Under Art. 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a petition for legal separation may be filed when there is repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner.
Note that repeated physical violence is required. I’m wondering what the interval between the violent episodes should be for there to be repeated physical violence. Like, if a husband hits his wife once a year or once every five years, is there repeated physical violence?
The obvious answer is that the courts will have to view things on a case to case basis. What happened between William and Lucita Ong should be illustrative.
Ong Eng Kiam, also known as William Ong (William) and Lucita G. Ong (Lucita) were married on July 13, 1975 at the San Agustin Church in Manila. They have three children: Kingston, Charleston, and Princeton who are now all of the age of majority….
Lucita claimed that: soon after three years of marriage, she and William quarreled almost every day, with physical violence being inflicted upon her; William would shout invectives at her like “putang ina mo”, “gago”, “tanga”, and he would slap her, kick her, pull her hair, bang her head against concrete wall and throw at her whatever he could reach with his hand; the causes of these fights were petty things regarding their children or their business; William would also scold and beat the children at different parts of their bodies using the buckle of his belt; whenever she tried to stop William from hitting the children, he would turn his ire on her and box her; on December 9, 1995, after she protested with William’s decision to allow their eldest son Kingston to go to Bacolod, William slapped her and said, “it is none of your business”; on December 14, 1995, she asked William to bring Kingston back from Bacolod; a violent quarrel ensued and William hit her on her head, left cheek, eye, stomach, and arms; when William hit her on the stomach and she bent down because of the pain, he hit her on the head then pointed a gun at her and asked her to leave the house; she then went to her sister’s house in Binondo where she was fetched by her other siblings and brought to their parents house in Dagupan; the following day, she went to her parent’s doctor, Dr. Vicente Elinzano for treatment of her injuries.
Gee, Lucita waited for 15 long years before finally deciding she wanted out.
And you know what the husband said? He said she was making it all up to gain control over the conjugal properties to benefit her own parents and siblings. He DID NOT want the decree of legal separation granted because it would be “proof” that he was a wife beater and that would ruin his reputation in the Filipino-Chinese community. 
Anyway, legal separation was granted.
Hi connie, how was the vacation?
I'll never get it how and why battered women endure all those years of violence. There was even one who sought legal advice after suffering from spousal abuse for 25 years. And she was only asking what she could do bec. her eldest son was on the verge of retaliating against the abusive dad. At the mere mention of legal separation, R.A. 9262, or annulment, she said, "good heavens, not that". sheesh.
LUCITA L. ONG WAS BRUTALLY MURDERED AT HER HOME IN DAGUPAN CITY ON NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Something wrong with your caps lock?
Just before separation of properties has to be implemented
new acquired properties 1,200,000 shared of Bacolod China Square 888 Mall @ 100 pesos a share = one hundred twenty million pesos . also included are the gain from during the 15 years of rental Intercast tower in jose abad santos ave., tondo ,manila , and many more which is at the court of dagupan , waiting for liquidation
according to autopsy report Lucita G. Ong ay sinakal ,namatay na , twisted pa nila ang ulo, then brought to her room , and shoot her from left occipital bone target upward and pumutok ang bala inside her head
Nancy,
You and I know the real story behind the article above.
All I wanted to say is after all these years, I’m still baffled wheather the law suit spearheaded by Lucitas family againts William was done with the best intentions. I guess it is just a matter of time until I find out.
Nancy, We are all grieving but please respect our family by not posting any information that will jeopardize the investigation.
Will repeated infidelity be a ground of annullment? I asked because the case of my friend, her husband does not inflict any physical violence but he openly carries on an affair with a much younger women. He does not have any work and depends on his wife for support.
"Will repeated infidelity be a ground of annullment?"
The law does not specifically says so but it may constitute psychological incapacity. I say "may" because it's always a case-to-case basis. He may be a philandering husband but if the wife is just as guilty, it's a different scenario altogether.
Hard to tell, really, unless we know ALL the facts. We usually only hear our friend's side.
In Malaysia, if one party commits adultery and there is concrete evidence to this, the aggrieved party can apply for an annulment. It's only fair. More then often the philandering party is the husband.
