JDC Ateneo Law Batch 2020

Persons and Family Relations Atty. Nina Patricia Sison-Arroyo

LILIUS ET. AL V. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

Facts of the Case:

Aleko Lilius, a well known journalist, author, and

photographer. He was a staff correspondent in the far
east of the magazines The American and Weekly of
New York and TRhe Sphere of London. A monthly
income netted 1,500.
May 10, 1931 around 7am, the plaintiffs family (Sonja
Lilius, their 4 year old daughter) left manila driven by
Aleko for municipality of Pagsanjan.
He has been in Calauan before but never drove from
Calauan to Pagsanjan via Dayap therefore entire
unacquainted with the conditions of the road at said
points and not knowledgeable of the existence of rail
road crossing in Dayap
Before reaching the said railroad crossing there was no
indicators of its existence and there were only houses,
shrubs, and trees along the road. It was impossible to
see an approaching train
The locomotive train struck the plaintiffs car
The impact was severe that it was able to throw the
plaintiffs wife and daughter out of the car
Despite of the efforts of Engineer Basilio, he was
unable to stop the locomotive until it gone seventy
meters from the crossing
All of the plaintiffs were injured (Aleko cannot focus
and had a difficulty performing his tasks that affect
their means of livelihood)

Prior to the accident there were no notice nor sign of

the existence of the crossing
The flagman arrived after the collision
The trial court is of consideration that the accident was
due to the negligence of the defendant-appelant
company
(Diligence of a good father of the family does not end
in employee selection but it continues in the
supervision of the discharge of duties of its employees)
To recover damages the victim should not contribute
to the negligence and must also exercise the diligence
of a good father of the family

ISSUE:

WON Aleko can claim 2,500 from the defendant

company due to the loss of consortium
(companionship and services of his wife)

RULING:

Aleko also claims 2500 for the loss of the

consortium of his wife (services, society, and
conjugal companionship) as a result of the personal
injuries she had received from the accident
Quoted the Civil Marriage Law of 1870: The above
quoted provisions of the Law of Civil Marriage and
the Civil Code fix the duties and obligations of the
spouses. The spouses must be faithful to, assist,

JDC Ateneo Law Batch 2020

Persons and Family Relations Atty. Nina Patricia Sison-Arroyo

and support each other. The husband must live

with and protect his wife. The wife must obey and
live with her husband and follow him when he
changes his domicile or residence, except when he
removes to a foreign country
Aleko failed to give a value on the services
rendered by his wife as translator and secretary
prior to the accident
The wifes domestic assistance and conjugal
companionship are purely personal and voluntary
acts that neither of the spouses can be compelled
to render. (The party claiming indemnity for the
loss should prove that the person obliged to render
them had done so before his injured and that he
would be willing to continue rendering had he not
been prevented from doing)

JDC Ateneo Law Batch 2020

Persons and Family Relations Atty. Nina Patricia Sison-Arroyo

MARIANO ARROYO V. DOLORES ARROYO

Facts of the Case:

Mariano and Dolores were united in the bonds of

wedlock by marriage in 1910
With short intervals of separation they lived together
as husband and wife until 1920
After the wife went away from the common home and
decided to live separately from her husband and after
the efforts of the husband to induce her to resume
marital relations it failed
An action was filed before the court to compel the
Dolores to return to the matrimonial home and live
with him as a dutiful wife
Dolores claimed that the reason why she left the
matrimonial home was because of the cruel treatment
of the husband
Dolores claims to a decree of separation, liquidation of
conjugal partnership, and allowance for counsel and
permanent separate maintenance
Lower court in favor of the defendant (that the illtreatment of husband to her furnished sufficient
justification for her abandonment of the conjugal
home and permanent breaking off of marital relations
with him)
The Supreme Court is against the said conclusion
because there was a disposition of jealousy present on
the wife, neither of the spouses are guilty of sexual

infidelity and the abandonment was without sufficient

justification in fact
ISSUE:

WON the Court can compel the defendant Dolores

to return to their conjugal home and perform her
duties as wife as mandated by the law
If the wife is entitled to separate maintenance

RULING:

Separate maintenance can be granted if there is a

sufficient basis such as the procurement of legal
cruelty against the offended spouse (Legal crueltyinflicting of bodily and psychological harm)
It is beyond the province of the court to compel
one of the spouses to cohabit with the other and
render conjugal rights
It is the duty of the wife to return and no court can
compel her to return to the marital domicile
No costs against the plaintiff

JDC Ateneo Law Batch 2020

Persons and Family Relations Atty. Nina Patricia Sison-Arroyo

LACSON V. SAN JOSE-LACSON

Facts of the case:

Alfonso lacson the petitioner spouse and Carmen San

Jose-Lacson the respondent were married on 1953 and
they had four children
1963, the respondent spouse left the conjugal home in
Bacolod city and decided to reside in Manila
Carmen filed before the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Board for the custody of all of their children
as well as support for them and herself
Through the assistance of both parties attorneys they
were able to reach an amicable settlement with
respect to the custody of children, support, and
separation of property
In the amicable settlement it was tated that
o Mutually agreed on the dissolution of conjugal
partnership subject to judicial approval
o Separation of property- Carmen is waiving any
and all claims for a share in property that may
be held by Alfonso
o Custody of two elder children to Alfonso and
the younger to Carmen
o Alfonso shall pay Carmen a monthly allowance
of 300
o Each petitioner shall have the reciprocal visition
rights except on Summer months were all four
children remain with Carmen

Carmen filed before the JDRC that she be relieved of

the agreement pertainint t the custody for all of the
children are now in her custody
Carmen said that she only entered into the
compromise agreement to have an immediate custody
of her minor children
For Carmens failure to return the two older children
(Enrique and Maria Teresa) she can be held for
contempt

ISSUE:

WON the compromise agreement entered into by the

parties are conformable to law

RULING:

The compromise agreement is valid with respect to

separation of property and dissolution of conjugal
partnership
o Allowed so long as theres a judicial sanction
secured beforehand
o In the absence of express declaration in
marriage settlements the separation of
property shall not take place save in virtue of a
judicial order
o It is likewise undisputed that the couple have
been separated for at least five years
o The court cannot constrain the spouses to live
together

JDC Ateneo Law Batch 2020

Persons and Family Relations Atty. Nina Patricia Sison-Arroyo

Arroyo v. Arroyo- it is not within the

province of the court of this country to
attempt to compel one of the spouse to
cohabit with the other
With respect to the custody and support of the
children
o Agreed with the CA and CFI ruling depriving the
mother of the custody of the two older child
o The support of 150 per month to the wife will
not be sufficient to sustain the needs of the
children
o They submitted the custody of their children to
a settlement
o The children above 7 years has the right to
choose and this decision should be given much
weight