Saturday, March 22, 2014

Panganiban v. Borromeo, 58 PHIL 367

FACTS: Husband and wife Alejandro Pabro and Juana Mappala signed a contract before the notary public of Elias Borromeo. The contract had been prepared by the municipal secretary of Naguilian, Isabela. Atty. Borromeo cooperated in the execution of the document. He was quite knowledgeable about its contents although he did not know it fully because of a difference in dialect. The contract is an agreement between the husband and the wife which permitted the husband to take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous relationship with another man, without opposition from either one of them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract is valid


HELD: No. Although RPC allowed the offended party to give pardon to his or her offender spouse, this doesn’t mean that the purpose of the legislature is to legalize adultery and concubinage. A notarized contract that permits concubinage and adultery is not judicially recognizable. Although the consent of a party is a bar to the prosecution of the said crimes, the acts are still contrary to customs, good morals and against the sanctity of marriage which is constitutionally provided for.

No comments:

Post a Comment