Hi Connie,
I learned of a couple who mutually agreed to apply for legal separation through barangay. They do not have money to pay for a lawyer. They have valid reasons for the separation. The barangay head accepted and signed the papers.
I dont have any knowledge of the rulings or laws regarding this matter.
Is the separation legally binding? Can they remarry again? What would be the best legal procedure for this? As you know, majority could not afford to pay a lawyer to pay for the fees.
Just asking your opinion.
bayi, i think the observation that more often than not, it is the husband who commits adultery… well, we know it's true in most of Asia. But I'm wondering if it is just as true in Western countries.
JunJun, no it isn't legal. An annulment has to be granted by the court.
I think it's men who are guilty of infidelity most of the time. Must be the "macho" image pervading our society. The more women you have, the more macho you are. We really can't deny it because, either unconsciously or consciously, we teach the young boys just that: "Ang guwapo, guwapo naman ng batang ito. Siguro marami ng chicks na napaiyak 'yan." and other similar statements. It is also inculcated that it is okay for men to be cheaters than it is for women. There is undeniable pressure on women to date only one guy at a time, to keep virginity intact for their wedding night, and all other "rules" that only seem to be applied on women. The men are expected to go "horsing" around, while there are greener pastures to be found, and to settle down either when their parents are already asking for grandchildren or when they feel there are nothing else to do. So, after being wed for a while, men are already looking forward to the next "adventure".
Sheesh.
Ain't it worse in other societies where their laws make it legal (beyond mere socially accepted) for men to have more than one spouse but not the other way around…
@Tess
Societies write laws to preserve their society. Forever in conflict with the Laws of Evolution. Like it or not, men are driven to spread their seed; as much as women are driven to receive it.
The Laws of Evolution are a very powerful force, greater than "any" words on paper. Understanding and accepting this, having dialog with your partner about this; will strengthen your relationship and "help" preserve the needs of the society.
Yes, the history of man's evolution tells that the male species are driven to propagate their seed. But that doesn't mean that it is all right for men to just go on siring a lot of children from different women, saying that it is "natural". It is this drive that shakes the very foundation of the social unit, the family, and puts cracks on the bond between the husband and the wife. Does men have the right to say to their wives, "you can't blame me for that because it's in my nature and I can't help it"? I don't think so.
And so the need for a dialogue between the husband and the wife. But, more often that not, this doesn't really work. Men truly have difficulty expressing what they wish and they often complain about women being too nagging. And most often, the dialogue ends up with women just accepting the consequences, for the sake of peace in the family.
And you say that the laws of evolution is a very powerful force. Yes, it is true. The human species is but the highest in the hierarchy of mammals. But then, humans are also intelligent and the only species that can use logic. We are reasoning beings. We can control or direct this "drive". Though there are times when we rely on instincts, still, the Ego can control whatever the Id says.
by the way, my previous comment is addressed to SEP, in response to my first post. Sorry if I forgot to put the name.
Re #15. "The Laws of Evolution are a very powerful force, greater than "any" words on paper. Understanding and accepting this, having dialog with your partner about this; will strengthen your relationship and "help" preserve the needs of the society."
So… monogamy is against human nature? Is that what you're saying? And we should live by what is natural? Which does not include monogamy? Ummm…
Yes….In my opinion monogamy is contrary to human nature. A product of our religious past and present. Am I saying it is a bad thing? No…Am I saying that evolution should be an excuse for a man or woman to fool around? No.
What I am saying is: It is all about respect…A healthy relationship "understands" human nature and accepts it for what it is..Furthermore; that relationship understands the need for societies laws as a means to preserve the society.
Communication together about this subject will build understanding and respect. If your husband fools around it is simply because he does not respect you. If your wife fools around it is simply because she does not respect you either.
If you do not communicate…You have no relationship.
When you can look each other in the eyes and laugh "together" about this thing we call the human nature…Then even if the girl next door looks good to him, you won't have to worry.
If a man respects you he will not want to lose that respect.
Discuss this with your partner. You may find that it will do much to enhance your relationship (even sexually).
Accepting man for what he is with the understanding that many of societies laws were implemented to "hold him back" from what comes natural to him. Once he understands this as well, your relationship will blossom.
SEP, okay, I get your point. Actually, it's refreshing to discuss a topic like this without going into Catholic morality issues. I do agree that equating sex with spirituality is far fetched.
