G.R. No. 79284 November 27, 1987FROILAN C. GANDIONCO, petitioner, vs. HON. SENEN C. PEÑARANDA, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, Cagayan de Oro City, and TERESITA S. GANDIONCO, respondents.  PADILLA, J.:A special civil action for certiorari, with application for injunction, to annul (1) the Order of the respondent Judge, dated 10 December 1986, ordering petitioner to pay support pendente lite to private respondent (his wife) and their child, and (2) the Order of the same respondent Judge, dated 5 August 1987, denying petitioner's motion to suspend hearings in the action for legal separation filed against him by private respondent as well as his motion to inhibit respondent Judge from further hearing and trying the case. On 29 May 1986, private respondent, the legal wife of the petitioner, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, 10th Judicial District, Branch 18, in Cagayan de Oro City, presided over by respondent Judge, a complaint against petitioner for legal separation, on the ground of concubinage, with a petition for support and payment of damages. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 10636. On 13 October 1986, private respondent also filed with the Municipal Trial Court, General Santos City, a complaint against petitioner for concubinage, which was docketed on 23 October 1986 as Criminal Case No. 15437111. On 14 November 1986, application for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite, pending a decision in the action for legal separation, was filed by private respondent in the civil case for legal separation. The respondent judge, as already stated, on 10 December 1986, ordered The payment of support pendente lite. In this recourse, petitioner contends that the civil action for legal separation and the incidents consequent thereto, such as, application for support pendente lite, should be suspended in view of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him the private respondent. In support of his contention, petitioner cites Art. III. Sec. 3 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which states:

SEC. 3. Other Civil action arising from offenses. — Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense. as contemplated in the first Section 1 hereof, the following rules shall be observed:(a) After a criminal action has been commenced the pending civil action arising from the same offense shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. . . .

The civil action for legal separation, grounded as it is on concubinage, it is petitioner's position that such civil action arises from, or is inextricably tied to the criminal action for concubinage, so that all proceedings related to legal separation will have to be suspended to await conviction or acquittal for concubinage in the criminal case. Authority for this position is this Court's decision in the case of Jerusalem vs. Hon. Roberto Zurbano. 1 Petitioner's contention is not correct. In Jerusalem, the Court's statement to the effect that suspension of an action for legal separation would be proper if an allegation of concubinage is made therein, relied solely on Sec. 1 of Rule 107 of the then provisions of the Rules of Court on criminal procedure, to wit:

Sec. 1. Rules governing civil actions arising from offenses.-Except as otherwise provided by law, the following rules shall he observed: (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately;

(b) Criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action; (c) After a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted and the same shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered ... (Emphasis supplied)

The provisions last quoted did not clearly state, as the 1985 Rules do, that the civil action to be suspended, with or upon the filing of a criminal action, is one which is "to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense". In other words, in view of the amendment under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a civil action for legal separation, based on concubinage, may proceed ahead of, or simultaneously with, a criminal action for concubinage, because said civil action is not one "to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense" even if both the civil and criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense. Such civil action is one intended to obtain the right to live separately, with the legal consequences thereof, such as, the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains, custody of offsprings, support, and disqualification from inheriting from the innocent spouse, among others. As correctly pointed out by the respondent Judge in his Order dated 5 August 1987:

The unreported case of JERUSALEM vs. Hon. Roberto Zurbano, Judge of CFI of Antique, et al., L-11935, April 24, 1959 (105 Phil. 1277) is not controlling. It applied paragraph C of Sec. 1, of then Rule 107 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

After a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted and the same shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found, until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. (Emphasis supplied)

The governing rule is now Sec. 3, Rule 111, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which refers to "civil actions to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense" as contemplated in the first paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 111-which is a civil action "for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged." Sec. 1, Rule 111, (1985) is specific that it refers to civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged. Whereas, the old Sec. 1 (c), Rule 107 simply referred to "Civil action arising from the offense." As earlier noted this action for legal separation is not to recover civil liability, in the main, but is aimed at the conjugal rights of the spouses and their relations to each other, within the contemplation of Articles 7 to 108, of the Civil Code." 2 Petitioner also argues that his conviction for concubinage will have to be first secured before the action for legal separation can prosper or succeed, as the basis of the action for legal separation is his alleged offense of concubinage. Petitioner's assumption is erroneous. A decree of legal separation, on the ground of concubinage, may be issued upon proof by preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. 3 No criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary. To this end, the doctrine in Francisco vs. Tayao 4 has been modified, as that case was decided under Act. No. 2710, when absolute divorce was then allowed and had for its grounds the same grounds for legal separation under the New Civil Code, with the requirement, under such former law, that the guilt of defendant spouses had to be established by final judgment in a criminal action. That requirement

1

has not been reproduced or adopted by the framers of the present Civil Code, and the omission has been uniformly accepted as a modification of the stringent rule in Francisco v. Tayao. 5 Petitioner's attempt to resist payment of support pendente lite to his wife must also fail, as we find no proof of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge in ordering the same. Support pendente lite, as a remedy, can be availed of in an action for legal separation, and granted at the discretion of the judge. 6 If petitioner finds the amount of support pendente lite ordered as too onerous, he can always file a motion to modify or reduce the same. 7

Petitioner lastly seeks to have the respondent Judge disqualified from hearing the case, as the grant of support pendente lite and the denial of the motion to suspend hearings in the case, are taken by the petitioner as a disregard of applicable laws and existing doctrines, thereby showing the respondent Judge's alleged manifest partiality to private respondent. Petitioner's contention is without merit. Divergence of opinions between a judge hearing a case and a party's counsel, as to applicable laws and jurisprudence, is not a sufficient ground to disqualify the judge from hearing the case, on the ground of bias and manifest partiality. This is more so, in this case, where we find the judge's disposition of petitioner's motions to be sound and well-taken. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-19565           January 30, 1968ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

CASTRO, J.:          The plaintiff Estrella de la Cruz filed a complaint on July 22, 1958 with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, alleging in essence that her husband, the defendant Severino de la Cruz, had not only abandoned her but as well was mismanaging their conjugal partnership properties, and praying for (1) separation of property, (2) monthly support of P2,500 during the pendency of the action, and (3) payment of P20,000 as attorney's fees, and costs.          The court a quo forthwith issued an order allowing the plaintiff the amount prayed for as alimony pendente lite, which however, upon defendant's motion, was reduced to P2,000.          On June 1, 1961 the trial court rendered judgment ordering separation and division of the conjugal assets, and directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P20,000 as attorney's fees, with legal interest from the date of the original complaint, that is, from July 22, 1958, until fully paid, plus costs. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to us, "it appearing that the total value of the conjugal assets is over P500,000".          The basic facts are not controverted. The plaintiff and the defendant were married in Bacolod City on February 1, 1938. Six children were born to them, namely, Zenia (1939), Ronnie (1942), Victoria (1944), Jessie 1945), Bella (1946), and Felipe (1948). During their coverture they acquired seven parcels of land of the Bacolod Cadastre, all assessed at P45,429, and three parcels of the Silay Cadastre, all assessed at P43,580. All these parcels are registered in their names. The hacienda in Silay yielded for the year 1957 a net profit of P3,390.49.          They are also engaged in varied business ventures with fixed assets valued as of December 31, 1956 at P496,006.92, from which they obtained for that year a net profit of P75,655.78. The net gain of the Philippine Texboard Factory, the principal business of the spouses, was P90,454.48 for the year 1957. As of December 31, 1959, the total assets of the various enterprises of the conjugal partnership were valued at P1,021,407.68, not including those of the Top Service Inc., of which firm the defendant has been the president since its organization in 1959 in Manila with a paid-up capital of P50,000, P10,000 of which was contributed by him. This corporation was the Beverly Hills Subdivision in Antipolo, Rizal, the Golden

Acres Subdivision and the Green Valley Subdivision in Las Piñas, Rizal, and a lot and building located at M. H. del Pilar, Manila purchased for P285,000, an amount borrowed from the Manufacturer's Bank and Trust Company.          The spouses are indebted to the Philippine National Bank and the Development Bank of the Philippines for loans obtained, to secure which they mortgaged the Philippine Texboard Factory, the Silay hacienda, their conjugal house, and all their parcels of land located in Bacolod City.          The essential issues of fact may be gleaned from the nine errors the defendant imputes to the court a quo, namely,

1. In finding that the only visit, from May 15, 1955 to the rendition of the decision, made by the defendant to the conjugal abode to see his wife was on June 15, 1955; 2. In finding that the letter exh. 3 was written by one Nenita Hernandez and that she and the defendant are living as husband and wife; 3. In finding that since 1951 the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant were far from cordial, and that it was from 1948 that the former has been receiving an allowance from the latter; 4. In finding that the defendant has abandoned the plaintiff; 5. In finding that the defendant since 1956 has not discussed with his wife the business activities of the partnership, and that this silence constituted "abuse of administration of the conjugal partnerships"; 6. In declaring that the defendant mortgaged the conjugal assets without the knowledge of the plaintiff and thru false pretences to which the latter was prey; 7. In allowing the plaintiff, on the one hand, to testify on facts not actually known by her, and, on the other hand, in not allowing the defendant to establish his special defenses; 8. In ordering separation of the conjugal partnership properties; and 9. In sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000, with interest at the legal rate.1äwphï1.ñët

