Content Overview

Under Article 55(1) of the Family Code, either spouse may file for legal separation on the ground of “repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner.”

While absolute divorce remains unrecognized for the non-Muslim majority in the Philippines, the Family Code (E.O. 209) provides a definitive judicial remedy for distressed marriages through legal separation. This “bed-and-board” exit allows estranged spouses to end their common life, liquidate their properties, and resolve child custody issues—all without severing the marital bond. 

Article 55 of the Family Code provides the grounds for legal separation, which include physical violence, abuse, coercion to change beliefs, corruption into prostitution, imprisonment, drug addiction, alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality, bigamous marriage, sexual infidelity, threats, and abandonment. 

Particularly under Article 55(1), a spouse may file for legal separation based on “repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner.” 

While data rightly identifies husbands as the primary aggressors in domestic violence, control and abuse are not gender-exclusive. A closer look at domestic relations proves that wives can also be the abusers, often using societal stigmas to inflict harm on their husbands while hiding behind the assumption of male dominance.

In Go v. Chan-Go, G.R. No. 243647 (November 18, 2025), a case where the respondent was the wife, the Supreme Court (SC) set a judicial precedent by defining “grossly abusive conduct.” The SC held 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 spouse, their children, and common children.”

The factual antecedents of the case state that the parties married and had two children. Over the course of their marriage, the family faced financial hardships, prompting the wife to operate a small enterprise while the husband pursued nursing studies. While the plan of working abroad did not materialize, the husband subsequently relocated to various regional hubs for employment.

Despite these shared efforts, the husband alleged that he experienced forms of abusive conduct from his wife. He cited financial control, refusal to assist during medical need, public humiliation, and disclosure of private marital matters to third parties. He further claimed refusal to undergo counseling, continued marital conflict, and eventual separation, followed by his filing of a petition for legal separation.

In response, the wife denied the allegations and countered that her husband displayed neglectful and irritable behavior, including limited financial support, frequent absences, and prioritizing leisure with friends. She also alleged prior hostility during her pregnancy and subsequent disputes over support and conduct, including the receipt of a lawyer’s letter requesting psychological examination.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition for legal separation, ruling that the wife’s aggregate behavior—as established by prima facie evidence—amounted to grossly abusive conduct.

However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this ruling, holding that the conflicts raised by the spouses were frivolous and commonplace in marriages. The appellate court ruled that the behavior of both parties was neither grave nor abusive, concluding that the marital rift was not beyond repair or incurable.

Applying the clarified definition of “grossly abusive conduct,” the Supreme Court (SC) evaluated the evidence—including the wife’s refusal to provide medical help, her attacks on the husband’s reputation, her rejection of marriage counseling, and her financial manipulation of their children—and ruled that the husband sufficiently proved the ground for legal separation.

As a result of the granted legal separation, the case was remanded to the RTC for the dissolution and division of the spouses’ property, as well as for decisions on the custody and support of their children.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established. For advice tailored to your specific circumstances, consult a qualified professional.

Duran & Duran-Schulze Law is a family law firm in the Philippines that provides legal assistance in legal separation cases, including guidance on legal grounds, filing requirements, and court proceedings. For legal consultations and service inquiries, call us at (02) 8928-9535 (landline) or +639171940482 (mobile), or email info@duranschulze.com.