Ong vs. Ong

The Supreme Court affirmed that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court unless specific exceptions apply. Furthermore, the Court established that a witness's relationship to a party does not automatically render their testimony biased or incredible, and leaving the conjugal dwelling due to abusive conduct does not constitute "abandonment" that would bar a decree of legal separation.

William and Lucita Ong were married for over twenty years and had three children. In 1996, Lucita sought legal separation, claiming her life with William was characterized by frequent quarrels, physical assaults, and verbal abuse. The situation escalated during an incident in December 1995 involving physical violence and a gun, which forced Lucita to leave the conjugal home and seek medical treatment.

• Lucita Ong filed a complaint for legal separation under Article 55(1) of the Family Code, alleging physical violence, threats, and grossly abusive conduct by her husband, William.
• Lucita testified that William frequently shouted invectives at her (e.g., "putang ina mo," "gago"), slapped her, kicked her, pulled her hair, and banged her head against the wall.
• William also physically abused their children using a belt buckle; when Lucita intervened, he would turn his aggression toward her.
• On December 14, 1995, a violent quarrel occurred regarding their son Kingston; William hit Lucita on the head, cheek, eye, stomach, and arms.
• During this incident, William pointed a gun at Lucita and ordered her to leave the house.
• Lucita sought treatment from Dr. Vicente Elinzano, who confirmed injuries including a black eye, contusions, and a "bukol" (bump) on her head.
• Lucita's sister, Linda Lim, corroborated the testimony regarding William's explosive temper and abusive behavior.
• William denied inflicting physical harm, claiming he was not home during the alleged incidents and that Lucita left the home voluntarily.

• The real motive for the legal separation is for Lucita and her family to wrest control and ownership of the conjugal properties.
• The factual findings of physical violence were not sufficiently established and were based on mere verbal disagreements.
• The testimonies of Lucita, her sister, and her doctor are tainted by bias due to their relationship and alleged fraud.
• Lucita abandoned the conjugal dwelling without justifiable cause.
• Under Article 56(4) of the Family Code, legal separation should be denied because Lucita gave ground for separation (abandonment).
• Marriage is an inviolable social institution that should be preserved, and grounds for separation must be clearly and convincingly proven.

• The issues raised in the petition are factual and not subject to review under Rule 45.
• The findings of the RTC and CA are based on strong, clear evidence and are final and conclusive.
• It is absurd to claim she would destroy a 20-year marriage solely for property interests.
• She did not abandon the family but left the conjugal home due to William's repeated physical violence and grossly abusive conduct.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals regarding the existence of grounds for legal separation.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the witnesses' relationship to the respondent renders their testimony biased and unworthy of credence.
  • Whether the respondent's departure from the conjugal home constitutes "abandonment" under the Family Code that would bar a decree of legal separation.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court is bound to adopt the facts as determined by the lower courts unless the case falls under specific exceptions (e.g., findings based on speculation, grave abuse of discretion), none of which were proven by the petitioner.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that relationship alone is not sufficient to discredit a witness. The testimonies of Lucita, her sister, and the doctor were detailed, straightforward, and corroborated by medical evidence, whereas the petitioner's witnesses (employees and a dependent son) were more likely to be biased.
  • The Court ruled that Lucita did not "abandon" the family within the meaning of Article 56(4) of the Family Code. Abandonment requires leaving without justifiable cause for more than one year. Since Lucita left due to William's abusive conduct, her departure was justified and does not constitute a ground to deny legal separation.

• Rule on Factual Findings — Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. In this case, the Court refused to review the findings of physical abuse as they were supported by substantial evidence.
• Credibility of Witnesses (Relationship) — A witness's relationship to one of the parties does not automatically affect the veracity of their testimony. In this case, the Court held that the testimony of the wife's sister and doctor could not be disregarded solely based on their relationship to the respondent.
• Abandonment in Legal Separation — Abandonment, as a ground for legal separation or a bar thereto, refers to abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year. In this case, leaving the conjugal home to escape physical abuse was deemed a justifiable cause.

• "...it would be unthinkable for her to throw away this twenty years of relationship, abandon the comforts of her home and be separated from her children whom she loves, if there exists no cause, which is already beyond her endurance."
• "If there would be such a smear on his reputation then it would not be because of Lucita's decision to seek relief from the courts, but because he gave Lucita reason to go to court in the first place."

• Mangonon v. Court of Appeals — Cited to enumerate the exceptional circumstances under which the Supreme Court may review findings of fact.
• Potenciano v. Reynoso — Cited to reaffirm that the Supreme Court cannot review factual findings on appeal when they are borne out by the records or based on substantial evidence.
• Roca v. Court of Appeals — Cited to support the principle that a trial court's assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect and that relationship alone does not imply bias.
• Tuason v. Court of Appeals — Cited regarding the constitutional policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution.
• Antonio v. Reyes — Cited to clarify that while the Constitution protects marriage, it is the legislature's province to define legal aspects and grounds for separation.

• Family Code, Article 55, Paragraph (1) — The statutory ground for legal separation invoked by the respondent: "Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of petitioner."
• Family Code, Article 56, Paragraph (4) — The statutory provision invoked by the petitioner to argue against the separation: "Where both parties have given ground for legal separation."
• Family Code, Article 55, Paragraph (10) — Cited to define abandonment as leaving "without justifiable cause for more than one year."
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 — Cited to establish the procedural rule that questions of fact are generally not reviewable in a petition for review.