Arroyo v Vasquez De Arroyo

Facts: Mariano and Dolores were married 1910. They lived together with a few short intervals of
separation. In 1920, Dolores left their common home and decided to live separately from Mariano.
Mariano induced Dolores to return home but the latter refused. Hence, Mariano filed a petition for
permanent mandatory injunction requiring the Dolores to return to the conjugal home and live with him
as a wife under pain of contempt. By way of defense, Dolores claimed that she was compelled to leave on
the basis of cruel treatment on the part Mariano. She in turn prayed for a decree of separation, a
liquidation of their conjugal partnership, and an allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate
maintenance. The trial court ruled in favor of Dolores.

On appeal, the SC ruled that Mariano has done nothing to forfeit his right to the marital society of Dolores
and that she is under an obligation, both moral and legal, to return to the common home and cohabit
with Mariano. The only question is whether it is within the province of the courts to attempt to compel
one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other.

Issue: May the court order Dolores to return to the conjugal home under pain of contempt?

Ruling:

No. It is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to
cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. Cohabitation is a purely personal obligation - an
obligation to do. To compel the wife to comply with such obligation would be an infringement of her
personal liberty