Pilapil vs. Ibay-­Somera

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, petitioner,
vs.
HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City Fiscal of Manila; and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING, respondents.

G.R. No. 80116
June 30, 1989

FACTS:

Petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married to private respondent Erich Geiling (Geiling), a German national, in Germany. Geiling obtained a divorce in a German court on the ground of failure of marriage.

More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery against petitioner alleging that, she had an affair with two different men while their marriage subsisted.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash 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, since the complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. However, the said motion was denied by the respondent judge.

Hence, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an alien spouse has legal standing to file a complaint for adultery after obtaining a divorce decree

HELD:

No, an alien spouse has no legal standing to file a complaint for adultery after obtaining a divorce decree.

Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. Hence, after a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders. Where, however, proceedings have been properly commenced, a divorce subsequently granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the criminal proceedings.

In the present case, the fact that Geiling obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.

Therefore, Geiling, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.