However, to accept that the scenario you propose as an ideal one would be accepting that we should let our more animalistic instincts rule us.
Admitting that such is part of human nature which we cannot deny, human nature is much, much more than animal instincts. In fact, that goes into the very core of Evolution.
We have come a long way from the cave man days. And if are to be true to our nature… well, we have to accept too that discernment and the capacity to think through and make choices are part of human nature. Those are the things that separate man from animals.
Way I see it, you want to live by one part of human nature AND ignore the other part in order to justify a culture that will be more tolerant of free sex.
to SEP: Your point about the importance of respect in a relationship is well taken and noted. But we have to bring this down to the real world. Not many men/women understand that. Their drives rule them and they do not bother with assessing or directing these drives. This is what is harmful in our society.
@Tess
" Not many men/women understand that. Their drives rule them and they do not bother with assessing or directing these drives."
I agree 100%.
@Sassy
"Way I see it, you want to live by one part of human nature AND ignore the other part in order to justify a culture that will be more tolerant of free sex."
Not trying to justify or condone Connie, just trying to bring to light as I see it the core of the issue.
I could go one step further by stating that the evolutionary male drive is more helpful to a society than harmful from an evolutionary perspective.
Not until the social system in the Philippines and other third world countries reaches a point where the product of this natural attraction (the children) are nurtured and acknowledged, will the benefits to society be seen.
In my opinion some of your best and brightest are wandering the streets in disarray.
Don't fight nature, you will always lose that battle…Harmonize…Fix the social system in the Philippines to be inclusive of all…Those that understand will follow the laws…Those that fear will follow their religion…..Nature will do the rest.
Re #22. "I could go one step further by stating that the evolutionary male drive is more helpful to a society than harmful from an evolutionary perspective."
I have nothing against unrestrained propagation (natural result of your idea of allowing the natural instinct for "sowing the seeds") IF we were living in the state of nature. Classless, no private properties, free for all. So long as the parents can provide for the offspring, and both parties consent to such an arrangement.
But given the make-up of today's society, how will that fit in? We're talking a society where males have unequal wealth, unequal access to wealth and unequal access to opportunities. Should they all be free to "sow their seeds" to allow them to follow their natural instincts?
I'm all for natural but there is such a thing as reponsibility. "Sowing seeds" has consequences and unless one can be responsible for those consequences, then a line must be drawn.
We all know the consequences of unrestrained "sowing of seeds" in the animal kingdom. Lots of offspring but mortality is high. Is that the ideal situation for humans?
By the way, Sassy, is it okay if I include some of the comments here regarding male's instinctual drive to propagate in a blog entry that I'm writing? It's a nice discussion that would be a pretty interesting read, I think. I'm especially interested in your comments and SEP's. Thanks.
SEP, please do indicate, too, if you're willing to have your comments posted in my blog. Thanks.
Go ahead, Tess. This is a very interesting discussion.
Greetings:
The weak as I characterized are growing progressively weaker and more "dependent" upon society. Through lavish lifestyles (aircon, lack of exercise, etc.)..Each generation will be less and less adapted to the "real" world changes taking place away from their artificial one. Choice of spouse based on wealth, stature or family is also not in tune with natural selection, when this is the case.
Environment in my opinion has been and will continue to be the most prevalent factor in evolutionary development of the human species.
Look around you…If this concrete jungle was to suddenly disappear, what group would be most likely to survive and carry on?..Would you Connie?. Tess?..Would you be a leader or a follower?
Of course there are exceptions..I am not saying you can not be wealthy and genetically adapted to your environment. But as a general rule (world-wide), the guy that built your house, delivers your water and drives a jeepney all day is far more adapted than we computer nerds and our offspring will be in the "real world" environment.
"Can you give a concrete example of how we can make a social services system work"
Socialism.
" Are you suggesting that those who have the good gene pool be allowed to propagate and those with less desirable genes not be allowed to?"
No..You are missing my point entirely by reading into something that is not there.
" Or perhaps what you meant by a "well-maintained social services system" encompasses both the genetic factor and the environmental factor."
