Muoz vs. Del Barrio Felicidad P. Muoz, petitioner and appellant, vs.

Jose del Barrio,

respondent and appellee April 15, 1955 Ponente: Felix, J.
Facts:
y Muoz and del Barrio were married civilly on September 24, 1942 and canonically
on October 24 of the same year. y Since then, the couple lived together as husband
and wife for six months in the husband s father s house in Manila and then moved
to Bulacan. y Felix Luis del Barrio, 11, and Maria Teresa del Barrio, 9, were born. y
The couple had frequent quarrels (husband maltreated wife, wife couldn t bear it). In
1947, they unceremoniously separated, the wife in Bulacan and the husband in
Manila. y They met each other in Manila and the wife claims that in December 1950
or January and September 1951, she was again maltreated by her husband.
Procedural:
y This moved her to institute the present action in CFI Bulacan, among other things,
that: o The system of conjugal partnership of gains governs her marriage to the
respondent o No property has been acquired during the marriage except a portion
of a residential land located in Meycawayan, Bulacan, from which no rentals are
derived o That the respondent has made several attempts on her life which
compelled her to live separately and apart from the respondent since 1947 o That
the respondent has not provided support for her and their children y She prays the
court: o That a decree be entered for the legal separation of petitioner from
respondent o That petitioner be awarded the custody of their minor children o That
respondent be directed to contribute to the support of said children o That
petitioner be allowed costs, plus attorney s fees (P200) charged against conjugal
partnership property (par. 4, Art. 293, CC) o That whatever remains of said conjugal
partnership property after deduction of expenses mentioned in preceding
paragraph, be divided and adjudicated in equal parts to the spouses and the
conjugal partnership dissolved and liquidated o That petitioner be granted such
further and complete relief as may be just and equitable in the premises y y y y
Respondent prayed that the petition be denied and dismissed for lack of merit. The
Court took every feasible step for reconciliation (Art. 98, CC), but failed because of
refusal of wife. The case proceeded with the intervention of office of the Provincial
Fiscal and Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merits.
Muoz appealed from the judgment.
Issue: W/N the maltreatments that appellant suffered at the hands of the
respondent after their separation of dwelling furnish ground for the legal separation
applied for under paragraph 2 of Article 97 of the Civil Code. Art 97. A legal
separation may be filed: (2) An attempt by one s spouse against the life of the
other.
Held:

NO. In the maltreatments complained of in this case, the respondent only used at
most his bare fists or hands and desisted from giving further chastisement after the
first blows were given at the spur of the impulse.
Reasoning: y Under Art. 97, par. 2 a petition for legal separation may be filed for an
attempt by one spouse against the life on the other. The case was only brought to
court after the alleged maltreatment of September 1951 and not upon 1) 2) 3) 4) y
the effectivity of the Civil Code on August 30, 1950, so the maltreatments before
their separation in 1947 must not have amounted to husband s attempt on the life
of his wife. An attempt on the life of a person implies that the actor in the attempt is
moved by an intention to kill the person. Said maltreatments as given by
testimonies cannot constitute attempts on the life of appellant. Jovita Faustino
(apartment tenant fist blow on face), Faustino Mallari (patrolman crying, scratches
on brow and cheeks, (certain points of the neck were blackened ecchymosis)) Atty.
Manuel Macias (appellant s counsel boxed in abdomen, pulled hair, twisted neck) It
is absolutely necessary that the homicidal intent be evidenced by adequate acts
which at the time of their execution were unmistakably calculated to produce the
death of the victim. The presumption, in acts of violence, is that the actor intended
the natural consequence of his acts. (Francisco, RVP II, 2nded). It is argued that
being a civil case, the appellant is only bound to prove her right of action by
preponderance of evidence and not by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The
Court may agree to a certain extent, but intent to kill must be established with clear
and convincing evidence. Petitioner-appellant herself should not have been so sure
of her evidence when instead of the present action she dared not to cause the
prosecution of her husband for attempted parricide as a means of establishing her
right to secure legal separation. y y Dispositive: Judgment affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs. Relevant Provisions: Art 97(2), CC Art 55 (1), FC *If this
case is to be decided after the effectivity of the FC, the decision would be different
because Art 55(1) considers physical violence as a ground for legal separation.
http://docslide.us/documents/munoz-vs-del-barrio.html