Goitia vs Campos Rueda Digest

G.R. No. 11263 November 2, 1916 ELOISA GOITIA DE LA CAMARA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appellee. FACTS:  This is an action by the wife against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile  The parties were legally married in the city of Manila on January 7, 1915  established their residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino, where they lived together for about a month  the defendant, one month after he had contracted marriage with the plaintiff, demanded of her that she perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs  That the plaintiff spurned the obscene demands of the defendant and refused to perform any act other than legal and valid cohabitation  With these refusals, the defendant got irritated and provoked to maltreat the plaintiff by word and deed as well as inflicted her injury on the different parts of her body  she was obliged to leave the conjugal abode and take refuge in the home of her parents  The plaintiff appeals for a complaint against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile.  the defendant objects that the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of action  that the spouses separated voluntarily in accordance with an agreement previously made

ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiff can compel the defendant to provide her support, outside the conjugal domicile.

RULING:    



Upon the termination of the marriage ceremony, a conjugal partnership is formed between the parties The law provides that defendant, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill this obligation either by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option The weakness of this argument lies in the assumption that the power to grant support in a separate action is dependent upon a power to grant a divorce The mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife. This obligation is founded not so much on the express or implied terms of the contract of marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband; an obligation, the enforcement of which is of such vital concern to the state itself that the laws will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection in the parental home The law will not permit the defendant to evade or terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assaults of the defendant, may claim support from the defendant for separate maintenance even outside of the conjugal home