TRATAMIENTO HORMONAL SUSTITUTIV0 (THS) - FACTORES HORMONALES EXÓGENOS

2. FACTORES DE RIESGO

2.2. FACTORES EXTRÍNSECOS

2.2.5. FACTORES HORMONALES EXÓGENOS

2.2.5.2. TRATAMIENTO HORMONAL SUSTITUTIV0 (THS)

and Ramos

Facts:

Ursula Sensano and Mariano

Ursula Sensano and Mariano VenturaVentura were married on April 29, 1919. After were married on April 29, 1919. After the birth of their only child, the

the birth of their only child, the

husband left his wife and was gone for husband left his wife and was gone for three years without writing to her or three years without writing to her or sending her support. While the sending her support. While the

husband was away, the wife began to husband was away, the wife began to live with Marcelo Ramos. When

live with Marcelo Ramos. When

husband returned, he filed a charge of husband returned, he filed a charge of adultery which resulted in a conviction adultery which resulted in a conviction and a sentencing. When the sentence and a sentencing. When the sentence was completed, wife begged the was completed, wife begged the husband to take her back but he husband to take her back but he

refused. Abandoned a second time, the refused. Abandoned a second time, the wife fled back to Ramos.

wife fled back to Ramos. Husband,Husband, knowing that his wife reverted to knowing that his wife reverted to herher lover, did not do anything to asserts lover, did not do anything to asserts his rights and left for the states. He his rights and left for the states. He returned to the Philippines seven years returned to the Philippines seven years later and presented a second charge of later and presented a second charge of adultery.

adultery.

Issue:

WON the second charge of adultery WON the second charge of adultery can be a ground for legal separation.

can be a ground for legal separation.

Held/Ratio:

No. The husband was only assuming a No. The husband was only assuming a mere pose of an “offended spouse”.

mere pose of an “offended spouse”.

He consented to the adulterous He consented to the adulterous

relations of his wife and Ramos and is relations of his wife and Ramos and is thus, therefore barred from

thus, therefore barred from institutinginstituting any criminal proceeding. Even if he any criminal proceeding. Even if he was still in a foreign

was still in a foreign country, he wouldcountry, he would have still been able to take

have still been able to take actionaction against the accused but since he didn’t against the accused but since he didn’t take this option, it showed a

take this option, it showed a considerable lack of genuine

considerable lack of genuine interestinterest as the offended party.

as the offended party.

Ocampo v.

Florenciano Florenciano

February 23, 1960, Bengzon, J.

Facts:

Jose Ocampo was married to Jose Ocampo was married to

Florenciano and had several children Florenciano and had several children together who are living with the together who are living with the

husband. In March 1951, the husband husband. In March 1951, the husband discovered on several occasions that discovered on several occasions that his wife was having illicit relations with his wife was having illicit relations with one Jose Arcalas. On June 18, 1955, one Jose Arcalas. On June 18, 1955, plaintiff again surprised the wife and plaintiff again surprised the wife and found her engaging in other

found her engaging in other illicitillicit relations with Nestor Orzame. On July relations with Nestor Orzame. On July 5, 1955, husband filed a petition for 5, 1955, husband filed a petition for legal separation with the wife

legal separation with the wife conforming to the charge provided conforming to the charge provided that she isn’t criminally charged.

that she isn’t criminally charged.

Because the wife did not answer the Because the wife did not answer the charge, the RTC declared her in charge, the RTC declared her in

default. The CA, however, held that the default. The CA, however, held that the husband’s right to legal separation on husband’s right to legal separation on the ground of

the ground of the wife’s relations withthe wife’s relations with Arcalas had already prescribed and it Arcalas had already prescribed and it also interpreted the facts to mean that also interpreted the facts to mean that a confession of judgment on the part a confession of judgment on the part of the wife agreeing with the

of the wife agreeing with the husbandhusband signified collusion between the parties signified collusion between the parties and thus bars the right to procuring a and thus bars the right to procuring a separation.

separation.

Issue Issue::

WON the CA interpreted Art. 101, WON the CA interpreted Art. 101, which prohibits a decree of

which prohibits a decree of legallegal separation upon a confession of separation upon a confession of judgment, properly.

judgment, properly.

Held/Ratio:

No. Confession of judgment usually No. Confession of judgment usually happens when the defendant appears happens when the defendant appears in court and confesses the right of in court and confesses the right of plaintiff to judgment or

plaintiff to judgment or files a pleadingfiles a pleading expressly agreeing to the plaintiff's expressly agreeing to the plaintiff's demand. This did not occur.

demand. This did not occur.

Yet, even supposing that the above Yet, even supposing that the above statement of defendant constituted statement of defendant constituted practically a confession of judgment, practically a confession of judgment, inasmuch as there is evidence of the inasmuch as there is evidence of the adultery independently of such

adultery independently of such

statement, the decree may and should statement, the decree may and should be granted, since it would not be

be granted, since it would not be based on her confession, but upon based on her confession, but upon evidence presented by the plaintiff.

evidence presented by the plaintiff.