          Two issues of law as well emerge, requiring resolution petition: (1) Did the separation of the defendant from the plaintiff constitute abandonment in law that would justify a separation of the conjugal partnership properties? (2) Was the defendant's failure and/or refusal to inform the plaintiff of the state of their business enterprises such an abuse of his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership as to warrant a division of the matrimonial assets?           The plaintiff's evidence may be summarized briefly. The defendant started living in Manila in 1955, although he occasionally returned to Bacolod City, sleeping in his office at the Philippine Texboard Factory in Mandalagan, instead of in the conjugal home at 2nd Street, Bacolod City. Since 1955 the defendant had not slept in the conjugal dwelling, although in the said year he paid short visits during which they engaged in brief conversations. After 1955 up to the time of the trial, the defendant had never visited the conjugal abode, and when he was in Bacolod, she was denied communication with him. He has abandoned her and their children, to live in Manila with his concubine, Nenita Hernandez. In 1949 she began to suspect the existence of illicit relations between her husband and Nenita. This suspicion was confirmed in 1951 when she found an unsigned note in a pocket of one of her husband's polo shirt which was written by Nenita and in which she asked "Bering" to meet her near the church. She confronted her husband who forthwith tore the note even as he admitted his amorous liaison with Nenita. He then allayed her fears by vowing to forsake his mistress. Subsequently, in November 1951, she found in the iron safe of her husband a letter, exh. C, also written by Nenita. In this letter the sender (who signed as "D") apologized for her conduct, and expressed the hope that the addressee ("Darling") could join her in Baguio as she was alone in the Patria Inn and lonely in "a place for honeymooners". Immediately after her husband departed for Manila the following morning, the plaintiff enplaned for Baguio, where she learned that Nenita had actually stayed at the

2

Patria Inn, but had already left for Manila before her arrival. Later she met her husband in the house of a relative in Manila from whence they proceeded to the Avenue Hotel where she again confronted him about Nenita. He denied having further relations with this woman.          Celia Bañez, testifying for the plaintiff, declared that she was employed as a cook in the home of the spouses from May 15, 1955 to August 15, 1958, and that during the entire period of her employment she saw the defendant in the place only once. This declaration is contradicted, however, by the plaintiff herself who testified that in 1955 the defendant "used to have a short visit there," which statement implies more than one visit.          The defendant, for his part, denied having abandoned his wife and children, but admitted that in 1957, or a year before the filing of the action, he started to live separately from his wife. When he transferred his living quarters to his office in Mandalagan, Bacolod City, his intention was not, as it never has been, to abandon his wife and children, but only to teach her a lesson as she was quarrelsome and extremely jealous of every woman. He decided to live apart from his wife temporarily because at home he could not concentrate on his work as she always quarreled with him, while in Mandalagan he could pass the nights in peace. Since 1953 he stayed in Manila for some duration of time to manage their expanding business and look for market outlets for their texboard products. Even the plaintiff admitted in both her original and amended complaints that "sometime in 1953, because of the expanding business of the herein parties, the defendant established an office in the City of Manila, wherein some of the goods, effects and merchandise manufactured or produced in the business enterprises of the parties were sold or disposed of". From the time he started living separately in Mandalagan up to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff herself furnished him food and took care of his laundry. This latter declaration was not rebutted by the plaintiff.          The defendant, with vehemence, denied that he has abandoned his wife and family, averring that he has never failed, even for a single month, to give them financial support, as witnessed by the plaintiff's admission in her original and amended complaints as well as in open court that during the entire period of their estrangement, he was giving her around P500 a month for support. In point of fact, his wife and children continued to draw allowances from his office of a total ranging from P1,200 to P1,500 a month. He financed the education of their children, two of whom were studying in Manila at the time of the trial and were not living with the plaintiff. While in Bacolod City, he never failed to visit his family, particularly the children. His wife was always in bad need of money because she played mahjong, an accusation which she did not traverse, explaining that she played mahjong to entertain herself and forget the infidelities of her husband.          Marcos V. Ganaban, the manager of the Philippine Texboard Factory, corroborated the testimony of the defendant on the matter of the support the latter gave to his family, by declaring in court that since the start of his employment in 1950 as assistant general manager, the plaintiff has been drawing an allowance of P1,000 to P1,500 monthly, which amount was given personally by the defendant or, in his absence, by the witness himself.          The defendant denied that he ever maintained a mistress in Manila. He came to know Nenita Hernandez when she was barely 12 years old, but had lost track of her thereafter. His constant presence in Manila was required by the pressing demands of an expanding business. He denied having destroyed the alleged note which the plaintiff claimed to have come from Nenita, nor having seen, previous to the trial, the letter exh. C. The allegation of his wife that he had a concubine is based on mere suspicion. He had always been faithful to his wife, and not for a single instance had he been caught or surprised by her with another woman.          On the matter of the alleged abuse by the defendant of his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership, the plaintiff declared that the defendant refused and failed to inform her of the progress of their various business concerns. Although she did not allege, much less prove, that her husband had dissipated the conjugal

properties, she averred nevertheless that her husband might squander and dispose of the conjugal assets in favor of his concubine. Hence, the urgency of separation of property.          The defendant's answer to the charge of mismanagement is that he has applied his industry, channeled his ingenuity, and devoted his time, to the management, maintenance and expansion of their business concerns, even as his wife threw money away at the mahjong tables. Tangible proof of his endeavors is that from a single cargo truck which he himself drove at the time of their marriage, he had built up one business after another, the Speedway Trucking Service, the Negros Shipping Service, the Bacolod Press, the Philippine Texboard Factory, and miscellaneous other business enterprises worth over a million pesos; that all that the spouses now own have been acquired through his diligence, intelligence and industry; that he has steadily expanded the income and assets of said business enterprises from year to year, contrary to the allegations of the complainant, as proved by his balance sheet and profit and loss statements for the year 1958 and 1959 (exhibits 1 and 2); and that out of the income of their enterprises he had purchased additional equipment and machineries and has partially paid their indebtedness to the Philippine National Bank and the Development Bank of the Philippines.          It will be noted that the plaintiff does not ask for legal separation. The evidence presented by her to prove concubinage on the part of the defendant, while pertinent and material in the determination of the merits of a petition for legal separation, must in this case be regarded merely as an attempt to bolster her claim that the defendant had abandoned her, which abandonment, if it constitutes abandonment in law, would justify separation of the conjugal assets under the applicable provisions of article 178 of the new Civil Code which read: "The separation in fact between husband and wife without judicial approval, shall not affect the conjugal partnership, except that . . . if the husband has abandoned the wife without just cause for at least one year, she may petition the court for a receivership, or administration by her of the conjugal partnership property, or separation of property". In addition to abandonment as a ground, the plaintiff also invokes article 167 of the new Civil Code in support of her prayer for division of the matrimonial assets. This article provides that "In case of abuse of powers of administration of the conjugal partnership property by the husband, the courts, on the petition of the wife, may provide for a receivership, or administration by the wife, or separation of property". It behooves us, therefore, to inquire, in the case at bar, whether there has been abandonment, in the legal sense, by the defendant of the plaintiff, and/or whether the defendant has abused his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership property, so as to justify the plaintiff's plea for separation of property.          We have made a searching scrutiny of the record, and it is our considered view that the defendant is not guilty of abandonment of his wife, nor of such abuse of his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership, as to warrant division of the conjugal assets.          The extraordinary remedies afforded to the wife by article 178 when she has been abandoned by the husband for at least one year are the same as those granted to her by article 167 in case of abuse of the powers of administration by the husband. To entitle her to any of these remedies, under article 178, there must be real abandonment, and not mere separation. 1 The abandonment must not only be physical estrangement but also amount to financial and moral desertion.          Although an all-embracing definition of the term "abandonment " is yet to be spelled out in explicit words, we nevertheless can determine its meaning from the context of the Law as well as from its ordinary usage. The concept of abandonment in article 178 may be established in relation to the alternative remedies granted to the wife when she has been abandoned by the husband, namely, receivership, administration by her, or separation of property, all of which are designed to protect the conjugal assets from waste and dissipation rendered imminent by the husband's continued absence from the conjugal abode, and to assure the wife of a ready

3

and steady source of support. Therefore, physical separation alone is not the full meaning of the term "abandonment", if the husband, despite his voluntary departure from the society of his spouse, neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support to his wife.          The word "abandon", in its ordinary sense, means to forsake entirely; to forsake or renounce utterly. 2 The dictionaries trace this word to the root idea of "putting under a bar". The emphasis is on the finality and the publicity with which some thing or body is thus put in the control of another, and hence the meaning of giving up absolutely, with intent never again to resume or claim one's rights or interests. 3 When referring to desertion of a wife by a husband, the word has been defined as "the act of a husband in voluntarily leaving his wife with intention to forsake her entirely, never to return to her, and never to resume his marital duties towards her, or to claim his marital rights; such neglect as either leaves the wife destitute of the common necessaries of life, or would leave her destitute but for the charity of others." 4 The word "abandonment", when referring to the act of one consort of leaving the other, is "the act of the husband or the wife who leaves his or her consort wilfully, and with an intention of causing per perpetual separation." 5 Giving to the word "abandoned", as used in article 178, the meaning drawn from the definitions above reproduced, it seems rather clear that to constitute abandonment of the wife by the husband, there must be absolute cessation of marital relations and duties and rights, with the intention of perpetual separation.          Coming back to the case at bar, we believe that the defendant did not intend to leave his wife and children permanently. The record conclusively shows that he continued to give support to his family despite his absence from the conjugal home. This fact is admitted by the complainant, although she minimized the amount of support given, saying that it was only P500 monthly. There is good reason to believe, however, that she and the children received more than this amount, as the defendant's claim that his wife and children continued to draw from his office more than P500 monthly was substantially corroborated by Marcos Ganaban, whose declarations were not rebutted by the plaintiff. And then there is at all no showing that the plaintiff and the children were living in want. On the contrary, the plaintiff admitted, albeit reluctantly, that she frequently played mahjong, from which we can infer that she had money; to spare.          The fact that the defendant never ceased to give support to his wife and children negatives any intent on his part not to return to the conjugal abode and resume his marital duties and rights. In People v. Schelske, 6 it was held that where a husband, after leaving his wife, continued to make small contributions at intervals to her support and that of their minor child, he was not guilty of their "abandonment", which is an act of separation with intent that it shall be perpetual, since contributing to their support negatived such intent. In re Hoss' Estate, supra, it was ruled that a father did not abandon his family where the evidence disclosed that he almost always did give his wife part of his earnings during the period of their separation and that he gradually paid some old rental and grocery bills.          With respect to the allegation that the defendant maintained a concubine, we believe, contrary to the findings of the court a quo, that the evidence on record fails to preponderate in favor of the plaintiff's thesis. The proof that Nenita Hernandez was the concubine of the defendant and that they were living as husband and wife in Manila, is altogether too indefinite. Aside from the uncorroborated statement of the plaintiff that she knew that Nenita Hernandez was her husband's concubine, without demonstrating by credible evidence the existence of illicit relations between Nenita and the defendant, the only evidence on record offered to link the defendant to his alleged mistress is exh. C. The plaintiff however failed to connect authorship of the said letter with Nenita, on the face whereof the sender merely signed as "D" and the addressee was one unidentified "Darling". The plaintiff's testimony on cross-examination, hereunder quoted, underscores such failure:

