Santos vs. Santos

One spouse's petition for legal separation against the other does not constitute litis pendentia that bars the respondent-spouse from filing his or her own petition for legal separation, because the spouses assert converse rather than identical rights and reliefs, each claiming to be the sole innocent party. However, henceforth, for reasons of public policy, while a legal separation case is pending, a subsequently filed legal separation case by the respondent-spouse shall be dismissed without prejudice until the first case has been resolved with finality.

Jorge and Caroline Santos were married on July 7, 1996, and had three children—Niki, Sam, and Jake. The Family Code governs actions for legal separation, requiring that grounds be positively proved and prohibiting decrees based on stipulation of facts, confession of judgment, or collusion. The State policy underpinning legal separation provisions is the preservation of marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the Filipino family, per Article XV, Section 2 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Family Code.

Jorge and Caroline Santos were married on July 7, 1996, and had three children—Niki, Sam, and Jake. In 2006, Jorge began to suspect that Caroline was having an affair with one Paco Magsaysay and possibly other men, causing the couple to fight almost every day. In 2008, Caroline was diagnosed with chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease; Jorge tested negative.

On March 25, 2014, Caroline filed Civil Case No. 14-400-CV, a Petition for Legal Separation with Application for Provisional Order of Child Custody and Spousal and Child Support before Branch 144 of the RTC of Makati City, on the grounds of Jorge's repeated "physical, emotional and economic abuse" against her and their three children, and Jorge's alleged illicit relationship with one Lenny Delos Santos since 2006. Caroline's Petition described how Jorge withheld financial support and cursed at and hit their children. In his Answer, Jorge countered that Caroline herself had committed sexual infidelity; thus, even assuming Caroline's allegations were true, she was not entitled to the relief of legal separation.

Sometime in 2015, while Caroline's Petition was still being tried, Jorge came to know of Caroline's affair with a married man, a certain Juan Tomas Cuenca (Juanto). He confirmed this information from his hired private investigators, as well as through their youngest son Jake, who would often see Caroline and Juanto together and who once discovered their lewd text exchanges. These events prompted Jorge to file two criminal cases for adultery against Caroline and Juanto in February 2016. A month later, Caroline filed a criminal complaint against Jorge for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, which was dismissed by the city prosecutor.

Meanwhile, acting on Jorge's demurrer to evidence in Civil Case No. 14-400-CV, Branch 136, RTC of Makati City issued an Order dated July 10, 2019, dismissing Caroline's petition for legal separation, ruling that Caroline failed to sufficiently prove Jorge's repeated violence or grossly abusive conduct. When Caroline appealed the dismissal, Jorge filed his own Petition for Legal Separation, Civil Case No. R-MKT-20-01893-CV, with Branch 3-FC, RTC, Makati City. Jorge alleged that Caroline engaged in illicit sexual relationships and inflicted physical harm and was abusive towards their son Jake. Caroline sometimes hit Jake and exposed the child to her extramarital affairs by introducing her boyfriend to family members and bringing him to school events. His Certification against Forum Shopping disclosed that he had pending criminal cases against Caroline for adultery.

In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims to Jorge's Petition, Caroline pointed out that Jorge himself was guilty of acts which are grounds for legal separation, and thus he was not entitled to the relief sought. By way of affirmative defense, Caroline argued that her Petition for Legal Separation then pending review before the CA constituted litis pendentia, which rendered Jorge's Petition dismissible, and that Jorge committed forum shopping by splitting his cause of action among the two pending legal separation cases and two criminal cases for adultery. Branch 3-FC, RTC, Makati City ruled in favor of Caroline, finding that both litis pendentia and forum shopping were obtained in light of Caroline's first legal separation petition, which was then on appeal before the CA. The trial court observed that Jorge's allegations in his Answer in the first legal separation case were the same grounds used in his action for legal separation against Caroline, and dismissed Jorge's Petition for Legal Separation with prejudice.

• Litis Pendentia Not Applicable: Jorge argued that the second legal separation case was not barred by the first on the basis of litis pendentia, because the first case only dealt with whether Caroline was entitled to a judicial decree of legal separation, while the second case would resolve whether Jorge was entitled to a decree of legal separation. He emphasized that he never admitted that he and Caroline were guilty of grounds for legal separation, maintaining his innocence as the sole wronged spouse in both cases.

