[G.R. No. 80116. June 30, 1989.

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, Petitioner, v. HON. CORONA IBAY-

SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of
Manila; and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen married private respondent Erich
Ekkehard Geiling, a German national on Sept. 7, 1979 at Federal Republic of Germany.
They lived together in Malate, Manila and had a child named Isabella Pilapil Geiling.
Unfortunately, after about three and a half years of marriage such connubial disharmony
eventuated in Erich initiating divorce proceeding against Imelda in Germany. He claimed
that there was failure of their marriage and that they had been living apart since April
1982. On the other hand, petitioner filed an action for legal separation before a trial court
in Manila on January 23, 1983. The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15,
1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was
granted to the petitioner. More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree,
Geiling filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that
while still married to to Imelda, the latter had an affair with a certain William Chia as
early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983.

Petitioner filed a petition asking to set aside the cases filed against her and be dismissed.
Thereafter, petitioner moved to defer her arraignment and to suspend further proceedings.
Justice Secretary Ordoñez issued a resolution directing to move for the dismissal of the
complaints against petitioner.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent Geiling can prosecute petitioner Pilapil on the ground
of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was
already issued.

RULINGS:

The law provides that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who can
legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. In this case, it
appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid
divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal
effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under the
same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of the
petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture
that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.