G.R. No. 9274; September 14, 1914
FILOMENA DEL PRADO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TIRSO DE LA FUENTE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
On December 29, 1910, Filomena del Prado filed a complaint for divorce against her lawful husband, Tirso de la Fuente, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The parties were married on June 17, 1893. The plaintiff alleged that from June to November 1910, her husband abandoned her and began living in marital relations with Basilisa Padilla, who was herself lawfully married to Isidro Nicolas. The plaintiff sought a decree of divorce, custody of their minor child, Emilio, and a partition of the conjugal property.

The defendant, in his answer, denied the allegations and invoked as a special defense his prior acquittal in Criminal Case No. 2787, where he was charged with adultery based on the same facts. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce based on her husband’s concubinage, notwithstanding the husband’s prior acquittal in a criminal case for adultery.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and granted the divorce.

The Court held that the applicable law on divorce was not the Civil Code, as its relevant articles had been suspended, but the laws of the Partidas. Under these laws, a wife may prosecute her husband for the crime of concubinage, which is classified under the ancient laws as a form of adultery committed by the husband. If proven, this constitutes a valid ground for divorce, understood as a legal separation (a mensa et thoro) and not a dissolution of the marriage bond.

The defendant’s acquittal in the criminal case for adultery was not a bar to the civil action for divorce. The criminal acquittal was based on the lack of proof that the defendant knew Basilisa Padilla was a married woman, which was an essential element of the crime of adultery under the Penal Code. However, for the purpose of divorce, the relevant fact was the defendant’s concubinagehis public and scandalous cohabitation with another woman to the humiliation of his lawful wife. This fact was fully established by the evidence, including the record of the criminal case which showed that the defendant and Basilisa Padilla lived together, ate together, and shared a bed.

The act of the defendant constituted a double wrong: it was adultery against the husband of the concubine (Isidro Nicolas) and concubinage against his own wife (Filomena del Prado). The wife’s right to seek divorce based on this humiliation is independent of the outcome of a criminal prosecution initiated by the concubine’s husband.

Therefore, the divorce was granted. The Court ordered the separation and suspension of common life between the spouses, the partition of the conjugal property, and awarded custody of the minor child to the plaintiff as the innocent party. Costs were taxed against the defendant.