What the law prohibits

What the law prohibits is a judgmentis a judgment based exclusively or mainly on

based exclusively or mainly on

defendant's confession. If a confession defendant's confession. If a confession defeats the action ipso facto, any defeats the action ipso facto, any

defendant who opposes the separation defendant who opposes the separation will immediately confess judgment, will immediately confess judgment, purposely to prevent it.

purposely to prevent it.

Collusion in divorce or legal separation Collusion in divorce or legal separation means the agreement ". .

means the agreement ". . . between. between husband and wife for one of them to husband and wife for one of them to commit, or to appear to commit, or to commit, or to appear to commit, or to be represented in court as having be represented in court as having committed, a matrimonial offense, or committed, a matrimonial offense, or to suppress evidence of a valid

to suppress evidence of a valid defense, for the purpose of

defense, for the purpose of enablingenabling the other to obtain a divorce. This the other to obtain a divorce. This agreement, if not express, may be agreement, if not express, may be implied from the acts of the parties. It implied from the acts of the parties. It is a ground for denying the divorce."

is a ground for denying the divorce."

Griffiths v. Griffiths, Sandoz v. Sandoz.

In this case, there would be

In this case, there would be collusion if collusion if the parties had arranged to make it the parties had arranged to make it appear that a matrimonial offense had appear that a matrimonial offense had been committed although it was not, been committed although it was not, or if the parties had connived to bring or if the parties had connived to bring about a legal separation even in the about a legal separation even in the absence of grounds therefore.

absence of grounds therefore.

Brown v. Yambao Brown v. Yambao

Oct. 18, 1957, Reyes, JBL, J.

Facts:

Brown alleges that while he was Brown alleges that while he was

interned by the Japanese from 1942 to interned by the Japanese from 1942 to 1945, his wife had engaged in

1945, his wife had engaged in

adulterous relationships from which adulterous relationships from which she begot a child. He learned of it after she begot a child. He learned of it after his release. From then on they

his release. From then on they decideddecided to live separately from each other and to live separately from each other and executed, to this effect, an agreement executed, to this effect, an agreement liquidating conjugal partnership, even liquidating conjugal partnership, even giving the erring wife a share.

giving the erring wife a share. On July,On July, he filed a suit for legal separation he filed a suit for legal separation praying for confirmation of said praying for confirmation of said agreement, custodial rights and agreement, custodial rights and disqualificati

disqualification of on of wife from successionwife from succession of plaintiff. Her wife was declared in of plaintiff. Her wife was declared in default for not having answered on default for not having answered on time. When cross-examined by the time. When cross-examined by the assistant city fiscal, it was revealed assistant city fiscal, it was revealed however that Brown, after the however that Brown, after the liberation from the internment, had liberation from the internment, had also lived with another woman with also lived with another woman with whom he has begotten children. The whom he has begotten children. The court refused to grant the petition on court refused to grant the petition on the basis of

the basis of prescription, commissionprescription, commission of similar offense by petitioner, and of similar offense by petitioner, and involvement of consent and

involvement of consent and connivance.

connivance.

Issue Issue::

WON proceedings for legal separation WON proceedings for legal separation can still be instituted when both

can still be instituted when both spouses are offenders.

spouses are offenders.

Held/Ratio:

No. His petition cannot prosper for two No. His petition cannot prosper for two reasons: (1) prescriptive period is over reasons: (1) prescriptive period is over since he learned of his wife’s relations since he learned of his wife’s relations in 1945 and only filed a complaint after in 1945 and only filed a complaint after ten years; and (2)

ten years; and (2) His cohabitationHis cohabitation with another woman bars him from with another woman bars him from claiming legal separation. Failure of claiming legal separation. Failure of the wife to set up a defense may be the wife to set up a defense may be considered circumstantial evidence of considered circumstantial evidence of collusion between them. Consent and collusion between them. Consent and connivance no longer need to be connivance no longer need to be proven there being two established proven there being two established statutory grounds to grant the decree statutory grounds to grant the decree of legal separation.

of legal separation.

Bugayong v. Ginez Bugayong v. Ginez

Dec. 28, 1956, Felix, J.

Facts:

Bugayong was a serviceman of the US Bugayong was a serviceman of the US Navy. He was married on 1949 to Navy. He was married on 1949 to Ginez while on furlough leave. Before Ginez while on furlough leave. Before he reported back to duty, they made he reported back to duty, they made arrangements as to where the wife arrangements as to where the wife would stay. In July 1951,

would stay. In July 1951, the husbandthe husband received letters informing him of his received letters informing him of his wife’s infidelities. In Aug. 1952, he wife’s infidelities. In Aug. 1952, he sought his wife and after finding her, sought his wife and after finding her, they lived together as husband and they lived together as husband and wife for two nights and one day. The wife for two nights and one day. The night after, they continued to

night after, they continued to livelive together but the next day, when he together but the next day, when he questioned her about her illicit affairs, questioned her about her illicit affairs, she deserted him. He took this as she deserted him. He took this as confirmation of her infidelities. On confirmation of her infidelities. On November, he filed a complaint for November, he filed a complaint for legal separation. The court ordered the legal separation. The court ordered the dismissal of the action based on

dismissal of the action based on wife’swife’s motion to dismiss. He appealed but the motion to dismiss. He appealed but the CA furthered the case, since it

CA furthered the case, since it

constituted questions of law, to the constituted questions of law, to the SC.SC.

