G.R. No. L-6705 December 23, 1954
Patrocinio Raymundo, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Doroteo Peñas, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Patrocinio Raymundo and Doroteo Peñas were validly married on March 29, 1941. They lived together until 1949, had no children, and acquired no conjugal property. In July 1949, Doroteo Peñas abandoned his wife and lived maritally with another woman, Carmen Paredes, during August and September 1949. The wife filed an information for concubinage, and Peñas was convicted and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Manila on May 5, 1950. Pending his appeal, on July 14, 1950, the wife instituted the present proceedings praying for a decree of absolute divorce under Act 2710. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on October 31, 1951. The lower court found that the acts of concubinage and the initial judgment of conviction occurred before the repeal of Act 2710 by the new Civil Code, which became effective on August 30, 1950. However, the court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that under Article 2254 of the new Civil Code, no vested or acquired right can arise from acts against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others, and thus the wife acquired no right to a divorce that the court must recognize after the new Code’s effectivity.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Patrocinio Raymundo, retained her right to obtain an absolute divorce under Act 2710 for acts of concubinage committed by her husband prior to the effectivity of the new Civil Code, which repealed Act 2710 and no longer recognizes absolute divorce.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and granted the decree of absolute divorce. The Court held that Article 2254 of the new Civil Code is directed at the offender, not the offended party, and thus does not deprive the innocent spouse of a right to redress. The Court further held that the appellant’s right is protected by Article 2253 of the new Civil Code, which provides that previous laws shall govern rights originating from acts done or events which took place under their regime. The Court also cited Article 2258, which states that actions and rights which came into being but were not exercised before the effectivity of the new Code shall remain in full force under the old legislation. The implication of Article 2267, which enumerates provisions applicable to pending cases and does not include the articles on legal separation, is that the Code did not intend its provisions on legal separation to apply retroactively. The fact that the husband’s conviction became final after the new Code’s effectivity is immaterial, as the requirement of a final conviction under Act 2710 is merely evidentiary and does not impair the court’s jurisdiction or the substantive right itself.