Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME 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 Casta.os, 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 is
at 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, Philippine
9slands, 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
<. That the plaintiff and the defendant have no con0u)al propert#1 and
(. That the plaintiff has also no private propert#.
And plaintiff pra#s that he be decreed a divorce and have 0ud)ent for costs.
Au)ust $$, $&'(, the coplaint /as aended as follo/s*
After para)raph : and before < let the follo/in) ne/ para)raphs be inserted /hich shall be called :A, :B, and :C and /hich shall read as
follo/s*
:A. That the plaintiff, one #ear before the filin) of this coplaint, /as doiciled and residin) at the Cit# of Manila, Philippine 9slands.
:B. That the adulter# coitted b# the herein defendant has never been consented to nor pardoned b# the plaintiff.
:C. That this action is filed /ithin one #ear follo/in) the date /hen the plaintiff obtained 4no/led)e of the cause.
The defendant ade a default. "or the purpose of provin) his case, the plaintiff offered in evidence the record in and b# /hich his /ife /as convicted of
adulter#, and /as called and testified as a /itness in his o/n behalf. The lo/er court denied plaintiff an# relief, and disissed the coplaint, fro /hich
he appeals and assi)ns the follo/in) errors*
T=E 52>ER C2?RT ERRE@ 9N =25@9N8*
$. That the docuent E;hibit B, /hich is a certified cop# of the 0ud)ent of conviction rendered in criinal case No. -'%%: of the Court of
"irst 9nstance of Manila, for the crie of adulter# instituted a)ainst the defendant, is not an evidence that she had coitted said crie.
'. That this action /as coenced out of the tie in /hich it should have been brou)ht accordin) to the provisions of Act No. '($%1 and
-. 9n refusin) to decree the divorce pra#ed for in the coplaint that initiated this action.

JO"NS, J.:
The decision of the lo/er court is as follo/s*
This is a coplaint for divorce /herein it is alle)ed b# the plaintiff aon) other thin)s*
That the defendant, after le)al proceedin)s, /as convicted of adulter# coitted /ith 8re)orio Raos in the Cit# of Manila, P. 9., in criinal
case No. -'%%: of this court, the offended part# in said case bein) the plaintiff, hiself above naed1 and
That the 0ud)ent for adulter# entioned in the precedin) para)raph has becoe final and /as e;ecuted.
The defendant havin) been suoned, she /as later declared in default at the instance of the plaintiff /hose evidence /as received b# the
court in the absence of the defendant. The plaintiff, ho/ever, has not presented an# evidence upon the adulter# coitted b# the defendant
and /hich can be the onl# )round for the action herein brou)ht. =e did present the 0ud)ent render in the aforesaid criinal case for adulter#
a)ainst the sae defendant, provin), oreover, that said 0ud)ent has becoe final1 but this bein) a civil action, copletel# different fro
the criinal one for adulter# a)ainst the sae defendant, and in /hich the parties are also different, althou)h in fact and substance the cause
of action is the sae in the t/o cases, in the one no/ before the court for divorce evidence ust have been presented that adulter# /as
coitted b# the defendant, the 0ud)ent of conviction rendered in the criinal case a)ainst the sae defendant not bein) sufficient, since
as evidence it has no effect in this action other than to sho/ that the )uilt of the defendant /as proven in a final 0ud)ent rendered in a
criinal case, /hich is a condition reAuired b# section 3 of Act No. '($% before divorce can be )ranted. >here it not for this reAuireent said
0ud)ent /ould be inadissible as evidence in this case, e;cept for the purpose of ipeachin) the veracit# of the defendant as /itness, if
she had appeared and testified. ?pon this point the follo/in) doctrine is /ell 4no/n* B?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, cannot
be )iven in evidence in a civil action, to establish the facts on /hich it /as rendered.B Col. $, 8reenleaf on Evidence, par. :-(. >hich doctrine
/as cited and approved b# the Supree Court of these 9slands in the case of B2capo vs. 6en4ins $+ Phil., pp. <3$, <3&.B
2n the other hand, the la/ reAuires that the action for divorce be brou)ht /ithin one #ear fro the date /hen the plaintiff acAuired 4no/led)e
of the cause of action brou)ht b# hi, but the herein coplaint /as filed on "ebruar# $%, $&'(, not/ithstandin) that accordin) to plaintiff
hiself, he acAuired 4no/led)e of the adulter# of the defendant about Au)ust, $&'+.
