Scribd
Upload
32 views1 page

Case No. 24: Pilapil Vs Ibay-Somera

Imelda Pilapil and Erich Geiling were married in Germany but divorced in 1986. Geiling filed complaints for adultery against Pilapil in 1986 alleging she had affairs in 1982 and 1983. However, the Supreme Court ruled Geiling no longer had standing to file adultery complaints since he was no longer Pilapil's spouse due to their divorce. Only an offended spouse can legally file adultery complaints under Philippine law.

Uploaded by

SHARON
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views1 page

Case No. 24: Pilapil Vs Ibay-Somera

Imelda Pilapil and Erich Geiling were married in Germany but divorced in 1986. Geiling filed complaints for adultery against Pilapil in 1986 alleging she had affairs in 1982 and 1983. However, the Supreme Court ruled Geiling no longer had standing to file adultery complaints since he was no longer Pilapil's spouse due to their divorce. Only an offended spouse can legally file adultery complaints under Philippine law.

Uploaded by

SHARON
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case No.

24
Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera
(GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989; 174 SCRA 653)

FACTS:

Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private


respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the
Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal
Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20,
1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony
eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in
January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation,
support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January
23, 1983.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the
ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child
was granted to the petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery
before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to
Imelda, latter had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and
another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983.

ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of


adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of
divorce was already issued.
HELD:

The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and


concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be
the offended spouse and nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared
that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid
divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so
far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration and
rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and
has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the
imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

You might also like