Issue Issue::

WON the copulation which transpired WON the copulation which transpired after the husband knew about his after the husband knew about his

wife’s alleged infidelities can be wife’s alleged infidelities can be considered an act of condonation.

considered an act of condonation.

Held/Ratio:

Yes. Condonation is the conditional Yes. Condonation is the conditional

forgiveness or remission of one party forgiveness or remission of one party of a matrimonial

of a matrimonial offense which theoffense which the other party committed. According to other party committed. According to American jurisprudence, any

American jurisprudence, any

cohabitation and sexual intercourse cohabitation and sexual intercourse with the guilty party after the

with the guilty party after the

commission for the offense and with commission for the offense and with knowledge of the offense will amount knowledge of the offense will amount to evidence of condonation.

to evidence of condonation.

Resumption of marital cohabitation as Resumption of marital cohabitation as a basis of condonation is inferred.

a basis of condonation is inferred.

Matubis v. Praxedes Matubis v. Praxedes

Oct. 25, 1960, Paredes, J.

Facts:

Matubis and Praxedes got married on Matubis and Praxedes got married on 1943. The couple agreed to

1943. The couple agreed to livelive separately on 1944. On April, 1948, separately on 1944. On April, 1948, the spouses entered into an

the spouses entered into an

agreement stating that both relinquish agreement stating that both relinquish their rights over each other as

their rights over each other as

husband and wife, that both are free to husband and wife, that both are free to marry again, and that wife is no longer marry again, and that wife is no longer entitled to support. In Jan. 1955, the entitled to support. In Jan. 1955, the husband cohabited with another husband cohabited with another woman and had a child with her. On woman and had a child with her. On April 1956, wife alleged

April 1956, wife alleged abandonmentabandonment and concubinage subsequently filing a and concubinage subsequently filing a petition for legal separation. RTC held petition for legal separation. RTC held that the acts constituted concubinage that the acts constituted concubinage but dismissed the complaint on the but dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. Plaintiff ground of prescription. Plaintiff appealed.

appealed.

Issue Issue::

WON there was consent of the wife to WON there was consent of the wife to her husband’s concubinage.

her husband’s concubinage.

Held/Ratio:

Yes. As seen in the agreement, there Yes. As seen in the agreement, there

was an express condonation and was an express condonation and consent granted to the husband.

consent granted to the husband.

Having consented, the wife cannot Having consented, the wife cannot claim legal separation and is

claim legal separation and is

undeserving of the court’s sympathy.

The petition was also filed after the The petition was also filed after the

prescriptive period. She came to know prescriptive period. She came to know

the situation in Jan. 1955 but only the situation in Jan. 1955 but only instituted the complaint on April. 1956 instituted the complaint on April. 1956 – more than a year

– more than a year later.later.

Contreras v.

Macaraig Macaraig

May 29, 1970, Dizon, J.

Facts:

In Sept. 1962, family driver

In Sept. 1962, family driver told Elenatold Elena Contreras that her husband Macaraig Contreras that her husband Macaraig was living with another woman. She was living with another woman. She failed to verify the rumor from her failed to verify the rumor from her husband. In April 1963, she heard husband. In April 1963, she heard rumors that her husband was seen rumors that her husband was seen with another woman who was with another woman who was

pregnant. In May of the same year she pregnant. In May of the same year she once more failed to ascertain the once more failed to ascertain the

veracity of the allegations because she veracity of the allegations because she was afraid that it would precipitate a was afraid that it would precipitate a quarrel and drive him

quarrel and drive him away. Howeveraway. However she finally found out about her

she finally found out about her

husband’s mistress and the birth of the husband’s mistress and the birth of the latter’s child. In December 1963, wife latter’s child. In December 1963, wife finally met with her husband and finally met with her husband and pleaded him to give up

pleaded him to give up his mistresshis mistress and return to the conjugal home, and return to the conjugal home, assuring him that all would be assuring him that all would be forgiven. He declined. In the same forgiven. He declined. In the same month, she filed suit for legal month, she filed suit for legal separation but the case was

separation but the case was dismisseddismissed because prescription had, according to because prescription had, according to the court, already taken place from the court, already taken place from Sept. 1962 when she had found out Sept. 1962 when she had found out about her

about her husband’s illicit relationshiphusband’s illicit relationship from the family driver. The CA

from the family driver. The CA

dismissed the complaint because of dismissed the complaint because of prescription.

prescription.

Issue:

WON the period of prescription is WON the period of prescription is counted from Sept. 1962 or from counted from Sept. 1962 or from December 1963.

December 1963.

Held/Ratio:

December 1963. This was the only December 1963. This was the only time when she became truly cognizant time when she became truly cognizant of her husband’s infidelity. Hearsay of her husband’s infidelity. Hearsay information would not have been information would not have been legally sufficient as a basis for legally sufficient as a basis for legallegal separation.

separation.

In document Impacto del cribado del Cáncer de mama en la provincia de Segovia (1992-2007) (página 44-49)