is a civil case and that appellant is only bound to prove her right of action by preponderance of evidence and not by evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and though we may, to a certain extent, agree with counsel for appellant on this point, yet we cannot help but declare that in so far as the intent to kill is concerned, it must be established with clear and convincing evidence, and that in the case at bar said intent has not been proved by such evidence. Petitionerappellant herself should not have been so sure of her evidence when instead of the present action she dared not cause the prosecution of her husband for attempted parricide as a means of establishing her right to secure the legal separation she applies for in this case.