G.R. No. L-20043; November 28, 1964
LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO, petitioner, vs. ANGEL CUADERNO, respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for support filed by Lourdes Ramirez-Cuaderno against her husband, Angel Cuaderno, on August 14, 1957, before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The spouses had been living separately since November 17, 1956, following a violent altercation. On that date, during a quarrel, Angel inflicted bodily injuries upon Lourdes. Subsequently, he took her to her mother’s house, where she remained until the filing of the support case. Lourdes claimed she was maltreated and abandoned by her husband, entitling her to support. Angel resisted the claim, contending that it was Lourdes who voluntarily left the conjugal dwelling and was therefore not entitled to separate maintenance.
The trial court ruled in favor of Lourdes, ordering Angel to provide a monthly support of P150.00 from the date of the complaint’s filing, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The court sustained Lourdes’s version, finding that she was either driven out or prevented from returning to the conjugal home due to her husband’s maltreatment. Angel appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision. While adopting the lower court’s findings regarding Angel’s role in the incident, the appellate court held that cohabitation between the spouses was not yet impossible and admonished them to resume living together as husband and wife. Dissatisfied, Lourdes filed the instant petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the wife, who is living separately from her husband due to his infliction of physical injuries upon her, is entitled to an award of separate maintenance.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the judgment of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court awarding separate support to the wife.
The Ratio Decidendi is anchored on the nature of marital cohabitation and the circumstances justifying separate maintenance. The Court recognized the societal interest in preserving marital unions and the caution courts must exercise in awarding separate support, as it acknowledges a de facto separation. However, it emphasized that cohabitation or consortium is a right arising from the spontaneous, mutual affection between spouses, not something that can be compelled by legal mandate or court order. In this case, the separation was directly caused by the husband’s wrongful act of inflicting physical injuries on the wife. It was he who took her to her parents’ home and left her there. His own testimony during trial, stating that “all the trouble she has given me is enough for me to turn my back to her,” demonstrated his attitude and the impracticality of compelling cohabitation. Given that the wife had no independent income and the husband was employed, the monthly support of P150.00 was deemed reasonable. The Court ruled that since the separation was brought about by the husband’s fault under the established circumstances, the obligation to provide separate maintenance shall subsist until a change in the situation between the parties occurs.