Facts:
In his petition for legal separation, AAA, the husband, alleged that his wife, BBB, refused to provide help for him when his tooth ached and needed root canal operation; her alleged acts of maligning his reputation; refusal to seek marriage counseling; her acts of doing things without his knowledge; not liking his friends and prohibiting him from seeing them; not trusting people; being a closed-minded person who believes she is always right; and her manipulating her children and using them to compel him to provide more support, are “grossly abusive conducts” that fell within the definition provided as one of the grounds for legal separation under Article 55 (1) of the Family Code. The RTC granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals granted BBB’s appeal and ruled the acts alleged by AAA does not fall within the definition of “grossly abusive conduct”
Issue:
What is “grossly abusive conduct” as a ground for legal separation under the Family Code?
Ruling:
“Taking the Court’s discussion in Ong and Najera, the Code Committee’s understanding and commentaries on “grossly abusive conduct” referred to Article 55(1) of the Family Code, as wells as the observations from other jurisdictions, this Court finds that acts constituting “grossly abusive conduct” pertain to acts committed by a spouse against the other spouse, the latter’s child, or their common child which result in a hostile and intimidating environment for the other spouses, their children, and common children. In this relation, the determination of whether “grossly abusive conduct” exists as a ground for legal separation must be determined by the courts on a case-to-case basis, taking into consideration the facts and evidence in each case. To the Court’s mind, the foregoing definition of “grossly abusive conduct” is consistent with the State’s constitutional obligation to protect marriages as a basic social institution.” (citations omitted.)
Taking into consideration the foregoing definition of “grossly abusive conduct” and applying it to BBB’s petition, the Court ruled that BBB sufficiently proved that AAA’s grossly abusive conduct towards him, and granted the petition for legal separation. It, however, remanded the case to the RTC for the dissolution and liquidation of their property regime and to determine the grant of custody and support for the spouses’ common children.
Go v. Chan-Go, G.R. No. 243647, November 18, 2025