Grossly abusive conduct of a spouse against the other spouse is a ground for legal separation of a married couple, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled.

In a decision, the SC said that grossly abusive conduct are acts which result in a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouse, their children, and common children.

However, the SC also said the determination of whether grossly abusive conduct exists as a ground for legal separation must be determined by the courts on a case-to-case basis taking into consideration the facts and evidence in each case.

At the same time, the SC stressed: “A grant of a decree of legal separation under the Family Code does not sever the marriage of the parties, nor affect their marital status. The same only involves a ‘bed-and-board separation’ of the spouses considering how our jurisdiction does not allow absolute divorce.”

The SC decision under GR No. G.R. No. 243647 was made public last April 23 and written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr.

Under Article 55 of the Family Code, there are 10 grounds for the filing of a petition for legal separation.

Among these grounds are repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner; physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation; and attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement.

Also listed as grounds are final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned; drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent; lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent; sexual infidelity or perversion; attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; and abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.

Resolved by the SC was the petition filed by the husband against his wife. Manila Bulletin redacted their names in this news post.

Case records showed that the couple met in 2000 and was married in 2003. They have two children.

Due to their differences, the couple separated in 2008. Later, they decided to reconcile. When the husband could no longer bear the “grossly abusive conduct” of his wife, he filed a petition for legal separation before the regional trial court (RTC).

In his petition, the husband cited nine grounds of “grossly abusive conduct.” These were his wife’s refusal to provide help with his toothache; acts of maligning his reputation; refusal to seek marriage counselling; doing things without his knowledge; crave for more money, not liking his friends and prohibiting him from seeing them; being a closed-minded person who believes she is always right; and manipulating their children and using them to compel him to provide more support.

In a decision issued on March 1, 2017, the RTC granted the husband’s petition and decreed his legal separation from his wife.

The RTC ruled that the husband was able to prove the existence of grossly abusive conduct of his wife under Article 55 of the Family Code.

Among other things, the trial court cited the couple’s frequent quarrels and disagreement over their finances and personality differences which made their relationship miserably unbearable for the husband.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) – in a decision issued on July 19, 2018 – granted the petition of the wife and reversed the ruling of the RTC.

The CA ruled that the issues raised by the couple were frivolous and commonly exist with married couples. Also, it said the conduct raised by both parties are neither grave nor abusive and are not beyond repair or incurable.

When the husband’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, he elevated the case to the SC.

Granting the petition, the SC ruled that the husband’s allegations against his wife “satisfy the existence of a hostile and intimidating environment” for the former.

It said that the wife’s treatment of her husband subjected him from always taking her lead.

“Moreover, there were numerous attempts made by (the husband) to save their marriage through counseling and interventions, which were nonetheless made futile. Furthermore, the testimonies of his witnesses further support the existence of a hostile environment as reflected by (the wife’s) controlling attitude,” it also said.

The SC ruled that the husband was able to prove that his wife’s acts constituted "grossly abusive conduct" under the Family Code.

With its ruling that reversed the CA, the SC remanded the case to the RTC “for the dissolution and liquidation of their property regime pursuant to Article 63 of the Family Code.”

The RTC was also ordered to determine the grant of custody and support to the couple’s common children under the Rule on Legal Separation.

The SC said: “As a final note, we reiterate that our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. The Constitution itself, however, does not establish the parameters of state protection to marriage and the family, as it remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it and put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect the same.”

It added that “with the enactment of the Family Code, this has been accomplished as it defines marriage and the family, spells out the corresponding legal effects, imposes the limitations that affect married and family life, as well as prescribes the grounds for declaration of nullity and those for legal separation.”