"or the fore)oin), the court overrules the coplaint, holdin) that 0ud)ent cannot be rendered for divorce as pra#ed for b# the plaintiff.
>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 Auestion
is sAuarel# presented, hopin) that in the eantie the 5e)islature a# have tie to a4e it ore plain if that sees necessar#. Section + contains
three periods of prescription or liitation of action for divorce*
DaE ?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 of
the cause1 DbE an action for divorce ust be filed /ithin five #ears fro and after the date /hen such cause occurred1 and DcE /hen the cause occurred
prior to the date on /hich this Act too4 effect DMarch $$, $&$(E, 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 DaE and DbE above, said section +. The# ust ean, first, that the part# a))rieved ust brin) his
action 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 #ears
fro 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 Act
ust 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 such
action 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 the
interpretation 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 causes
0ustif#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* BThe 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.B
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$E Because the action /as instituted out of tie1 and D'E
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 $, $&'+. The
inforation for adulter# /as filed on 6anuar# '$, $&'<, and 0ud)ent /as rendered in the criinal case on March ', $&'<. This 0ud)ent becae final
and sub0ect to e;ecution. The coplaint for divorce /as filed on "ebruar# $%, $&'(, and the 0ud)ent disissin) it /as rendered on Au)ust $(, $&'(.
Such are the facts proved at the trial. =as the plaintiff!s action to divorce his le)itiate /ife prescribedF >hat does the la/ provide /ith respect to the
prescription of the action for divorceF
Section + of Act No. '($% provides*
An action for divorce cannot be filed e;cept /ithin one #ear fro and after the date on /hich the plaintiff becae co)ni7ant of the cause and
/ithin five #ears fro and after the date /hen such cause occurred1 but if such cause occurred prior to the date on /hich this Act ta4es effect,
then onl# /ithin one #ear fro and after such date.
This la/ too4 effect on March $$, $&$(.
As a# be seen, the la/ establishes t/o prescriptive periods, accordin) to /hether the cause of the divorce occurred before or after said la/ /ent into
operation. 9f before, the prescriptive period of the action is one #ear, that is, /ithin the first #ear and after the la/ becae effective1 if after, as in the
present case, the prescriptive period is five #ears, to be rec4oned fro the #ear follo/in) the date on /hich the plaintiff learned of the cause for divorce,
nael#, his /ife!s adulter#.
As Au)ust $, $&'+, /as the date on /hich the plaintiff learned of the adulter#, the action divorce does not arise said date, but fro Au)ust $, $&':, or
one #ear fro Au)ust $, $&'+. The #ear fro Au)ust, $&'+ to Au)ust, $&':, is not to be counted for the purposes of prescription1 it is the #ear of )race
/hich the la/ )rants the spouses for their reconciliation, because the State is ore interested in the continuance of the con0u)al union than in the
separation of the spouses, for the /elfare of the fail# and of societ#. 9f accordin) to the la/, the plaintiff!s action lasts five #ears fro Au)ust $, $&':,
he a# brin) it at an# tie bet/een then and Au)ust $, $&-%. And the action havin) been instituted on "ebruar# $%, $&'(, it is evident that said action
/as filed /ithin the period of tie authori7ed b# the la/.
9t ust be noted that, as has been said the aforeentioned section + of Act No. '($% establishes t/o periods of prescription* 2ne of one #ear, if the
cause of action occurred before the Act No. '($% too4 effect1 and another of five #ears, if the cause arose thereafter. 9f the opinion of this court affirin)
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 of
action occurred after said la/ had becoe effective, the sae le)islator probabl# too4 into account the precedents of several States of Aerica, such as
Ar4ansas, 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.E
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 be
rec4oned 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., <3$E,
/herein it /as held* BThe fact that an appeal is pendin) in the Supree Court in a criinal case for libel, under Act No. '(( of the Philippine
Coission, does not prevent the prosecution of a civil action for daa)es under the sae Act, /hich clearl# reco)ni7es t/o distinct actions, upon the
theor# that there are t/o separate and distinct in0uries received fro the crie, one b# the State and the other b# the individual daa)ed b# the libel. 9n
such a case, therefore, a petition for a /rit of prohibition en0oinin) the prosecution of the civil suit /hile the criinal appeal is pendin), /ill be denied.