Q. You personally never received any letter from Nenita? A. No.

Q. Neither have you received on any time until today from 1949 from Nenita? A. No.Q. Neither have you written to her any letter yourself until now? A. Why should I write a letter to her.Q. In that case, Mrs. De la Cruz, you are not familiar with the handwriting of Nenita. Is that right? A. I can say that Nenita writes very well.Q. I am not asking you whether she writes very well or not but, my question is this: In view of the fact that you have never received a letter from Nenita, you have ot sent any letter to her, you are not familiar with her handwriting? A. Yes.Q. You have not seen her writing anybody? A. Yes.

          Anent the allegation that the defendant had mismanaged the conjugal partnership property, the record presents a different picture. There is absolutely no evidence to show that he has squandered the conjugal assets. Upon the contrary, he proved that through his industry and zeal, the conjugal assets at the time of the trial had increased to a value of over a million pesos.          The lower court likewise erred in holding that mere refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the family businesses constitutes abuse of administration. For "abuse" to exist, it is not enough that the husband perform an act or acts prejudicial to the wife. Nor is it sufficient that he commits acts injurious to the partnership, for these may be the result of mere inefficient or negligent administration. Abuse connotes willful and utter disregard of the interests of the partnership, evidenced by a repetition of deliberate acts and/or omissions prejudicial to the latter. 7

          If there is only physical separation between the spouses (and nothing more), engendered by the husband's leaving the conjugal abode, but the husband continues to manage the conjugal properties with the same zeal, industry, and efficiency as he did prior to the separation, and religiously gives support to his wife and children, as in the case at bar, we are not disposed to grant the wife's petition for separation of property. This decision may appear to condone the husband's separation from his wife; however, the remedies granted to the wife by articles 167 and 178 are not to be construed as condonation of the husband's act but are designed to protect the conjugal partnership from waste and shield the wife from want. Therefore, a denial of the wife's prayer does not imply a condonation of the husband's act but merely points up the insufficiency or absence of a cause of action.1äwphï1.ñët          Courts must need exercise judicial restraint and reasoned hesitance in ordering a separation of conjugal properties because the basic policy of the law is homiletic, to promote healthy family life and to preserve the union of the spouses, in person, in spirit and in property.

          Consistent with its policy of discouraging a regime of separation as not in harmony with the unity of the family and the mutual affection and help expected of the spouses, the Civil Code (both old and new) requires that separation of property shall not prevail unless expressly stipulated in marriage settlements before the union is solemnized or by formal judicial decree during the existence of the marriage (Article 190, new Civil Code, Article 1432, old Civil Code): and in the latter case, it may only be ordered by the court for causes specified in Article 191 of the new Civil Code. 8

          Furthermore, a judgment ordering the division of conjugal assets where there has been no real abandonment, the separation not being wanton and absolute, may altogether slam shut the door for possible reconciliation. The estranged spouses may drift irreversibly further apart; the already broken family solidarity may be irretrievably shattered; and any flickering hope for a new life together may be completely and finally extinguished.

4

          The monthly alimony in the sum of P2,000 which was allowed to the wife in 1958, long before the devaluation of the Philippine peso in 1962, should be increased to P3,000.          On the matter of attorney's fees, it is our view that because the defendant, by leaving the conjugal abode, has given cause for the plaintiff to seek redress in the courts, and ask for adequate support, an award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff must be made. Ample authority for such award is found in paragraphs 6 and 11 of article 2208 of the new Civil Code which empower courts to grant counsel's fees "in actions for legal support" and in cases "where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees . . . should be recovered." However, an award of P10,000, in our opinion, is, under the environmental circumstances, sufficient.           This Court would be remiss if it did not, firstly, remind the plaintiff and the defendant that the law enjoins husband and wife to live together, and, secondly, exhort them to avail of — mutually, earnestly and steadfastly — all opportunities for reconciliation to the end that their marital differences may be happily resolved, and conjugal harmony may return and, on the basis of mutual respect and understanding, endure.          ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo, insofar as it decrees separation of the conjugal properties, is reversed and set aside. Conformably to our observations, however, the defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff, in the concept of support, the amount of P3,000 per month, until he shall have rejoined her in the conjugal home, which amount may, in the meantime, be reduced or increased in the discretion of the court a quo as circumstances warrant. The award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff is reduced to P10,000, without interest. No pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. 82606 December 18, 1992PRIMA PARTOSA-JO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and HO HANG (with aliases JOSE JO and CONSING), respondents. CRUZ, J.:The herein private respondent, Jose Jo, admits to having cohabited with three women and fathered fifteen children. The first of these women, the herein petitioner, claims to be his legal wife whom he begot a daughter, Monina Jo. The other women and their respective offspring are not parties of these case.In 1980, the petitioner filed a complaint against Jo for judicial separation of conjugal property, docketed as Civil Case No. 51, in addition to an earlier action for support, also against him and docketed as Civil Case No. 36, in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 35.The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly. On November 29, 1983, Judge German G. Lee, Jr. rendered an extensive decision, the dispositive portion of which read:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing arguments and considerations, this court hereby holds that the plaintiff Prima Partosa was legally married to Jose Jo alias Ho Hang, alias Consing, and, therefore, is entitled to support as the lawfully wedded wife and the defendant is hereby ordered to give a monthly support of P500.00 to the plaintiff Prima Partosa, to be paid on or before the 5th day of every month, and to give to the plaintiff the amount of P40,000.00 for the construction of the house in Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental where she may live separately from the defendant being entitled under the law to separate maintenance being the innocent spouse and to pay the amount of P19,200.00 to the plaintiff by way of support in arrears and to pay the plaintiff the amount of P3,000.00 in the concept of attorney's fees.

As will be noticed, there was a definite disposition of the complaint for support but none of the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property.Jo elevated the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the trial court in the complaint for support. 1 The complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property was dismissed for lack of a cause of action and on the ground that separation by agreement was not covered by Article 178 of the Civil Code.When their motions for reconsideration were denied, both parties came to this Court for relief. The private respondent's petition for review on certiorari was dismissed for tardiness in our resolution dated February 17, 1988, where we also affirmed the legality of the marriage between Jose and Prima and the obligation of the former to support her and her daughter.This petition deals only with the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property.It is here submitted that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that: a) the judicial separation of conjugal property sought was not allowed under Articles 175, 178 and 191 of the Civil Code; and b) no such separation was decreed by the trial court in the dispositive portion of its decision.The private respondent contends that the decision of the trial court can longer be reviewed at this time because it has a long since become final and executory. As the decretal portion clearly made no disposition of Civil Case No. 51, that case should be considered impliedly dismissed. The petitioner should have called the attention of the trial court to the omission so that the proper rectification could be made on time. Not having done so, she is now concluded by the said decision, which can no longer be corrected at this late hour.We deal first with the second ground.While admitting that no mention was made of Civil Case No. 51 in the dispositive portion of the decision of the trial court, the petitioner argues that a disposition of the case was nonetheless made in the penultimate paragraph of the decision reading as follows:

It is, therefore, hereby ordered that all properties in question are considered properties of Jose Jo, the defendant in this case, subject to separation of property under Article 178, third paragraph of the Civil Code, which is subject of separate proceedings as enunciated herein.

The petitioner says she believed this to be disposition enough and so did not feel it was necessary for her to appeal, particularly since the order embodied in that paragraph was in her favor. It was only when the respondent court observed that there was no dispositive portion regarding that case and so ordered its dismissal that she found it necessary to come to this Court for relief.The petitioner has a point.The dispositive portion of the decision in question was incomplete insofar as it carried no ruling on the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property although it was extensively discussed in the body of the decision. The drafting of the decision was indeed not exactly careful. The petitioner's counsel, noting this, should have taken immediate steps for the rectification for the omission so that the ruling expressed in the text of the decision could have been embodied in the decretal portion. Such alertness could have avoided this litigation on a purely technical issue.Nevertheless, the technicality invoked in this case should not be allowed to prevail over considerations of substantive justive. After all, the technical defect is not insuperable. We have said time and again that where there is an ambiguity caused by an omission or a mistake in the dispositive portion of the decision, this Court may clarify such an ambiguity by an amendment even after the judgment have become final. 2 In doing so, the Court may resort to the pleading filed by the parties and the findings of fact and the conclusions of law expressed in the text or body of the decision. 3

The trial court made definite findings on the complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property, holding that the petitioner and the private respondent were legally married and that the properties mentioned by the petitioner were acquired by Jo during their

5

marriage although they were registered in the name of the apparent dummy.There is no question therefore that the penultimate paragraph of the decision of the trial court was a ruling based upon such findings and so should have been embodied in the dispositive portion. The respondent court should have made the necessary modification instead of dismissing Civil Case No. 51 and thus upholding mere form over substance.In the interest of substantive justice, and to expedite these proceedings, we hereby make such modification.And now to the merits of Civil Case No. 51.The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint on the ground that the separation of the parties was due to their agreement and not because of abondonment. The respondent court relied mainly on the testimony of the petitioner, who declared under oath that she left Dumaguete City, where she and Jo were living together "because that was our agreement." It held that a agreement to live separately without just cause was void under Article 221 of the Civil Code and could not sustain any claim of abandonment by the aggrieved spouse. Its conclusion was that the only remedy availabe to the petitioner was legal separation under Article 175 of the Civil Code, 4 by virtue of which the conjugal partnership of property would be terminated.The petitioner contends that the respondent court has misinterpreted Articles 175, 178 and 191 of the Civil Code. She submits that the agreement between her and the private respondent was for her to temporarily live with her parents during the initial period of her pregnancy and for him to visit and support her. They never agreed to separate permanently. And even if they did, this arrangement was repudiated and ended in 1942, when she returned to him at Dumaguete City and he refused to accept her.The petitioner invokes Article 178 (3) of the Civil Code, which reads:

Art. 178. The separation in fact between husband and wife without judicial approval, shall not affect the conjugal partnership, except that:xxx xxx xxx(3) If the husband has abandoned the wife without just cause for at least one year, she may petition the court for a receivership, or administration by her of the conjugal partnership property or separation of property.

