Juarez v. Turon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Nicolas Juarez and Defendant Ramona D. Turon were married on October 28, 1921, and had a daughter, Lourdes Juarez. The defendant was convicted of adultery with Gregorio Ramos in criminal case No. 32005, with the plaintiff as the offended party. The judgment of conviction became final and was executed. The parties had no conjugal or private property. Procedural History: Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce on February 10, 1927. The complaint was amended to include averments regarding plaintiff's domicile, non-consent to or pardon of the adultery, and the timely filing of the action. The defendant was declared in default. The plaintiff presented the record of the criminal conviction as evidence. The lower court denied the divorce, holding that the criminal judgment was insufficient evidence and that the action was filed out of time. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed, assigning as errors the lower court's holding that the criminal judgment was not sufficient evidence of adultery, that the action was commenced out of time, and its refusal to decree the divorce.
Issue(s)
Whether the judgment of conviction for adultery in a criminal case is sufficient evidence to establish the commission of adultery in a civil action for divorce. Whether the action for divorce was filed within the prescriptive period provided by Act No. 2710.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the complaint for divorce. The Court held that the action was filed beyond the prescriptive period and that the criminal conviction for adultery, while proving the fact of conviction, was not sufficient evidence of adultery in the civil action for divorce.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence for adultery: The Court held that the judgment of conviction in the criminal case for adultery, while admissible to show that a final judgment of conviction was rendered, is not sufficient in itself to prove the commission of adultery in a civil action for divorce. The Court cited Greenleaf on Evidence and the case of Ocampo vs. Jenkins, stating that as a general rule, a verdict and judgment in a criminal case cannot be given in evidence in a civil action to establish the facts on which it was rendered. Separate evidence must be presented in the civil action to prove the commission of the adultery. The criminal judgment only serves to satisfy the requirement under Section 8 of Act No. 2710 that guilt must be established by a final criminal sentence, but it does not substitute for the evidence of the act of adultery itself in the civil proceedings. On the prescription of the action: The Court found that the plaintiff's own evidence established that he knew of the adultery in August 1924. The complaint for divorce was filed on February 10, 1927, which is approximately two and a half years after the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the cause. Section 4 of Act No. 2710 requires that an action for divorce be filed within one year from the date the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause. Since the action was filed beyond this one-year period, it was clearly barred by prescription. The concurring opinion of Justice Johnson further elaborated on the two prescriptive periods provided in Section 4 of Act No. 2710, emphasizing that the action must be filed within one year of knowledge of the cause and within five years of the occurrence of the cause, and in this case, the one-year period from knowledge had lapsed.
Main Doctrine
A judgment of conviction for adultery in a criminal case is not sufficient, in itself, to establish the commission of adultery in a civil action for divorce under Act No. 2710; separate evidence must be presented in the civil action. Furthermore, an action for divorce must be filed within the prescriptive periods provided by law, specifically within one year from the date of knowledge of the cause and within five years from the date the cause occurred.