Facts:

In 1943, Socorro Matubis and Zoilo Praxedes were legally married. In 1948, they entered into a contract wherein they agreed that they shall live separately and that they should not prosecute each other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or suit arising from their separation. In January 1955, Zoilo began cohabiting with Asuncion, who later gave birth to their child. In April 1956, Socorro filed a complaint for legal Separation on the ground of abandonment and concubinage against Zoilo. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription and condonation/consent.


Issue:

1.) Did the action prescribe?
2.) Did Socorro consented to the commission of concubinage by her husband?


Held:

1.) Yes. Under Art. 102 of the Code Code, an action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from after the date when cause occurred (now 5 years under Art. 57, FC). The complaint was filed outside the periods provided for by the above Article. By the very admission of plaintiff, she came to know the ground (concubinage) for the legal separation in January, 1955. She instituted the complaint only on April 24, 1956. 

2.) Yes. The very wording of the agreement gives no room for interpretation other than that given by the trial judge. Condonation and consent on the part of plaintiff are necessarily the import of paragraph 6(b) of the agreement. The condonation and consent here are not only implied but expressed. The law specifically provides that legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Having condoned and/or consented in writing, the plaintiff is now undeserving of the court's sympathy. (Matubis vs Praxedes, G.R. No. L-11766, October 25, 1960)