The filing of a petition for legal separation while another similar case between the same spouses is still pending is not technically barred by litis pendentia, but the subsequently filed case should nonetheless be dismissed on public policy considerations, the Supreme Court said.

In a 16-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired) dated 20 May 2025, the Court En Banc reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that had dismissed a husband’s petition for legal separation solely on the ground of litis pendentia, citing the existence of an earlier petition filed by the wife.

The case stemmed from a marriage solemnized in 1996, which produced three children. Records showed that marital relations deteriorated in 2006 after the husband began suspecting his wife of having an affair, leading to frequent quarrels.

In 2008, the wife was diagnosed with chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease, while the husband tested negative.

In 2014, the wife filed a petition for legal separation, accusing her husband of repeated physical, emotional, and economic abuse against her and their children. She also alleged that he was involved in an extramarital affair.

The husband denied the accusations and countered that his wife herself committed sexual infidelity, arguing that this disqualified her from seeking legal separation.

While the wife’s petition was still undergoing trial, the husband claimed he discovered in 2015 that his wife was having an affair with a married man. He subsequently filed two criminal complaints for adultery against the wife and her alleged paramour.

The Regional Trial Court later dismissed the wife’s petition for legal separation for failure to sufficiently prove the alleged violence or grossly abusive conduct. After this dismissal, the husband filed his own petition for legal separation, this time alleging that the wife had engaged in illicit sexual relationships.

In her answer, the wife argued that the husband was likewise guilty of acts that constituted grounds for legal separation.

She further contended that her earlier petition, which was then pending review before the Court of Appeals, constituted litis pendentia that should result in the dismissal of the husband’s case.

The lower court sided with the wife and dismissed the husband’s petition, ruling that both litis pendentia and forum shopping were present because of the earlier legal separation case that was already on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, prompting the husband to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

The SC ruled that a legal separation case filed by one spouse does not automatically bar the other spouse from filing a separate petition on the ground of litis pendentia. It explained that litis pendentia applies only when there is another pending action between the same parties involving the same cause of action, making the subsequent case unnecessary and vexatious.

It reiterated the three requisites of litis pendentia: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought based on the same facts, and identity such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.

While the first requisite was present because both cases involved the same husband and wife, the Court found that the second and third requisites were absent. It held that there is no identity of rights asserted or reliefs sought between two separate legal separation cases filed by spouses against each other, nor would a judgment in one automatically bar the other under the principle of res judicata.

But the SC stressed that public policy considerations still require the dismissal of the subsequently filed petition.

The Court pointed to the State policy of preserving marriage as a social institution and the foundation of the family, noting that the law is designed to prevent spouses from simultaneously seeking legal separation against each other.

“In sum, when a spouse files a legal separation case while another is already pending against them, the subsequent case should be dismissed without prejudice based on public policy considerations, although not technically barred by litis pendentia,” the SC said.

The high bench remanded the husband’s petition for legal separation to the court of origin for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.