The above-quoted provision has been superseded by Article 128 of the Family Code, which states:

Art. 128. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, of for authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to martial, parental or property relations.A spouse is deemed to have abondoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without any intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling.

Under the this provision, the aggrieved spouse may petition for judicial separation on either of these grounds:

1. Abondonment by a spouse of the other without just cause; and

2. Failure of one spouse to comply with his or her obligations to the family without just cause, even if she said spouse does not leave the other spouse.

Abandonment implies a departure by one spouse with the avowed intent never to return, followed by prolonged absence without just cause, and without in the meantime providing in the least for one's family although able to do so. 5 There must be absolute cessation of marital relations, duties and rights, with the intention of perpetual separation. 6 This idea is clearly expressed in the above-quoted provision, which states that "a spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without any intention of returning."The record shows that as early as 1942, the private respondent had already rejected the petitioner, whom he denied admission to their conjugal home in Dumaguete City when she returned from Zamboanguita. The fact that she was not accepted by Jo demonstrates all too clearly that he had no intention of resuming their conjugal relationship. Moreover, beginning 1968 until the determination by this Court of the action for support in 1988, the private respondent refused to give financial support to the petitioner. The physical separation of the parties, coupled with the refusal by the private respondent to give support to the petitioner, sufficed to constitute abandonment as a ground for the judicial separation of their conjugal property.In addition, the petitioner may also invoke the second ground allowed by Article 128, for the fact is that he has failed without just cause to comply with his obligations to the family as husband or parent. Apart form refusing to admit his lawful wife to their conjugal home in Dumaguete City, Jo has freely admitted to cohabiting with other women and siring many children by them. It was his refusal to provide for the petitioner and their daughter that prompted her to file the actions against him for support and later for separation of the conjugal property, in which actions, significantly, he even denied being married to her. The private respondent has not established any just cause for his refusal to comply with his obligations to his wife as dutiful husband.Their separation thus falls also squarely under Article 135 of the Family Code, providing as follows:

Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:xxx xxx xxx(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouse have been separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.

The amendments introduced in the Family Code are applicable to the case before us although they became effective only on August 3, 1988. As we held in Ramirez v. Court of Appeals: 7

The greater weight of authority is inclined to the view that an appellate court, in reviewing a judgment on appeal, will dispose of a question according to the law prevailing at the term of such disposition, and not according to the law prevailing at the time of rendition of the appealed judgement. The court will therefore reverse a judgement which was correct at the time it was originally rendered where, by statute, there has been an intermediate change in the law which renders such judgement erroneous at the time the case was finally disposed of on appeal.

The order of judicial separation of the properties in question is based on the finding of both the trial and respondent courts that the private respondent is indeed their real owner. It is these properties that should now be divided between him and the petitioner, on the assumption that they were acquired during coverture and so belong to the spouses half and half. As the private respondent is a Chinese citizen, the division must include such properties properly belonging to the conjugal partnership as may have been registered in the name of other persons in violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.

6

The past has caught up with the private respondent. After his extramarital flings and a succession of illegitimate children, he must now make an accounting to his lawful wife of the properties he denied her despite his promise to their of his eternal love and care.WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of the respondent court is MODIFIED. Civil Case No. 51 is hereby decided in favor the plaintiff, the petitioner herein, and the conjugal property of the petitioner and the private respondent is hereby ordered divided between them, share and share alike. This division shall be implemented by the trial court after determination of all the properties pertaining to the said conjugal partnership, including those that may have been illegally registered in the name of the persons.SO ORDERED.

Case: People vs Sansano and Ramos 59 Phil. 73

Facts of the Case: A and B, husband and wife, respectively, were legally married. Later, B abandoned A. B Lived with C. A did nothing to interfere with the relations of his wife and her paramour. He event went to Hawaii, completely abandoning his wife B for more than seven years. Later, A returned and charged B and C with adultery.

Issue: Is B guilty of adultery?

Decision of the Supreme Court: B should be acquitted because A's conduct warranted the inference that in truth, as well as in fact, he had consented to the philandering of his wife.

G.R. No. L-13553             February 23, 1960JOSE DE OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. SERAFINA FLORENCIANO, respondent.

BENGZON, J.:Action for legal separation by Jose de Ocampo against his wife Serafina, on the ground of adultery. The court of first instance of Nueva Ecija dismissed it. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding there was confession of judgment, plus condonation or consent to the adultery and prescription.We granted certiorari to consider the application of articles 100 and 101 of the New Civil Code, which for convenience are quoted herewith:

ART. 100.—The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.ART. 101.—No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment.In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. If there is no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated.

The record shows that on July 5, 1955, the complaint for legal separation was filed. As amended, it described their marriage performed in 1938, and the commission of adultery by Serafina, in March 1951 with Jose Arcalas, and in June 1955 with Nelson Orzame.Because the defendant made no answer, the court defaulted her, and pursuant to Art. 101 above, directed the provincial fiscal to investigate whether or not collusion existed between the parties. The fiscal examined the defendant under oath, and then reported to the Court that there was no collusion. The plaintiff presented his evidence consisting of the testimony of Vicente Medina, Ernesto de

Ocampo, Cesar Enriquez, Mateo Damo, Jose de Ocampo and Capt. Serafin Gubat.According to the Court of Appeals, the evidence thus presented shows that "plaintiff and defendant were married in April 5, 1938 by a religious ceremony in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and had lived thereafter as husband and wife. They begot several children who are now living with plaintiff. In March, 1951, plaintiff discovered on several occasions that his wife was betraying his trust by maintaining illicit relations with one Jose Arcalas. Having found the defendant carrying marital relations with another man plaintiff sent her to Manila in June 1951 to study beauty culture, where she stayed for one year. Again, plaintiff discovered that while in the said city defendant was going out with several other men, aside from Jose Arcalas. Towards the end of June, 1952, when defendant had finished studying her course, she left plaintiff and since then they had lived separately."On June 18, 1955, plaintiff surprised his wife in the act of having illicit relations with another man by the name of Nelson Orzame. Plaintiff signified his intention of filing a petition for legal separation, to which defendant manifested her conformity provided she is not charged with adultery in a criminal action. Accordingly, plaintiff filed on July 5, 1955, a petition for legal separation."The Court of Appeals held that the husband's right to legal separation on account of the defendant's adultery with Jose Arcalas had prescribed, because his action was not filed within one year from March 1951 when plaintiff discovered her infidelity. (Art. 102, New Civil Code) We must agree with the Court of Appeals on this point.1

As to the adultery with Nelson Orzame, the appellate court found that in the night of June 18, 1955, the husband upon discovering the illicit connection, expressed his wish to file a petition for legal separation and defendant readily agreed to such filing. And when she was questioned by the Fiscal upon orders of the court, she reiterated her conformity to the legal separation even as she admitted having had sexual relations with Nelson Orzame. Interpreting these facts virtually to mean a confession of judgment the Appellate Court declared that under Art. 101, legal separation could not be decreed.As we understand the article, it does not exclude, as evidence, any admission or confession made by the defendant outside of the court. It merely prohibits a decree of separation upon a confession of judgment. Confession of judgment usually happens when the defendant appears in court and confesses the right of plaintiff to judgment or files a pleading expressly agreeing to the plaintiff's demand.2 This is not occur.Yet, even supposing that the above statement of defendant constituted practically a confession of judgment, inasmuch as there is evidence of the adultery independently of such statement, the decree may and should be granted, since it would not be based on her confession, but upon evidence presented by the plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a judgment based exclusively or mainly on defendant's confession. If a confession defeats the action ipso facto, any defendant who opposes the separation will immediately confess judgment, purposely to prevent it.The mere circumstance that defendants told the Fiscal that she "like also" to be legally separated from her husband, is no obstacle to the successful prosecution of the action. When she refused to answer the complaint, she indicated her willingness to be separated. Yet, the law does not order the dismissal. Allowing the proceeding to continue, it takes precautions against collusion, which implies more than consent or lack of opposition to the agreement.Needless to say, when the court is informed that defendant equally desires the separation and admitted the commission of the offense, it should be doubly careful lest a collusion exists. (The Court of Appeals did not find collusion.)Collusion in divorce or legal separation means the agreement.

. . . between husband and wife for one of them to commit, or to appear to commit, or to be represented in court as having committed, a matrimonial offense, or to suppress evidence of a valid defense, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. This agreement, if not express,

7

may be implied from the acts of the parties. It is a ground for denying the divorce. (Griffiths vs. Griffiths, 69 N. J. Eq. 689 60 Atl. 1099; Sandoz vs. Sandoz, 107 Ore. 282, 214 Pas. 590.).