The )eneral rule is that the plea of res adjudicata cannot be interposed e;cept /here the parties, the facts, and the Auestions involved are the
sae. As bet/een civil and criinal actions, a 0ud)ent in one is no bar to the prosecution of the other. =ence, a 0ud)ent in a criinal
cause cannot be pleaded as res adjudicatain a civil action.
That case dealt /ith the interpretation of section $$ of Act No. '((, /hich reads*
9n addition to the criinal action hereb# prescribed, a ri)ht of civil action is also hereb# )iven to an# person libeled . . . a)ainst the person
libelin) hi for daa)es sustained b# such libel . . .
And it /as held that Act No. '(( reco)ni7ed t/o distinct and independent actions on the theor# that t/o distinct and independent in0uries are caused b#
the crie of libel-- one to the State and another to the private individual, pre0udiced b# reason of the crie. The rule adopted /as substantiall#
enunciated as follo/s*
A 0ud)ent in a criinal prosecution constitutes no bar to estoppel in a civil action based upon the sae acts or transactions, and conversel#
of a 0ud)ent in a civil action sou)ht to be )iven in evidence in a criinal prosecution. The reason ost often )iven for this holdin) is that the
two proceedings are not between the same parties. @ifferent rules as to the copetenc# of /itnesses and /ei)ht of evidence necessar# to
the findin)s in the t/o proceedin)s also e;ist. As bet/een civil and criinal actions, a 0ud)ent in one is no bar or estoppel to the
prosecution of the other. A 0ud)ent in a criinal cause cannot be pleaded as res adjudicata in a civil action.
There is no need to aass citations in support of the )eneral rule thus stated, since there can be no doubt that it is /ell founded upon 0ustice and
authorit#. Nevertheless, 9 believe that this )eneral rule /ith respect to a civil action for libel and the criinal action arisin) therefro, is not applicable to
the instant case, /herein the civil action for divorce is so closel# lin4ed to the criinal action for adulter# that the ver# life of the forer depends upon
the success of the latter. >hile a 0ud)ent of acAuittal in a criinal case for libel is no bar to the institution of a civil action for daa)es caused b# the
libel, a 0ud)ent of acAuittal for adulter# 4ills the action for divorce. >hile, pursuant to Act No. '((, the civil action a# be coenced and prosecuted
until the renderin) of 0ud)ent independentl# of the criinal action1 under Act No. '($%, the action for divorce cannot be prosecuted, althou)h it a# be
coenced until 0ud)ent is rendered in the criinal action for adulter# or concubina)e.
And this sho/s the intiate relation established b# the la/ bet/een the civil action for divorce and the criinal action for adulter# or concubina)e.
Section - of the @ivorce 5a/ provides*
The divorce a# be claied onl# b# the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of a consent to the adulter# or
concubina)e, as the case a# be. >here both spouses are )uilt#, a divorce cannot be claied b# either of the.
And section 3 of the sae Act prescribes*
A divorce shall not be )ranted /ithout the )uilt of the defendant bein) established b# final sentence in a criinal action.
9n vie/ of these le)al provisions, 9 a of opinion that the 0ud)ent rendered in the action for adulter#, E;hibit B, is conclusive proof of the defendant!s
)uilt in the civil action for divorce, /hich is an indispensable reAuisite for the )rantin) of a divorce.
2n the h#pothesis that the plaintiff has proved his alle)ations in the coplaint for divorce, and havin) filed his action /ithin the period authori7ed b# the
la/, 9 a of the to the appellant!s ri)hts in disissin) the present action1 and 9 hold that the 0ud)ent appealed fro should be reversed, and the case
reanded to the court of ori)in /ith instruction to )rant the divorce applied for in the coplaint, in accordance /ith Act No. '($%, /ithout a special
pronounceent as to costs.
illa!Real, J., concurs.