G.R. No. 26435, March 4, 1927
JUANARIA FRANCISCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LOPE TAYAO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Juanaria Francisco (wife) and Lope Tayao (husband) were married in 1912 and separated in 1917. The husband moved to Zamboanga, where he was later prosecuted and convicted of the crime of adultery with a married woman, Bernardina Medrano. The criminal case was instituted by the aggrieved husband of Bernardina, Ambrosio Torres. Relying on this final conviction, Juanaria Francisco filed an action for divorce against Lope Tayao in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that the plaintiff was not an “innocent spouse” as required by the Divorce Law. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

Whether a wife can obtain a divorce from her husband based on the husband’s final conviction for the crime of adultery (as defined under the Penal Code), even if the acts constituting the crime could also amount to concubinage.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for divorce.

The Philippine Divorce Law (Act No. 2710) explicitly and restrictively provides that a petition for divorce can only be filed for:
1. Adultery on the part of the wife, or
2. Concubinage on the part of the husband.

The law further requires that the guilt of the defendant be established by a final sentence in a criminal action for the specific offense that serves as the ground for divorce.

In this case, while the acts committed by the husband might also constitute concubinage, he was prosecuted for and convicted of the crime of adultery. The criminal action was initiated by the aggrieved husband of the woman involved, not by the aggrieved wife (Juanaria Francisco), which is the proper procedure for prosecuting concubinage. Therefore, there is no final judgment convicting the husband of concubinage.

The Court refused to:
1. Sit as a trial court to convict the defendant of concubinage in the absence of a proper prosecution and judgment for that specific crime.
2. Amend the Divorce Law by judicial fiat to add “adultery on the part of the husband” as a ground for divorce, which would be necessary for the wife to prevail in this case.

Since the only final conviction was for adultery (a ground for divorce only if committed by the wife), and not for concubinage (the required ground if committed by the husband), the plaintiff-wife is not entitled to a decree of divorce. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.