G.R. No. L-11086; March 29, 1958
PILAR ATILANO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHUA CHING BENG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pilar Atilano and Chua Ching Beng were lawfully married in Zamboanga City in May 1951. They resided in Manila with the husband’s parents. In October 1952, they visited the wife’s parents in Zamboanga, where the wife stayed behind with the understanding she would later follow the husband to Manila, but she did not. On September 30, 1953, the wife filed a complaint for support in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, alleging estrangement since October 1952 due to incessant marital bickerings, incompatibility of temperament, and the husband’s inability to provide a separate home from his parents. She claimed she was unemployed and without property, staying with her parents, and prayed for a monthly allowance of P200. The husband, in his answer, contended their married life in Manila was harmonious; he was prevailed upon by the wife’s parents to leave her in Zamboanga temporarily; her parents alienated her from him and prevented her from returning to Manila through force and intimidation; and they pressured her to file the complaint. He acknowledged his obligation to support her but preferred to fulfill it by receiving and maintaining her in Manila, asserting his right to fix the family residence and expressing willingness to establish a separate conjugal dwelling in Manila if desired. Based on a stipulation of facts, the lower court granted the wife a monthly allowance of P75, finding her refusal to return to Manila was due to aversion to staying with the husband’s parents after experiencing in-law troubles, and that her demand to live in Zamboanga could not be met due to the husband’s job in Manila and his fear of her parents’ influence. The husband filed a petition electing to fulfill his support obligation by receiving and maintaining the wife at his residence in Pasay City, separate from his parents, praying that if she refused, he be declared not compelled to remit the allowance to Zamboanga. This petition was denied, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether a wife is entitled to receive support from her husband when she refuses to live with him due to misunderstandings with the husband’s immediate relatives.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s decision. The husband has the option under Article 299 of the Civil Code to fulfill his support obligation either by paying a fixed allowance or by receiving and maintaining the entitled person in his house, unless there is a moral or legal obstacle. The Court found the wife’s refusal to live with the husband was rooted in disagreements with his relatives (in-laws), which does not constitute the moral or legal obstacle contemplated by law. The husband’s willingness to establish a separate conjugal dwelling apart from his parents removed any potential obstacle. Since the husband elected the second alternative and no legal or moral hindrance existed, the wife is not entitled to support if she refuses to live with him under those terms. The Court held that if the wife refuses to abide by living in the conjugal dwelling apart from the husband’s parents, the husband shall be relieved from the obligation to give support.