• Elements of Litis Pendentia Not Present: Jorge admitted identity of parties but pointed out that the primary ground in Caroline's Petition was his alleged repeated physical violence and abuse of their children, while his own Petition was based on her subsequent sexual infidelity with a different man, Juanto Cuenca, and her repeated abuse of their son Jake. Thus, there was no identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought, nor would a final decision on the first case bar the second based on res judicata.

• No Willful Forum Shopping: Jorge argued that assuming he committed forum shopping, this did not constitute willful disregard of the rules calling for dismissal with prejudice. His failure to mention Caroline's Petition in his certificate of non-forum shopping was in good faith, since he believed he only had to include cases he himself initiated; he pointed out that he disclosed the criminal cases he filed against Caroline for adultery in the same certification.

• Litis Pendentia and Forum Shopping: Caroline argued that her Petition for Legal Separation then pending review before the CA constituted litis pendentia, rendering Jorge's Petition dismissible, and that Jorge committed forum shopping by splitting his cause of action among the two pending legal separation cases and two criminal cases for adultery.

• Jorge's Guilt of Grounds for Legal Separation: Caroline pointed out that Jorge himself was guilty of acts which are grounds for legal separation, and hence he was not entitled to the relief sought.

• Litis Pendentia: Whether one spouse's petition for legal separation against the other bars the respondent-spouse from filing his or her own petition for legal separation based on litis pendentia.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Jorge committed willful and deliberate forum shopping by filing his own Petition for Legal Separation while Caroline's legal separation case against him was pending appeal.

• Litis Pendentia: No. One spouse's petition for legal separation against the other does not constitute litis pendentia which bars the latter spouse from filing his or her own petition for legal separation, because the very nature of legal separation precludes litis pendentia from setting in when two spouses file legal separation cases against each other. Only the first requisite—identity of parties—was present; the second and third requisites were lacking.

• Forum Shopping: No. Jorge did not commit willful forum shopping in filing the second legal separation case, considering that the elements of litis pendentia were not present between the first and second legal separation cases, and that the final judgment in the first case would not have amounted to res judicata in the second.

• Litis Pendentia: The Court defined litis pendentia as a situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Its three requisites are: (1) identity of parties or the interest they represent in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity between the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. In this case, only the first requisite was present since both cases involved Jorge and Caroline. The second and third requisites were lacking because there was no identity in the rights and reliefs asserted, and no such identity that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. In Caroline's Petition, she prayed to be declared legally separated as the allegedly innocent spouse, seeking all the legal consequences of legal separation. Jorge, in turn, could only deny the charges against him and raise the defense that Caroline herself had committed sexual infidelity. His cause of action was in defense of the subsistence of their marriage. In Jorge's Petition, his asserted right was that of an allegedly innocent spouse prejudiced by Caroline as an offending spouse. The reliefs he prayed for were the same reliefs to which all innocent spouses are entitled, but they were by no means the same rights or reliefs he asserted in the first case, where he was being charged as the respondent/offending spouse. The Court also applied the "test of identity" from Valencia vs. Court of Appeals, holding that there can be no identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought between two spouses' suits for legal separation against each other such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. The Family Code bars courts from decreeing legal separation based on stipulation of facts or confession of judgment, prohibits decrees where both spouses have given a ground for legal separation or colluded, and mandates denial where such prohibitions obtain. The Court analyzed five theoretical scenarios between the two legal separation cases, concluding that the first scenario applied: Caroline lost the first case for failure to discharge her burden, which left Jorge free to file his own legal separation case since the first case disposed solely of Caroline's entitlement to legal separation and did not resolve whether Jorge was an innocent spouse entitled to legal separation.

• Forum Shopping: The Court held that forum shopping is committed by a party who institutes two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Since the elements of litis pendentia were not present, Jorge did not commit forum shopping. While his omission of the first legal separation case from his Certification against Forum Shopping violated Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, this would only have resulted in dismissal without prejudice, a rule of procedure the Court forewent in favor of substantial justice and resolving the case on its merits. The criminal case for adultery Jorge instituted did not bar him from filing the second legal separation case, since a civil action for legal separation based on sexual infidelity may proceed ahead of or simultaneously with a criminal action for adultery, and the doctrine of prejudicial question did not apply.

