View full case

ONG ENG KIAM v. LUCITA G. ONG

FACTS:

Lucita G. Ong filed a complaint for legal separation against her husband William Ong, alleging physical violence, threats, intimidation, and grossly abusive conduct in their marriage. Lucita claimed that they quarreled frequently, with William inflicting physical harm on her and their children. She also stated that William used insulting language against her and whipped the children with the buckle of his belt. Lucita further recounted specific incidents of violence, including one where William hit her on the stomach and pointed a gun at her. She sought legal separation and the dissolution of their conjugal partnership.

William denied the allegations and claimed that he did not inflict harm on his wife or children. He mentioned that he and Lucita quarreled, but he denied inflicting physical violence. He also stated that Lucita left their house without his knowledge. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Lucita's petition for legal separation, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision. The CA found Lucita's testimony and the testimonies of her witnesses credible and established the grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. William filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. Hence, the present petition was filed. In the petition, William argued that the legal separation case was filed to gain control and ownership of their properties, which he obtained through his sole efforts. He also disputed Lucita's claims of repeated physical violence and grossly abusive conduct.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding clear evidence refuting the claim of repeated physical violence and grossly abusive conduct on the part of the petitioner.

  2. Whether the trial court committed errors in its findings regarding the acts of physical violence committed by the petitioner.

  3. Whether the allegations of physical violence and abuse against William by Lucita and other witnesses were proven.

  4. Whether Lucita has a valid ground for legal separation.

  5. Whether the claim that Lucita filed the case for legal separation to gain control of the conjugal properties is credible.

  6. Whether William's argument of abandonment by Lucita is valid.

  7. Whether Lucita has proven the presence of a ground for legal separation.

  8. Whether the RTC and the CA correctly granted Lucita the relief she is entitled to under the law.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, unless certain exceptional circumstances are present. As the petitioner failed to show that the case falls under any of these exceptional circumstances, the general rule applies, and the factual findings of the lower courts must be upheld.

  2. The detailed accounts of physical violence and abuse presented by Lucita and other witnesses were deemed credible by the court. The court gave more weight to the accounts of Lucita and found the denials of William to be lacking in credibility. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and weight.

  3. Lucita has a valid ground for legal separation. The court found that the abusive conduct of William towards Lucita constituted a cause beyond her endurance, justifying her decision to seek relief from the courts.

  4. The claim that Lucita filed the case for legal separation to gain control of the conjugal properties was deemed hard to believe by the court. The court found it improbable that Lucita would jeopardize her marriage and abandon her children for the sake of her family's financial interests. The court concluded that there existed a strong cause for legal separation.

  5. William's argument of abandonment by Lucita is not valid. The abandonment referred to in the Family Code pertains to abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year. Since Lucita left William due to his abusive conduct, her departure does not constitute the abandonment contemplated by the provision.

  6. The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and the CA, and granted Lucita the relief she is entitled to under the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition for review under Rule 45, unless certain exceptional circumstances are present.

  • The Court cannot review factual findings on appeal, especially when they are supported by the records or based on substantial evidence.

  • The assessment of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is given great respect and weight, as trial court judges have the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.

  • The grounds for legal separation include physical violence, abusive conduct, and causes beyond endurance.

  • The Family Code defines marriage and the family, spells out the corresponding legal effects, imposes limitations that affect married and family life, as well as prescribes the grounds for declaration of nullity and legal separation.