In this case, there would be collusion if the parties had arranged to make it appear that a matrimonial offense had been committed although it was not, or if the parties had connived to bring about a legal separation even in the absence of grounds therefor.Here, the offense of adultery had really taking place, according to the evidence. The defendant could not have falsely told the adulterous acts to the Fiscal, because her story might send her to jail the moment her husband requests the Fiscal to prosecute. She could not have practiced deception at such a personal risk.In this connection, it has been held that collusion may not be inferred from the mere fact that the guilty party confesses to the offense and thus enables the other party to procure evidence necessary to prove it. (Williams vs. Williams, [N. Y.] 40 N. E. (2d) 1017; Rosenweig vs. Rosenweig, 246 N. Y. Suppl. 231; Conyers, vs. Conyers, 224 S. W. [2d] 688.).And proof that the defendant desires the divorce and makes no defense, is not by itself collusion. (Pohlman vs. Pohlman, [N. J.] 46 Atl. Rep. 658.).We do not think plaintiff's failure actively to search for defendant and take her home (after the latter had left him in 1952) constituted condonation or consent to her adulterous relations with Orzame. It will be remembered that she "left" him after having sinned with Arcalas and after he had discovered her dates with other men. Consequently, it was not his duty to search for her to bring her home. Hers was the obligation to return.Two decisions3 are cited wherein from apparently similar circumstances, this Court inferred the husband's consent to or condonation of his wife's misconduct. However, upon careful examination, a vital difference will be found: in both instances, the husband had abandoned his wife; here it was the wife who "left" her husband.Wherefore, finding no obstacles to the aggrieved husband's petition we hereby reverse the appealed decision and decree a legal separation between these spouse, all the consequent effects. Costs of all instances against Serafina Florenciano. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-10699           October 18, 1957WILLIAM H. BROWN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JUANITA YAMBAO, defendant-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:On July 14, 1955, William H. Brown filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila to obtain legal separation from his lawful wife Juanita Yambao. He alleged under oath that while interned by the Japanese invaders, from 1942 to 1945, at the University of Sto. Tomas internment camp, his wife engaged in adulterous relations with one Carlos Field of whom she begot a baby girl that Brown learned of his wifes misconduct only in 1945, upon his release from internment; that thereafter the spouse lived separately and later executed a document (Annex A ) liquidating their conjugal partnership and assigning certain properties to the erring wife as her share. The complaint prayed for confirmation of the liquidation agreement; for custody of the children issued of the marriage; that the defendant be declared disqualified to succeed the plaintiff; and for their remedy as might be just and equitable.Upon petition of the plaintiff, the court subsequently declared the wife in default, for failure to answer in due time, despite service of summons; and directed the City Fiscal or his representatives to—

investigate, in accordance with Article 101 of the Civil Code, whether or not a collusion exists between the parties and to report to this Court the result of his investigation within fifteen (15) days from receipt of copy of this order. The City Fiscal or his representative is also directed to intervene in the case in behalf of the State. (Rec. App. p. 9).

As ordered, Assistant City Fiscal Rafael Jose appeared at the trial, and cross-examined plaintiff Brown. His questions (strenuously objected to by Brown's counsel) elicited the fact that after liberation, Brown had lived maritally with another woman and had begotten children by her. Thereafter, the court rendered judgment denying the legal separation asked, on the ground that, while the wife's adultery was established, Brown had incurred in a misconduct of similar nature that barred his right of action under Article 100 of the new Civil Code, providing:

ART. 100. The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation or of consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.

that there had been consent and connivance, and because Brown's action had prescribed under Article 102 of the same Code:

ART. 102 An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after date when such cause occurred.

since the evidence showed that the learned of his wife's infidelity in 1945 but only filed action in 1945.Brown appeared to this Court, assigning the following errors:

The court erred in permitting the Assistant Fiscal Rafel Jose of Manila to act as counsel for the defendant, who defaulted.The court erred in declaring that there was condonation of or consent to the adultery.The court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

Appellant Brown argues that in cross-examining him with regard to his marital relation with Lilia Deito, who was not his wife, the Assistant Fiscal acted as consel for the defaulting wife, "when the power of the prosecuting officer is limited to finding out whether or not there is collusion, and if there is no collusion, which is the fact in the case at bar, to intervene for the state which is not the fact in the instant case, the truth of the matter being that he intervened for Juanita Yambao, the defendant-appellee, who is private citizen and who is far from being the state.".The argument is untenable. Collusion in matrimonial cases being "the act of married persons in procuring a divorce by mutual consent, whether by preconcerted commission by one of a matrimonial offense, or by failure, in pursuance of agreement to defend divorce proceedings" (Cyclopedia Law Dictionary; Nelson, Divorce and Separation, Section 500), it was legitimate for the Fiscal to bring to light any circumstances that could give rise to the inference that the wife's default was calculated, or agreed upon, to enable appellant to obtain the decree of legal separation that he sought without regard to the legal merits of his case. One such circumstance is obviously the fact of Brown's cohabitation with a woman other than his wife, since it bars him from claiming legal separation by express provision of Article 100 of the new Civil Code. Wherefore, such evidence of such misconduct, were proper subject of inquiry as they may justifiably be considered circumstantial evidence of collusion between the spouses.The policy of Article 101 of the new Civil Code, calling for the intervention of the state attorneys in case of uncontested proceedings for legal separation (and of annulment of marriages, under Article 88), is to emphasize that marriage is more than a mere contract; that it is a social institution in which the state is vitally interested, so that its continuation or interruption cannot be made depend upon the parties themselves (Civil Code, Article 52; Adong vs, Cheong Gee, 43 Phil, 43; Ramirez vs. Gmur 42 Phil. 855; Goitia vs. Campos, 35 Phil. 252). It is consonant with this policy that the injury by the Fiscal should be allowed to focus upon any relevant matter that may indicate whether the proceedings for separation or annulment are fully justified or not.The court below also found, and correctly held that the appellant's action was already barred, because Brown did not petition for legal separation proceedings until ten years after he learned of his wife's adultery, which was upon his release from internment in 1945. Under

8

Article 102 of the new Civil Code, action for legal separation can not be filed except within one (1) year from and after the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when such cause occurred. Appellant's brief does not even contest the correctness of such findings and conclusion.It is true that the wife has not interposed prescription as a defense. Nevertheless, the courts can take cognizance thereof, because actions seeking a decree of legal separation, or annulment of marriage, involve public interest and it is the policy of our law that no such decree be issued if any legal obstacles thereto appear upon the record.Hence, there being at least two well established statutory grounds for denying the remedy sought (commission of similar offense by petitioner and prescription of the action), it becomes unnecesary to delve further into the case and ascertain if Brown's inaction for ten years also evidences condonation or connivance on his part. Even if it did not, his situation would not be improved. It is thus needless to discuss the second assignment of error.The third assignment of error being a mere consequence of the others must necessarily fail with them.The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-10033        December 28, 1956BENJAMIN BUGAYONG, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LEONILA GINEZ, defendant-appellee. FELIX, J.:This is a case for legal separation filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan wherein on motion of the defendant, the case was dismissed. The order of dismissal was appealed to the Court of Appeals, but said Tribunal certified the case to the Court on the ground that there is absolutely no question of fact involved, the motion being predicated on the assumption as true of the very facts testified to by plaintiff-husband.The facts of the case abridgedly stated are as follows: Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the United States Navy, was married to defendant Leonila Ginez on August 27, 1949, at Asingan, Pangasinan, while on furlough leave. Immediately after their marriage, the couple lived with their sisters who later moved to Sampaloc, Manila. After some time, or about July, 1951, Leonila Ginez left the dwelling of her sister-in-law and informed her husband by letter that she had gone to reside with her mother in Asingan, Pangasinan, from which place she later moved to Dagupan City to study in a local college there.As early as July, 1951, Benjamin Bugayong began receiving letters from Valeriana Polangco (plaintiff's sister-in-law) and some from anonymous writers(which were not produced at the hearing) informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife which he did not even care to mention. On cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that his wife also informed him by letter, which she claims to have destroyed, that a certain "Eliong" kissed her. All these communications prompted him in October, 1951 to seek the advice of the Navy Chaplain as to the propriety of a legal separation between him and his wife on account of the latter's alleged acts of infidelity, and he was directed to consult instead the navy legal department.In August, 1952, plaintiff went to Asingan, Pangasinan, and sought for his wife whom he met in the house of one Mrs. Malalang, defendant's godmother. She came along with him and both proceeded to the house of Pedro Bugayong, a cousin of the plaintiff-husband, where they stayed and lived for 2 nights and 1 day as husband and wife. Then they repaired to the plaintiff's house and again passed the night therein as husband and wife. On the second day, Benjamin Bugayong tried to verify from his wife the truth of the information he received that she had committed adultery but Leonila, instead of answering his query, merely packed up and left, which he took as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity imputed on her. After that and despite such belief, plaintiff exerted efforts to locate her and failing to find her, he went to Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, "to soothe his wounded feelings".