• Prospective Rule for Public Policy: The Court ruled that henceforth, for reasons of public policy, while one spouse's legal separation case against the other is still being tried, the respondent-spouse's own legal separation case subsequently filed shall be dismissed without prejudice, subject to the final resolution of the first or preceding case. The State policy underpinning legal separation provisions is the complete preservation of marriage as a social institution and foundation of the family. Two spouses cannot both ask for legal separation at the same time, despite each one having a right to duly demand and prove their entitlement to it against each other. This ruling is separate and distinct from the existing rule that the respondent-spouse must already raise all grounds for legal separation for which the petitioner-spouse may be guilty at the time of the first case pursuant to the omnibus motion rule.

• Litis Pendentia — Refers to a situation where another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Its three requisites are: (1) identity of parties or the interest they represent in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity between the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that only the first requisite was present between the two legal separation cases, as the spouses asserted converse rather than identical rights and reliefs.

• Test of Identity — A plea of the pendency of a prior action is not available unless the prior action is of such a character that, had a judgment been rendered therein on the merits, such judgment would be conclusive between the parties and could be pleaded in bar of the second action. The Court applied this test to conclude that there can be no identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought between two spouses' suits for legal separation against each other such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other, because the legal provisions unique to actions for legal separation militate against and effectively preclude such a scenario.

• Forum Shopping — Committed by a party who institutes two or more suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. It is prohibited because it trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice, and adds to already congested court dockets. The Court held that since the elements of litis pendentia were not present, Jorge did not commit forum shopping.

• Clean Hands Doctrine — A party who has given ground for legal separation will not come to court with clean hands and is barred from obtaining a decree of legal separation. The Court applied this doctrine in analyzing the scenarios where a spouse who has given ground for legal separation cannot obtain the relief of legal separation.

• "A husband and wife who seek legal separation from each other invoke converse rather than identical reliefs. Each spouse claims to be the sole innocent party in a marriage where only the other has given a ground for legal separation. For this reason, one spouse's action for legal separation against the other does not automatically bar the respondent-spouse from filing their own petition for legal separation on the basis of litis pendentia." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi of the case, establishing that litis pendentia does not apply between two spouses' reciprocal legal separation cases.

• "Nevertheless, for reasons of public policy to be discussed below, we hold that henceforth, while a legal separation case is pending before a court, should the respondent-spouse file his or her own legal separation case against the petitioner-spouse, the succeeding case should be dismissed without prejudice, until the first case filed has been resolved with finality, whether or not on its merits." — This passage articulates the prospective rule the Court established, balancing the non-application of litis pendentia with public policy considerations preserving marriage.

• "In short, the law always defaults to the continuity and integrity of marriage and absolute community of property. Additional safeguards ensure that legal separation is resorted to only for the most worthy of reasons." — This passage explains the State policy underpinning the legal provisions on legal separation, which informed the Court's prospective ruling.

• Lajave Agricultural Management and Development Enterprises, Inc. vs. Spouses Javellana, 842 Phil. 1119 (2018) — Cited for the definition and underlying principle of litis pendentia, including the public policy that an issue should not be the subject matter of controversy in multiple courts to avoid possible conflicting judgments.

• Seloza vs. Onshore Strategic Assets (SPV-AMC), Inc., 886 Phil. 452 (2020) — Cited as recent case law affirming the definition of litis pendentia.

• Yap vs. Chua, 687 Phil. 392 (2012) — Cited for the three requisites of litis pendentia.

• Valencia vs. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 590 (1996) — Cited for the "test of identity" — that a plea of pendency of a prior action is not available unless a judgment rendered therein on the merits would be conclusive between the parties and could be pleaded in bar of the second action.

• Clavecilla vs. Clavecilla, 937 Phil. 488 (2023) — Cited in the analysis of scenarios where a spouse who has given ground for legal separation will not come to court with clean hands.

• Heirs of Mampo vs. Morada, 888 Phil. 583 (2020) — Cited for the definition of forum shopping and the prohibition against it.

• Gandionco vs. Peñaranda, 239 Phil. 692 (1987) — Cited for the rule that a civil action for legal separation based on sexual infidelity may proceed ahead of or simultaneously with a criminal action for adultery or concubinage, since a petition for legal separation is not a civil action to enforce civil liability arising from the offense.