I have no idea what you are talking about here..As humans have only limited power over both. ie. seeding a cloud..lol
"And, so, what if we follow what you're saying to allow the male species' natural instinct to propagate?"
Again, you and Connie both are trying to read between the lines, assuming..Getting it wrong..I am not saying this at all. What I am saying is: You "can't" stop it…..So learn to understand it…Use it for the benefit of society, rather than its detriment.
Nature does not have ethics….
So, your Freudon?….Hmmmm….I really do not see how the opinion of a Jewish narcissistic idiot has any bearing on this discussion. Frankly, I really do not want to have this discussion go into male penis envy.
Cheers
It's still a discussion on a related issue, so, why not? See, I feel that the mindset of wife-beaters is rooted to the male's perception of his role in society and his "natural" rights arising from his perceived role. I think that the violence is a twisted expression of machismo borne out of the twsited notion that aggression and violence are necessary extensions of man's role "to protect".
#19 Quote:
" Once "he" understands this as well, your relationship will blossom."
#30…Very well said Sassy and I agree totally.
Males are in a bit of a dilemma in societies. Their natural instincts rooted in thousands of years of evolution, are often at odds with the demands/limitations of living in a society. Women on the other hand (the true initiators and nurturers of socialized living), are much more at ease with their surroundings.
Males have very little to protect any longer. Society has policed that responsibility away from him. Aggressive domineering behavioral traits are being funneled into sports activities, cock fights and other society "approved" activities.
Man by nature is a hunter, a stalker, a provider, a proud species that without hesitation will display his prowess to the wary eyes of others of his kind; that may wish to tread on what he claims is his.
25,000 plus years of evolution is not going to be unlearned, wiped away or stifled by "any" society initiated controls.
Men are finding themselves more and more on the defense, as society is pressuring them to conform. This pressure in itself is one of the root causes of aggressive behavior directed toward spouse, family…Leads to obsessive behavior such as pornography, drinking, drugs, gambling and other society "disapproved" activities.
Unemployment or under-employment leaves man feeling worthless as a provider. Lost in his role..Pushed from all sides he finds himself either giving up entirely, handing the reins over to the female or lashing out.
@Tess…I really had no desire to ruffle your feathers, but from my historical research and discussions with colleagues; I truly believe Sigmund Freud was an idiot…:-)
to Sassy: Okay, I take back the last statement in my previous comment. Hehe.
to SEP: Oh well, I don't think anyone whose work are still being discussed and taught in universities up to now is really an idiot. You may not believe what he believes in but that doesn't necessarily make him an idiot. I'm curious, though. I've never heard anyone say that Freud was an idiot. What did your colleagues tell you about him?
Then perhaps, it's time for men to rethink of their roles and status in the society they're living in. Women don't really have to babysit them and wait for them to come to understand it's different now from how it was before. Yes, you're right that it takes a LOT of effort to redirect instincts that has been there for thousands of years. But isn't about time that men start redirecting it?
Good thing IPV is still preventable. Let me post another informative site – 'Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet' Peace to us all.
Greetings;
I decided to participate on this subject because I was seeing the "same old things" pop up in the replies and comments to Sassy's posting as I have seen so many times before in similar settings. It eventually leads to male bashing which I have no tolerance of.
In my opinion ignorance abounds concerning this subject and little if any solutions other than "lets get them in for phyco-babble sessions" is ever presented as an alternative.
Man does not need to lie on a couch and be told it is OK that he fantasized sexually about his mother when he was young; all men do. (Freudian) Man does not need the so called phyco-babble professionals probing his dreams, doing EEG's on his brain looking for some "hidden" problem that they have conjured up; which of course they have a nice little blue pill designed to put him in a great big Happyland.
Let me put this as plain as I possibly can:
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MAN
Counseling men on this subject is and will be the only effective means to curb the problem of violence in the family. However; the way they are counseled is the "most important" underlining factor. Man needs to understand the needs of the society. It is as simple as that. Once man "understands" that his sacrifice is for a greater good, you will begin to see a greater amount of self imposed prohibition.
Fear of consequences is not an effective means of curbing behavior…Appealing to duty is…Let me repeat that because it is important you understand this ideology.
APPEALING TO DUTY IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CURB BEHAVIOR IN MAN.
@Tess…Your right, idiot was a bit strong…How about narcissistic con-man?