On November 18, 1952, Benjamin Bugayong filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a complaint for legal separation against his wife, Leonila Ginez, who timely filed an answer vehemently denying the averments of the complaint and setting up affirmative defenses. After the issues were joined and convinced that a reconciliation was not possible, the court set the case for hearing on June 9, 1953. Plaintiff's counsel announced that he was to present 6 witnesses but after plaintiff-husband finished testifying in his favor, counsel for the defendant orally moved for the dismissal of the complaint, but the Court ordered him to file a written motion to that effect and gave plaintiff 10 days to answer the same.The motion to dismiss was predicted on the following grounds: (1) Assuming arguendo the truth of the allegations of the commission of "acts of rank infidelity amounting to adultery", the cause of action, if any, is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) That under the same assumption, the act charged have been condoned by the plaintiff-husband; and (3) That the complaint failed to state a cause of action sufficient for this court to render a valid judgment.The motion to dismiss was answered by plaintiff and the Court, considering only the second ground of the motion to dismiss i. e., condonation, ordered the dismissal of the action. After the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff was denied, the case was taken up for review to the Court of Appeals, appellant's counsel maintaining that the lower court erred:

(a) In so prematurely dismissing the case;(b) In finding that there were condonation on the part of plaintiff-appellant; and(c) In entertaining condonation as a ground for dismissal inasmuch as same was not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss.

As the questions raised in the brief were merely questions of law, the Court of Appeals certified the case to Superiority.The Civil Code provides:

ART. 97. A petition for legal separation may be filed:(1) For adultery on the part of the wife and for concubinage for the part of the husband as defined on the Penal Code; or(2) An attempt by one spouse against the life of the other.ART. 100. The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.ART. 102. An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when such cause occurred.

As the only reason of the lower Court for dismissing the action was the alleged condonation of the charges of adultery that the plaintiff-husband had preferred in the complaint against his wife, We will disregard the other 2 grounds of the motion to dismiss, as anyway they have not been raised in appellant's assignment of errors.Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation or, as stated in I Bouver's Law Dictionary, p. 585, condonation is the "conditional forgiveness or remission, by a husband or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has committed". It is to be noted, however, that in defendant's answer she vehemently and vigorously denies having committed any act of infidelity against her husband, and even if We were to give full weight to the testimony of the plaintiff, who was the only one that had the chance of testifying in Court and link such evidence with the averments of the complaint, We would have to conclude that the facts appearing on the record are far from sufficient to establish the charge of adultery, or, as the complaint states, of "acts of rank infidelity amounting to adultery" preferred against the defendant. Certainly, the letter that plaintiff claims to have received from his sister-in-law Valeriana Polangco, which must have been too vague and indefinite as to defendant's infidelity to deserve its production in evidence; nor the anonymous letters which plaintiff also failed to present; nor the

9

alleged letter that, according to plaintiff, his wife addressed to him admitting that she had been kissed by one Eliong, whose identity was not established and which admission defendant had no opportunity to deny because the motion to dismiss was filed soon after plaintiff finished his testimony in Court, do not amount to anything that can be relied upon.But this is not a question at issue. In this appeal, We have to consider plaintiff's line of conduct under the assumption that he really believed his wife guilty of adultery. What did he do in such state of mind. In August, 1952, he went to Pangasinan and looked for his wife and after finding her they lived together as husband and wife for 2 nights and 1 day, after which he says that he tried to verify from her the truth of the news he had about her infidelity, but failed to attain his purpose because his wife, instead of answering his query on the matter, preferred to desert him, probably enraged for being subjected to such humiliation. And yet he tried to locate her, though in vain. Now, do the husband's attitude of sleeping with his wife for 2 nights despite his alleged belief that she was unfaithful to him, amount to a condonation of her previous and supposed adulterous acts? In the order appealed from, the Court a quo had the following to say on this point:

In the hearing of the case, the plaintiff further testified as follows:Q. Now Mr. Bugayong, you have filed this action for legal separation from your wife. Please tell this Hon. Court why you want to separate from your wife? — A. I came to know that my wife is committing adultery, I consulted the chaplain and he told me to consult the legal adviser. (p. 11, t.s.n.)Q. Did you finally locate her?--A. Four days later or on the fifth day since my arrival she went to the house of our god-mother, and as a husband I went to her to come along with me in our house but she refused. (p. 12, t.s.n.)lawphil.netQ. What happened next? — A. I persuaded her to come along with me. She consented but I did not bring her home but brought her to the house of my cousin Pedro Bugayong. (p. 12, t.s.n.)Q. How long did you remain in the house of your cousin Pedro Bugayong? — A. One day and one night. (p. 12. t.s.n.)Q. That night when you stayed in the house of your cousin Pedro Bugayong as husband and wife, did you slept together? — A. Yes, sir. (p. 19, t.s.n.)Q. On the next night, when you slept in your own house, did you sleep together also as husband and wife? — A. Yes, sir. (p. 19. t.s.n.)Q. When was that? — A. That was in August, 1952. (p. 19 t.s.n.)Q. How many nights did you sleep together as husband and wife? — A. Only two nights. (p. 19, t.s.n.)The New Civil Code of the Philippines, in its Art. 97, says:A petition for legal separation may be filed:(1) For adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband as defined on the Penal Code.and in its Art. 100 it says:lawphil.netThe legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition.A detailed examination of the testimony of the plaintiff-husband, especially those portions quoted above, clearly shows that there was a condonation on the part of the husband for the supposed "acts of rank infidelity amounting to adultery" committed by defendant-wife. Admitting for the sake of argument that the infidelities amounting to adultery were committed by the defendant, a reconciliation was effected between her and the plaintiff. The act of the

latter in persuading her to come along with him, and the fact that she went with him and consented to be brought to the house of his cousin Pedro Bugayong and together they slept there as husband and wife for one day and one night, and the further fact that in the second night they again slept together in their house likewise as husband and wife — all these facts have no other meaning in the opinion of this court than that a reconciliation between them was effected and that there was a condonation of the wife by the husband. The reconciliation occurred almost ten months after he came to know of the acts of infidelity amounting to adultery.In Shackleton vs. Shackleton, 48 N. J. Eq. 364; 21 Atl. 935, it has been held that "condonation is implied from sexual intercourse after knowledge of the other infidelity. such acts necessary implied forgiveness. It is entirely consonant with reason and justice that if the wife freely consents to sexual intercourse after she has full knowledge of the husband's guilt, her consent should operate as a pardon of his wrong."In Tiffany's Domestic and Family Relations, section 107 says:

Condonation. Is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for divorce and bars the right to a divorce. But it is on the condition, implied by the law when not express, that the wrongdoer shall not again commit the offense; and also that he shall thereafter treat the other spouse with conjugal kindness. A breach of the condition will revive the original offense as a ground for divorce. Condonation may be express or implied.

It has been held in a long line of decisions of the various supreme courts of the different states of the U. S. that 'a single voluntary act of sexual intercourse by the innocent spouse after discovery of the offense is ordinarily sufficient to constitute condonation, especially as against the husband'. (27 Corpus Juris Secundum, section 61 and cases cited therein).In the lights of the facts testified to by the plaintiff-husband, of the legal provisions above quoted, and of the various decisions above-cited, the inevitable conclusion is that the present action is untenable.

Although no acts of infidelity might have been committed by the wife, We agree with the trial judge that the conduct of the plaintiff-husband above narrated despite his belief that his wife was unfaithful, deprives him, as alleged the offended spouse, of any action for legal separation against the offending wife, because his said conduct comes within the restriction of Article 100 of the Civil Code.The only general rule in American jurisprudence is that any cohabitation with the guilty party, after the commission of the offense, and with the knowledge or belief on the part of the injured party of its commission, will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation; but this presumption may be rebutted by evidence (60 L. J. Prob. 73).If there had been cohabitation, to what extent must it be to constitute condonation?

Single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation, and where the parties live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation (27 C. J. S., section 6-d).A divorce suit will not be granted for adultery where the parties continue to live together after it was known (Land vs. Martin, 15 South 657; Day vs. Day, 80 Pac. 974) or there is sexual intercourse after knowledge of adultery (Rogers vs. Rogers, 67 N. J. Eq. 534) or sleeping together for a single night (Toulson vs. Toulson, 50 Atl. 401, citing Phinizy vs. Phinizy, 114 S. E. 185, 154 Ga. 199; Collins vs.

10

Collins, 193 So. 702), and many others. The resumption of marital cohabitation as a basis of condonation will generally be inferred, nothing appearing to the contrary, from the fact of the living together as husband and wife, especially as against the husband (Marsh vs. Marsh, 14 N. J. Eq. 315).

There is no ruling on this matter in our jurisprudence but we have no reason to depart from the doctrines laid down in the decisions of the various supreme courts of the United States above quoted.There is no merit in the contention of appellant that the lower court erred in entertaining condonation as a ground for dismissal inasmuch as same was not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss, because in the second ground of the motion to dismiss. It is true that it was filed after the answer and after the hearing had been commenced, yet that motion serves to supplement the averments of defendant's answer and to adjust the issues to the testimony of plaintiff himself (section 4, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court).Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. L-11766            October 25, 1960SOCORRO MATUBIS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ZOILO PRAXEDES, defendant-appellee.

PAREDES, J.:Alleging abandonment and concubinage, plaintiff Socorro Matubis, filed with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, on April 24, 1956, a complaint for legal Separation and changed of surname against her husband defendant Zoilo Praxedes.The allegations of the complaint were denied by defendant spouse, who interposed the defense that it was plaintiff who left the conjugal home.During the trial, wherein the plaintiff alone introduced oral as well as documentary evidence, the following facts were established:.Plaintiff and defendant were legally married on January 10, 1943 at Iriga, Camarines Sur. For failure to agree on how they should live as husband and wife, the couple, on May 30, 1944, agreed to live separately from each other, which status remained unchanged until the present. On April 3, 1948, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement (Exhibit B), the significant portions of which are hereunder reproduced..

. . . (a) That both of us relinquish our right over the other as legal husband and wife.(b) That both without any interference by any of us, nor either of us can prosecute the other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or suit arising from our separation.(c) That I, the, wife, is no longer entitled for any support from my husband or any benefits he may received thereafter, nor I the husband is not entitled for anything from my wife.(d) That neither of us can claim anything from the other from the time we verbally separated, that is from May 30, 1944 to the present when we made our verbal separation into writing.

