DOCTRINE: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE (COHABITATION, MUTUAL LOVE AND

RESPECT)
Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda
35 Phil 252
FACTS:
Petitioner Goitia filed a complaint against her husband Campos-Rueda, respondent, for support outside the conjugal home. This
complaint stemmed from respondents alleged demand from his wife to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital
organs, which the petitioner refused to do.
The petitioner and the respondent got married on January 7, 1915. They stayed together for a month before petitioner returned
to her parents home.
Since Goitia kept on refusing, respondent maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and different
body parts. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and stated that Goitia could not compel her husband to support her
except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting her separation or divorce from respondent. Goitia
filed motion for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal home.
HELD:
The Court held that Goitia can claim support from her husband outside the conjugal home. The obligation on the part of the
husband to support his wife is created merely in the act of marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is obliged to
support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his
option. However, this option given by law is not absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate his
obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from the conjugal home because of his wrongful acts. In the case at bar,
the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of the husband, she can
therefore claim support from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal home.
In addition, the provisions of the Law of Civil Marriage and the Civil Code fix the duties and obligations of the spouses. It stated
that the spouses must be faithful to, assist, 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. But the husband who is obliged to support his wife may, at his option, do so by paying her a fixed pension or by
receiving and maintaining her in his own home.
Marriage is something more than a mere contract. It is a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon
the agreement of the parties but upon the general law which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations.
Marriage is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested. It is a relation for life and the
parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make. The reciprocal rights arising from this
relation, so long as it continues, are such as the law determines from time to time and none other. When the legal existence of
the parties is merged into one by marriage, the new relation is regulated and controlled by the state or government upon
principles of public policy for the benefit of society as well as the parties. And when the object of a marriage is defeated by
rendering its continuance intolerable to one of the parties and productive of no possible good to the community, relief in some
way should be obtainable.

EDU M. RIPARIP 10/17/16

DOCTRINE: REQUISITES OF DONATION

Solis vs Barroso
G.R. No. L-27939

October 30, 1928

FACTS:
The spouses Juan Lambino and Maria Barroso made a donation of propter nuptias, which is a land, to their son Alejo Lambino
and his then future wife Fortunata Solis. The donation states that in case of the death of one of the donees, one-half of these
lands donated would be given back to the donors (either Juan or Maria) while the surviving donee (either Alejo or Fortunata)
would retain the other half. Two months after Alejo and Fortunatas wedding, Alejo died. In the same year donor Juan also died.
After the latter's death, Juans wife recovered possession of the donated lands.
Alejos wife, Fortunata, filed an action demanding the defendants the execution of the proper deed of donation according to law,
transferring one-half of the donated property, and moreover, to proceed to the partition of the donated property and its fruits.
The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioner citing Article 1279 of the Civil Code and ordering defendants to transfer to
Fortunata the legal title of the part of the donated lands assigned to her in the original donation.
ISSUE: Whether or not a donation of propter nuptias of lands in a private instrument is valid
RULING:
The Court held that a donation propter nuptias of lands in a private instrument is not valid because the law requires donations of
real property to be made in a public instrument. A donation propter nuptias is not onerous and thus must necessarily be
contained in a public instrument. While the marriage is indeed its consideration, it is not so in the sense of being necessary to
give birth to the obligation. In fact, a donation propter nuptias remains valid even if the marriage does not take place provided it is
not revoked within the period allowed by law. The marriage in donation propter nuptias is rather a resolutory condition which as
such presupposes the existence of the birth of the obligation.
Article 633 provides that in order that a donation of real property may be valid, it must be made in a public instrument. This is the
article applicable to donation propter nuptias in so far as its formal validity is concerned. The only exceptions to this rule are
onerous and remuneratory donations, in so far as they do not exceed the value of the charge imposed, which are then governed
by the rules on contracts (Art. 622), and those which are to take effect upon the donor's death, which are governed by the rules
established for testamentary successions (art. 620). We have, therefore, a donation propter nuptias which is not valid and did not
create any right, since it was not made in a public instrument, and hence, article 1279 of the Civil Code which the lower court
applied is not applicable thereto.

EDU M. RIPARIP 10/17/16