• Republic vs. Yu, 519 Phil. 391 (2006) — Cited for the rule that if the respondent fails to raise grounds for legal separation in the first case, the spouses may be found guilty of collusion under Article 56(5), resulting in dismissal of the first case and the second case being barred by res judicata.

• Article 55, Family Code — Identifies the grounds for legal separation, including repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct (Article 55(1)) and sexual infidelity (Article 55(8)). Caroline's Petition was based on Jorge's alleged repeated physical, emotional, and economic abuse and alleged illicit relationship; Jorge's Petition was based on Caroline's illicit sexual relationships and physical harm and abuse towards their son.

• Article 56, Family Code — Mandates that the petition for legal separation shall be denied on any of the following grounds: (1) condonation; (2) consent; (3) connivance; (4) where both parties have given ground for legal separation; (5) collusion; or (6) prescription. The Court applied this provision to analyze the five scenarios and determine that Jorge could not have prayed for legal separation in the first case, as a finding that he was also guilty would result in denial of the Petition.

• Article 60, Family Code — Prohibits a decree of legal separation based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment, and requires the prosecuting attorney to appear and see the suit through in behalf of the State. The Court cited this to show that actions for legal separation are necessarily adversarial.

• Article 63, Family Code — Provides the effects of a decree of legal separation: the spouses shall be entitled to live separately; the absolute community or conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated with the offending spouse having no right to any share of net profits; custody of minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse; and the offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession.

• Article 64, Family Code — Allows the innocent spouse to revoke donations made in favor of the offending spouse, as well as the designation of the latter as beneficiary in any insurance policy.

• Article 86(4), Family Code — Allows donors to revoke any donation propter nuptias made in favor of the offending spouse.

• Article 198, Family Code — Provides that the offending spouse may be ordered to give support to the innocent spouse.

• Rule 7, Section 5, Rules of Court — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that no action or claim involving the same issues has been commenced or is pending, and provides that willful and deliberate forum shopping shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt. The Court held that Jorge's omission of the first legal separation case from his Certification violated this rule but would only result in dismissal without prejudice.

• Rule 41, Section 1(g), Rules of Court — Provides for appeal from judgments or final orders dismissing a case with prejudice. The CA held that the RTC Order dismissing Jorge's Petition with prejudice should have been questioned via ordinary appeal under this rule.

• Rule 15, Section 9, Rules of Court (Omnibus Motion Rule) — Requires that all grounds for legal separation for which the petitioner-spouse may be guilty must be raised in the respondent-spouse's answer or during trial. The Court noted that Jorge raised all grounds in his Answer to Caroline's Petition.

• A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC, Re: Proposed Rule on Legal Separation — Prohibits parties from compromising on any ground for legal separation, requires the respondent-spouse to file an answer, and in case of failure to do so, does not declare the respondent in default but instead orders the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists.

• Constitution, Article XV, Section 2 — Recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the Filipino family. The Court cited this as the State policy underpinning the legal provisions on legal separation.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Zalameda, Dimaampao, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Inting, J., was on official business but left a concurring vote. Gaerlan, J., was on official leave. Rosario and Marquez, JJ., were on official leave but left a concurring vote. Lopez, J., was on official business. Singh, J., was on leave.

• Lazaro-Javier, J., joined by Hernando, J. (on official business) — The dissent argued that Jorge practically raised the same issue on sexual infidelity against Caroline in his own petition for legal separation and filed the case while Caroline's appeal was pending resolution. Both spouses sought identity of interests—to live separately and to resolve their property relations accordingly. The dissent maintained that Jorge's subsequent filing of a petition for legal separation based on identical grounds and relief merited dismissal of his petition, not a remand. The dissent further argued that Jorge was not precluded from asserting his right as an innocent spouse in the case initiated by Caroline, as denying the allegations against him and claiming other grounds for legal separation are not mutually exclusive. The dissent characterized Jorge's acts as demonstrating a clear intent to circumvent procedural rules and secure favorable rulings through multiple avenues, constituting willful and deliberate forum shopping warranting dismissal with prejudice, and suggested that Jorge and his counsel should be ordered to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.