In January, 1955, defendant began cohabiting with one Asuncion Rebulado and on September 1, 1955, said Asuncion gave birth to a child who was recorded as the child of said defendant (Exh. C.).It was shown also that defendant and Asuncion deported themselves as husband and wife and were generally reputed as such in the community.After the trial, without the defendant adducing any evidence, the court a quo rendered judgment holding that the acts of defendant constituted concubinage, a ground for legal separation. It however, dismissed the complaint by stating:

While this legal ground exist, the suit must be dismissed for two reasons, viz:Under Art. 102 of the new Civil Code, an action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and

after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when the cause occurred. The plaintiff became aware of the illegal cohabitation of her husband with Asuncion Rebulado in January, 1955. The complaint was filed on April 24, 1956. The present action was, therefore, filed out of time and for that reason action is barred.Article 100 of the new Civil Code provides that the legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. As shown in Exhibit B, the plaintiff has consented to the commission of concubinage by her husband. Her consent is clear from the following stipulations:

(b) That both of us is free to get any mate and live with as husband and wife without any interference by any of us, nor either of us can prosecute the other for adultery or concubinage or any other crime or suit arising from our separation. (Exh. B).

This stipulation is an unbridled license she gave her husband to commit concubinage. Having consented to the concubinage, the plaintiff cannot claim legal separation.

The above decision is now before us for review, plaintiff- appellant claiming that it was error for the lower court to have considered that the period to bring the action has already elapsed and that there was consent on the part of the plaintiff to the concubinage. The proposition, therefore, calls for the interpretation of the provisions of the law upon which the lower court based its judgment of dismissal.Article 102 of the new Civil Code provides:

An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from after the date when cause occurred.

The complaint was filed outside the periods provided for by the above Article. By the very admission of plaintiff, she came to know the ground (concubinage) for the legal separation in January, 1955. She instituted the complaint only on April 24, 1956. It is to be noted that appellant did not even press this matter in her brief.The very wording of the agreement Exhibit B. gives no room for interpretation other than that given by the trial judge. Counsel in his brief submits that the agreement is divided in two parts. The first part having to do with the act of living separately which he claims to be legal, and the second part — that which becomes a license to commit the ground for legal separation which is admittedly illegal. We do not share appellant's view. Condonation and consent on the part of plaintiff are necessarily the import of paragraph 6(b) of the agreement. The condonation and consent here are not only implied but expressed. The law (Art. 100 Civil Code), specifically provides that legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Having condoned and/or consented in writing, the plaintiff is now undeserving of the court's sympathy (People vs. Scheneckenburger, 73 Phil., 413). Plaintiff's counsel even agrees that the complaint should be dismissed. He claims however, that the grounds for the dismissal should not be those stated in the decision of the lower court, "but on the ground that plaintiff and defendant have already been legally separated from each other, but without the marital bond having been affected, long before the effectivity of the new Civil Code" (appellants brief, pp. 7-8). Again, we cannot subscribed to counsel's contention, because it is contrary to the evidence.Conformably with the foregoing, we find that the decision appealed from is in accordance with the evidence and the law on the matter. The same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

G.R. No. L-34132 July 29, 1972LUCY SOMOSA-RAMOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., Presiding Judge of the Court of

11

First Instance of Negros Oriental and CLEMEN G. RAMOS, respondents. FERNANDO, J.:pThe question raised in this petition for certiorari is whether or not Article 103 of the Civil Code prohibiting the hearing of an action for legal separation before the lapse of six months from the filing of the petition, would likewise preclude the court from acting on a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction applied for as an ancillary remedy to such a suit. Respondent Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, answered the question in the affirmative, in view of the absolute tenor of such Civil Code provision, which reads thus: "An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition." He therefore ordered the suspension, upon the plea of the other respondent the husband Clemente G. Ramos, of the hearing on a motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction filed by petitioner at the same time the suit for legal separation was instituted. Petitioner, Lucy Somosa-Ramos, the wife who brought the action for legal separation would dispute such a ruling. Hence, this certiorari proceeding. As will be shown later there is justification for such a move on the part of petitioner. The respondent Judge ought to have acted differently. The plea for a writ of certiorari must be granted.The pleadings show that on June 18, 1971, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 5274 in the sala of respondent Judge against respondent Clemente Ramos for legal separation, on concubinage on the respondent's part and an attempt by him against her life being alleged. She likewise sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return to her of what she claimed to be her paraphernal and exclusive property, then under the administration and management of respondent Clemente Ramos. There was an opposition to the hearing of such a motion, dated July 3, 1971, based on Article 103 of the Civil Code. It was further manifested by him in a pleading dated July 16, 1971, that if the motion asking for preliminary mandatory injunction were heard, the prospect of the reconciliation of the spouses would become even more dim. Respondent Judge ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda on the matter. Then on September 3, 1971, petitioner received an order dated August 4, 1971 of respondent Judge granting the motion of respondent Ramos to suspend the hearing of the petition for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction. That is the order complained of in this petition for certiorari. Respondents were required to answer according to our resolution of October 5, 1971. The answer was filed December 2 of that year. Then on January 12, 1972 came a manifestation from parties in the case submitting the matter without further arguments.After a careful consideration of the legal question presented, it is the holding of this Court that Article 103 the Civil Code is not an absolute bar to the hearing motion for preliminary injunction prior to the expiration of the six-month period.1. It is understandable why there should be a period during which the court is precluded from acting. Ordinarily of course, no such delay is permissible. Justice to parties would not thereby be served. The sooner the dispute is resolved, the better for all concerned. A suit for legal separation, however, is something else again. It involves a relationship on which the law for the best reasons would attach the quality of permanence. That there are times when domestic felicity is much less than it ought to be is not of course to be denied. Grievances, whether fancied or real, may be entertained by one or both of the spouses. There may be constant bickering. The loss affection on the part of one or both may be discernible. Nonetheless, it will not serve public interest, much less the welfare of the husband or the wife, to allow them to go their respective ways. Where there are offspring, the reason for maintaining the conjugal union is even more imperative. It is a mark of realism of the law that for certain cases, adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband, or an attempt of one spouse against the life of the other,

1 it recognizes, albeit reluctantly, that the couple is better off apart. A suit for legal separation lies. Even then, the hope that the parties may

settle their differences is not all together abandoned. The healing balm of time may aid in the process. Hopefully, the guilty parties may mend his or her ways, and the offended party may in turn exhibit magnanimity. Hence, the interposition of a six-month period before an action for legal separation is to be tried.The court where the action is pending according to Article 103 is to remain passive. It must let the parties alone in the meanwhile. It is precluded from hearing the suit. There is then some plausibility for the view of the lower court that an ancillary motion such as one for preliminary mandatory injunction is not to be acted on. If it were otherwise, there would be a failure to abide by the literal language of such codal provision. That the law, however, remains cognizant of the need in certain cases for judicial power to assert itself is discernible from what is set forth in the following article. It reads thus: "After the filing of the petition for legal separation, the spouse shall be entitled to live separately from each other and manage their respective property. The husband shall continue to manage the conjugal partnership property but if the court deems it proper, it may appoint another to manage said property, in which case the administrator shall have the same rights and duties as a guardian and shall not be allowed to dispose of the income or of the capital except in accordance with the orders of the court." 2 There would appear to be then a recognition that the question of management of their respective property need not be left unresolved even during such six-month period. An administrator may even be appointed for the management of the property of the conjugal partnership. The absolute limitation from which the court suffers under the preceding article is thereby eased. The parties may in the meanwhile be heard. There is justification then for the petitioner's insistence that her motion for preliminary mandatory injunction should not be ignored by the lower court. There is all the more reason for this response from respondent Judge, considering that the husband whom she accused of concubinage and an attempt against her life would in the meanwhile continue in the management of what she claimed to be her paraphernal property, an assertion that was not specifically denied by him. What was held by this Court in Araneta v. Concepcion, 3 thus possesses relevance: "It is conceded that the period of six months fixed therein Article 103 (Civil Code) is evidently intended as a cooling off period to make possible a reconciliation between the spouses. The recital of their grievances against each other in court may only fan their already inflamed passions against one another, and the lawmaker has imposed the period to give them opportunity for dispassionate reflection. But this practical expedient, necessary to carry out legislative policy, does not have the effect of overriding other provisions such as the determination of the custody of the children and alimony and support pendente lite according to the circumstance ... The law expressly enjoins that these should be determined by the court according to the circumstances. If these are ignored or the courts close their eyes to actual facts, rank injustice may be caused." 4 At any rate, from the time of the issuance of the order complained of on August 4, 1971, more than six months certainly had elapsed. Thus there can be no more impediment for the lower court acting on the motion of petitioner for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.WHEREFORE, the plea of petitioner for a writ of certiorari is granted, and the order of respondent Court of August 4, 1971, suspending the hearing on the petition for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is set aside. Respondent Judge is directed to proceed without delay to hear the motion for preliminary mandatory injunction. Costs against respondent Clemente G. Ramos.