Tess..Let this old man give you a piece of advise..Go through your life with as open a mind as possible. Learn what you can; believe what you can confirm.
At your fingertips is a world of knowledge. It would be far better for your growth for "you" to tell me, why my belief is so.
NOTE: For clarification. The (Freudian) ideology stated above is an example of one of his many twisted, perverted theories brought to the mainstream by his narcissistic demeanor, financial support of certain "status class" patients and a unwillingness to allow debate in his classrooms on his theories.
Hi lemon, vacation was great although there was nothing but fog on the first day. I really have to start posting the photos…
25 years of abuse and she still didn’t want a separation? shucks, i think that’s emotional dependency. a lot of women feel they’re not “complete” unless they have a husband. and there are those who feel it’s their failure if the marriage ends in separation.
who is charles? i only know one family member whom ong eng kiam mortgage all conjugal properties to and it is wilfredo ong
Ong eng kiam did not come for the funeral, or else he can see what is grieving of a 82 years old mother looks like, my mother hardly walk, has high blood pressure,was trembling,nervous, shocked, crying whenever she think of lucita. i too bp is 170/100 pulse is 115-120 despite double the medication experience 5lbs lose of weight, night sweating, tasteless,diarrhea, can not sleep, same was felt by my others sisters, closed friends and relatives
I have no respect for husbands who beat their wives, for whatever reason. But there are wives who appear to have an endless stamina for receiving violence. Whatever their reasons are, if police reports are not made for each instance of violence, this encourages the husband to perpetuate such acts. Husbands who beat their wives need to be send to a shrink, by legal compulsion if necessary!
Oh I agree about the shrink part. I don’t believe anymore that the threat of going to prison works. Wife beaters have to re-learn somehow that a man-woman relationship is not about a show of power.
hey connie! just blog hopping. thanks for sharing real life and fruitful stories
i want to comment on the fact women who are abused by their husbands should not only avail legal separation but also absolute nullity of marriage. what do you think? i know that it’s provided for by law but it’s just so depressing that they can’t marry again. hehe..i just think they deserve someone who would show them what it feels to be cared and loved for. our family code really needs to be revised. hehe.. though, i’m not really if i’m making any sense. hehe.
god bless
hi amsy_qt. actually, repeated violence — physical or verbal — can be made out as psychological incapacity for purposes of annulment. personally, i consider wife beaters and emotional abusers to be suffering from psychosis — they souldn’t be allowed to marry.
Evolution has one basic rule…The strongest will survive. This is achieved by natural selection..Society with its laws and moral structure works to defeat this basic rule, allowing the weak to control through the utilization of wealth, stature and birthright.
Private property rights, birthright, wealth..etc. are not factors in the evolutionary process (at least at this time in history). Maybe thousands of years from now if the social trend remains the same then their gene pool may increase simply by attrition of the disenfranchised.
Simply put: A well maintained social services system that recognizes this and works to strengthen the financially weakest of the nation would empower the nation with the best and the brightest the nation has to offer…Genetically.
As I said before…Don’t fight Mother Nature, you will lose every time…Harmonize. Natural selection is there for a reason….Utilize that gift, or lose out..A nations choice.
The battle for a working social services system will not be an easy one…The weak would never chose willingly to empower the strong and compromise their position.
to SEP: Can you give a concrete example of how we can make a social services system work, following the premise that we shouldn’t fight against Mother Nature? Are you suggesting that those who have the good gene pool be allowed to propagate and those with less desirable genes not be allowed to?
I disagree that materials things like what you’ve mentioned (private property rights, birthright, wealth, etc) do not factor in OUR evolutionary process now. Remember that how we came to what we are today aren’t entirely dependent on our genes. External factors should be figured into the equation because natural selection acts on the phenotype, which is the overall result of the interactions between genes and interactions between genes and the environment.
In your statement “A well maintained social services system that recognizes this and works to strengthen the financially weakest of the nation would empower the nation with the best and the brightest the nation has to offer…Genetically”, I think you have neglected the importance of the interaction between genes and the environment. Or perhaps what you meant by a “well-maintained social services system” encompasses both the genetic factor and the environmental factor. Could this produce better individuals? Probably. One cannot be certain because, sometimes, mutations in the genes were merely products of a “chance”.
