HON.

CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial

Court of Manila, Branch XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, in his capacity as the City
Fiscal of Manila; and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING, respondents.

G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989

REGALADO, J.:

Facts:

Petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen married private respondent

Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national on Sept. 7, 1979 at Federal Republic of
Germany. They lived together in Malate, Manila and had a child named Isabella
Pilapil Geiling.

Unfortunately, after about three and a half years of marriage such connubial
disharmony eventuated in Erich initiating divorce proceeding against Imelda in
Germany. He claimed that there was failure of their marriage and that they had been
living apart since April 1982.

On the other hand, petitioner filed an action for legal separation before a trial
court in 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.

More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling filed two
complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still
married to to Imelda, the latter had an affair with a certain William Chia as early
as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983.

Petitioner filed a petition asking to set aside the cases filed against her and be
dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner moved to defer her arraignment and to suspend
further proceedings. Justice Secretary Ordo�ez issued a resolution directing to
move for the dismissal of the complaints against petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondent Geiling can prosecute petitioner Pilapil on the
ground of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of
divorce was already issued.

Held:

The law provides that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who
can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. 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 the 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.