Arroyo v. Vasquez de Arroyo (1921)

Arroyo v. Vasquez de Arroyo

GR No. 17014

August 11, 1921

Justice Street

PARTIES:

- Plaintiff/Appellant: Mariano B. Arroyo

- Defendant/Appellee: Dolores C. Vasquez de Arroyo

* Appeal from a judgment of the COFI Iloilo

FACTS:

·       1920 – Mariano B. Arroyo and Dolores C. Vazquez de Arroyo married; since then had few short intervals of separation

·       July 4, 1920 – Dolores went away from their common home with the intention of living separately from Mariano; all efforts had been made by the husband without avail to induce her to resume marital relations.

·       Mariano filed an action to compel her to live with him (stating he is entitled to a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to return to the conjugal home and live with him as a wife according to the precepts of law and morality.

·       Dolores responded that she was compelled to leave because of the cruel treatment on the part of her husband; prayed for the following:

1. A decree of separation

2. A liquidation of the conjugal partnership

3. Allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate maintenance

·       COFI: found the husband was more to blame than his wife, continuous ill-treatment sufficient to justify her abandonment. Granted decision in favor of Dolores, ordering:

- Authorizing her to live apart from her husband

- Granting her alimony of P400 per month

- Directing Mariano pay defendant’s attorney’s fees

·       The SC found that the conclusion was wholly untenable à found that the wife was afflicted with a disposition of jealousy towards her husband in an aggravated degree; and miseries that have attended their married life.

·       During trial: found that there was no cruelty on the part of the husband, wife was excessively jealous without any proof of infidelity of the husband à wife was morally and legally obligated to live with her husband.

ISSUE:

1.     W/N the wife may be ordered by the court to live with her husband and failure of which will constitute contempt of court?

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       The SC was unable to hold that Mariano was entitled to the unconditional and absolute order for the return of the wife to the marital domicile.

o   In other states of the American Union, the idea of enforcing cohabitation by process of contempt is rejected.

·       It was not within the province of the courts to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other.