And, so, what if we follow what you’re saying to allow the male species’ natural instinct to propagate? So a man sires a lot of kids from different women. Given his financial, psychological, and social capabilities, can he be a good father to all of the kids? So, what if he can’t? Then some of these kids will not survive because only the strongest will survive, isn’t? Then why would a human father sire such number of children if he knows that he cannot sustain them all? Wouldn’t it be rather unfair to the “weak” kids if their father will consider them weak and not worthy of upbringing? And so, if the strongest will survive and improve the gene pool, is the way for achieving it ethical?
Like sassy, I have nothing against our natural instincts. However, we are not entirely dependent on our instincts. In Freud’s structural theory of the mind, there are 3 provinces: the Id, the Ego, and the Superego. The Id is the reservoir of the instinctual drives. It lacks the capacity to delay or modify the drives of which the individual is born with. The Ego spans the conscious, preconscious, and the unconscious. It modifies the Id by putting pressures of external reality on it, appropriating the energies of the Id. The Superego establishes and maintains the individual’s moral conscience based on the values and ideals internalized from the individual’s parents. I think, based on what you’ve said, you’re suggesting that we always follow what the Id dictates. This isn’t reasonable. That’s why there are control measures established (the Superego and the Ego); so as the Id wouldn’t run away and get “wild”. What would be most beneficial for the human race is to have a “balance” of the three.
You see, the laws and the moral structure of our society is not perfect. It may need revisions. But, as far as I know, the basic laws and morals have helped us, humans, survive and retain our humanity.
To SEP: I cannot reconcile the distinction you’re making between the “real” world and the “artificial” world. By calling our world artificial, did you mean it that way because of the man-made structures and things that have pervaed our lives, as opposed to the living, growing flora and fauna of the “real” world? I’d rather not make that distinction, though, because by doing so, it presupposes that the artificial world, being not real, is just a false world, a contraption of sorts for fooling the senses (this sounds a little bit too “matrix”). It would suffice to say that there is the world of humans very much different from the world where the wild plants and animals are, which was also the world where humans were used to be found. And both are dangerous worlds.
I don’t see how choice of spouse based on wealth, stature, or family is not in tune with natural selection. It is just as similar as to how a peahen would choose the brightest colored-tail peacock, or the lioness would choose the lion with the biggest darkest mane. These animals’ choices are influenced by thoughts of survival as we humans do. Who could be the best provider? Who could give the children the best education? These and many other questions are simply human versions of the factors animals consider in choosing mates.
As for survival in a jungle where there are no lavish comforts that we’ve become used to, I think I, together with all the computer nerds in the world, will still have a good chance of survival, just like the guys that built my house, delivered water, and drove jeepney all day. They may be physically stronger than I because they’re used to manual labor. But survival in the wild isn’t just a play of physical strength. Mental, psychological, and emotional strength and discipline to adapt to changes are important, too.
Perhaps to enlighten the discussion, can you give more ideas on how to fix the social service of the country? It does sound rather too generalized.
And you’re suggesting a socialism? Perhaps my understand of the social sciences are limited. But isn’t it socialism pertains to various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy? Wouldn’t this breed more corruption? What control measures could be instilled in order to prevent or, at least, minimize corruption?
I’m also sorry to hear that you’ve got to call Sigmund Freud’s structural theory of the mind as “the opinion of a Jewish narcissistic idiot”. Freud is one of the great minds in the history of neurology and psychiatry and his works helped in better understanding of human behavior. I alluded to his theory to explain how dangerous it is to just rely on “following instincts”.
I think we’ve been having a good discussion here that we’ve strayed a bit from the main topic. Haha. It’s so good and generous of Sassy to still be approving the comments we post. Thanks Sassy.
So, SEP (and others who’d like to comment on what I’ve said) maybe it would be better if you just email me your thoughts. Or maybe just visit my site. I fear that I’m cluttering Sassy’s site with unrelated comments. But if you still insist of posting it here, well, it’s Sassy’s call anyway!
This will be my last post for this article.
We brothers and sisters of Lucita G. Ong is pleading everyone for help and support JUSTICE FOR LUCITA G. ONG !!!