G.R. No. 80116 - Pilapil v Somera

TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera

CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653

FACTS:

Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany.  They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling.  Conjugal disharmony eventuated  in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983.

The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.  The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.

On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”. 

ISSUE: Whether the legal husband has legal standing to sue for adultery

HELD:

The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else.  Though in this case, it appeared that Whether the husband has legal standing to sue for adultery Whether the husband has legal standing to sue for adultery  respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Fed Whether the husband has legal standing to sue for adultery Whether the husband has legal standing to sue for adulteryeral Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned.  Thus, under the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

  DECISION OF LOWER COURT:
(1) Regional Trial Court – Manila: denied the motion to quash.

The petition is anchored on the main ground that the court is without jurisdiction “to try and decide the charge of adultery, which is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de officio (sic), since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint.”

RULING:
NO. No one had a standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

The law specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse, and nobody else.

Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. The person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.