G.R. No. C.A. No. 12; April 6, 1946
JUSTO BAPTISTA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CONSUELO CASTAÑEDA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The parties, Justo Baptista and Consuelo Castañeda, were married in 1914 and lived together without issue until approximately March 1, 1942. During the Japanese occupation, the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission promulgated Executive Order No. 141 (the “New Divorce Law”), which provided several grounds for divorce, including intentional desertion for at least one year and slander by deed or gross insult. Relying on this law, Justo Baptista filed an action for divorce on May 21, 1943, in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, alleging these two grounds against his wife. The defendant did not contest the suit. After hearing the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial judge found that the alleged grounds were not proven and that the evidence only showed incompatibility of character; consequently, the petition for divorce was denied. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the divorce action filed under the Japanese-sponsored “New Divorce Law” (Executive Order No. 141) can be granted.

RULING

No. The Court dismissed the case. It held that, regardless of the initial validity of Executive Order No. 141, the legal basis for the action had vanished. Citing General MacArthur’s Proclamation of October 23, 1944, which declared all laws and processes of any government other than that of the Commonwealth of the Philippines null and void in areas free of enemy occupation, the Court ruled that the “New Divorce Law” was no longer in force. Consequently, Act No. 2710 (the prior law on divorce) prevailed, and the divorce action could not be maintained. The judgment of the lower court was effectively upheld by the dismissal of the appeal.