G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970ELENA CONTRERAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CESAR J. MACARAIG, defendant-appellee. DIZON, J.:Appeal taken by Elena Contreras from a decision of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 00138 dismissing her complaint upon the ground that the same was filed

12

more than one year from and after the date on which she had become cognizant of the cause for legal separation.The following, facts found by the trial court are not in dispute:

Plaintiff and defendant were married on March 16, 1952 in the Catholic Church of Quiapo, Manila. Out of their Marriage, three children were born: Eusebio C. Macaraig, on January 11, 1953; Victoria C. Macaraig, on March 26, 1956; and Alexander C. Macaraig, on August 4, 1958. All the children are in the care of plaintiff wife.Sometime in 1958, the couple acquired rights, as lessee and purchaser under a conditional sale agreement, to own a house and lot, known as Lot 4, Block 8 of the Philamlife Homes in Quezon City which they transferred in favor of their three children on October 29, 1958 (Exh. F). Installment payments are being made by plaintiff's father. The spouses own no other conjugal property.Immediately before the election of 1961, defendant was employed as manager of the printing establishment owned by plaintiff's father known as the MICO Offset. In that capacity, defendant met and came to know Lily Ann Alcala, who place orders with MICO Offset for propaganda materials for Mr. Sergio Osmeña, who was then a Vice-Presidential candidate. After the elections of 1961, defendant resigned from MICO Offset to be a special agent at Malacañang. He began to be away so often and to come home very late. Upon plaintiff's inquiry, defendant explained that he was out on a series of confidential missions.In September, 1962, Avelino Lubos, driver of the family car, told plaintiff that defendant was living in Singalong with Lily Ann Alcala. When defendant, the following October, returned to the conjugal home, plaintiff refrained from verifying Lubos' report from defendant in her desire not to anger nor drive defendant away. Although plaintiff, in April 1963, also received rumors that defendant was seen with a woman who was on the family way on Dasmariñas St., she was so happy that defendant again return to the family home in May, 1963 that she once more desisted from discussing the matter with him because she did not wish to precipitate a quarrel and drive him away. All this while, defendant, if and whenever he returned to the family fold, would only stay for two or three days but would be gone for a period of about a month.After plaintiff received reports that Lily Ann Alcala had given birth to a baby, she sent Mrs. Felicisima Antioquia, her father's employee, to verify the reports. The latter was driven by Lubos to the house in Singalong and between 5:00 and 6:00 o'clock that afternoon, she saw defendant was carrying a baby in his arms. Mrs. Antioquia then went to the parish priest of Singalong where she inquired about the child of Cesar Macaraig and Lily Ann Alcala and she was given a copy of the baptismal certificate of Maria Vivien Mageline Macaraig (Exh. G) which she gave to plaintiff sometime in October, 1963.Plaintiff then entreated her father-in-law, Lucilo Macaraig, to intercede with defendant and to convince him to return to his family. Mr. Macaraig, after talking to his son and seeking

him with the latter's child told plaintiff that he could not do anything.In November, 1963, plaintiff requested the cooperation of defendant's older sister, Mrs. Enriqueta Majul, and the latter obliged and arranged a meeting at her home in Buendia between plaintiff and Lily Ann Alcala. Lily Ann said she was willing to give up defendant as she had no desire to be accused criminally but it was defendant who refused to break relationship with her.In the early part of December, 1963, plaintiff, accompanied by her two children, Victoria and Alexander, and by Mrs. Leticia Lagronio went to talk to defendant at his place of work on España Extension in front of Quezon Institute. They repaired to Victoria Peak, a nearby restaurant, where plaintiff pleaded with defendant to give up Lily Ann Alcala and to return to the conjugal home, assuring him that she was willing to forgive him. Defendant informed plaintiff that he could no longer leave Lily Ann and refused to return to his legitimate family.On December 14, 1963, plaintiff instituted the present action for legal separation. When defendant did not interpose any answer after he was served summons, the case was referred to the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila pursuant to the provisions of Article 101 of the Civil Code. After a report was received from Asst. Fiscal Primitivo M. Peñaranda that he believed that there was no collusion present, plaintiff was allowed to present her evidence. Defendant has never appeared in this case.

The reasons relied upon by the trial court in dismissing the complaint are set forth in the appealed decision as follows:

Under the facts established by plaintiff's evidence, although the infidelity of the husband is apparent, yet the case will have to be dismissed. Article 102 provides that, an action for legal separation cannot be instituted except within one year after plaintiff "became cognizant of the cause." In the absence of a clear-cut decision of the Supreme Court as to the exact import of the term "cognizant," the practical application of said Article can be attended with difficulty. For one thing; that rules might be different in case of adultery, which is an act, and for concubinage, which may be a situation or a relationship.In respect of concubinage, the word 'cognizant' may not connote the date when proof thereof sufficient to establish the cause before a court of law is possessed. Otherwise, the one year period would be meaningless for practical purposes because all a wife would have to do would be to claim that the necessary proof was secured only within one year before the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, it should be hard to concede that what the law envisages (and, in a way, encourages) is the filing of a complaint within one year after the innocent spouses has received information of the other's infidelity, howsoever baseless the report might be.The Court believes that the correct rule lies between the two extremes. At the time a wife acquired information, which can be reasonably relied upon as true, that her husband is living in concubinage with another woman, the one-year period should be deemed to have started even if

13

the wife shall not then be in possession of proof sufficient to establish the concubinage before a court of law. The one-year period may be viewed, inter alia, as an alloted time within which proof should be secured. It is in the light of this rule that the Court will determine whether or not plaintiff's action for legal separation has prescribed.After her husband resigned from MICO Offset to be a special agent in Malacañan, subsequent to the elections of 1961, he would seldom come home. He allayed plaintiff's suspicions with the explanation that he had been away on 'confidential missions.' However, in September, 1962, Avelino Lubos, plaintiff's driver, reported to plaintiff that defendant was living in Singalong with Lily Ann Alcala. As a matter of fact, it was also Lubos who brought Mrs. F. Antioquia (when plaintiff had asked to verify the reports) to the house in Singalong where she saw defendant, Lily Ann and the baby.The requirement of the law that a complaint for legal separation be filed within one year after the date plaintiff become cognizant of the cause is not of prescriptive nature, but is of the essence of the cause of action. It is consonant with the philosophy that marriage is an inviolable social institution so that the law provides strict requirements before it will allow a disruption of its status.In the instant action, the Court has to find that plaintiff became cognizant of defendant's infidelity in September, 1962. Plaintiff made successive attempts to induce the husband to amend his erring ways but failed. Her desire to bring defendant back to the connubial fold and to preserve family solidarity deterred her from taking timely legal action.

The only question to be resolved is whether the period of one year provided for in Article 102 of the Civil Code should be counted, as far as the instant case is concerned from September 1962 or from December 1963. Computing the period of one year from the former date, it is clear that plaintiff's complaint filed on December 14, 1963 came a little too late, while the reverse would be true if said period is deemed to have commenced only in the month of December 1963.The period of "five years from after the date when such cause occurred" is not here involved.Upon the undisputed facts it seems clear that, in the month of September 1962, whatever knowledge appellant had acquired regarding the infidelity of her husband, that is, of the fact that he was then living in Singalong with Lily Ann Alcala, was only through the information given to her by Avelino Lubos, driver of the family car. Much as such hearsay information had pained and anguished her, she apparently thought it best — and no reasonable person may justifiably blame her for it — not to go deeper into the matter herself because in all probability even up to that time, notwithstanding her husband's obvious neglect of his entire family, appellant still cherished the hope — however forlorn — of his coming back home to them. Indeed, when her husband returned to the conjugal home the following October, she purposely refrained from bringing up the matter of his marital infidelity "in her desire not to anger nor drive defendant away" — quoting the very words of the trial court. True, appellant likewise heard in April 1963 rumors that her husband was seen with a woman on the family way on Dasmariñas Street, but failed again to either bring up the matter with her husband or make attempts to verify the truth of said rumors, but this was due, as the lower court itself believed, because "she was so happy that defendant again returned to the family home in May 1963 that she once more desisted from discussing the matter with him because she did not

wish to precipitate a quarrel and drive him away." As a matter of fact, notwithstanding all these painful informations which would not have been legally sufficient to make a case for legal separation — appellant still made brave if desperate attempts to persuade her husband to come back home. In the words of the lower court, she "entreated her father-in-law, Lucilo Macaraig, to intercede with defendant and to convince him to return to his family" and also "requested the cooperation of defendant's older sister, Mrs. Enriqueta Majul" for the same purpose, but all that was of no avail. Her husband remained obdurate.After a careful review of the record, We are persuaded that, in the eyes of the law, the only time when appellant really became cognizant of the infidelity of her husband was in the early part of December 1963 when, quoting from the appealed decision, the following happened —

In the early part of December, 1963, plaintiff, accompanied by her two children, Victoria and Alexander, and by Mrs. Leticia Lagronio went to talk to defendant at his place of work on España Extension in front of Quezon Institute. They repaired to Victoria Peak, a nearby restaurant, where plaintiff pleaded with defendant to give up Lily Ann Alcala and to return to the conjugal home, assuring him that she was willing to forgive him. Defendant informed plaintiff that he could no longer leave Lily Ann and refused to return to his legitimate family.From all the foregoing We conclude that it was only on the occasion mentioned in the preceding paragraph when her husband admitted to her that he was living with and would no longer leave Lily Ann to return to his legitimate family that appellant must be deemed to be under obligation to decide whether to sue or not to sue for legal separation, and it was only then that the legal period of one year must be deemed to have commenced.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is set aside and another is hereby rendered holding that appellant is entitled to legal separation as prayed for in her complaint; and the case is hereby remanded to the lower court for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.G.R. No. L-13982             July 31, 1920DIEGO DE LA VIÑA, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO VILLAREAL, as Auxiliary Judge of First Instance, and NARCISA GEOPANO, respondents.

JOHNSON, J.:This is an original petition presented in the Supreme Court. Its purpose is to obtain an order declaring: (a) That the respondent, the Honorable Antonio Villareal, as Auxiliary Judge sitting in the Court of First Instance of the province of Iloilo, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a certain action for divorce instituted in said court by the respondent Narcisa Geopano against her husband, Diego de la Viña, the petitioner herein; (b) that the said respondent judge has exceeded his power and authority in issuing, in said action, a preliminary injunction against the said petitioner prohibiting him from alienating or encumbering any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the action; and (c) that all the proceedings theretofore had in said court were null and void. It appears from the record that on September 17, 1917, Narcisa Geopano filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo against Diego de la Viña, alleging: (1) That she was a resident of the municipality of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, and that the defendant was a resident of the municipality of Vallehermoso, Province of Oriental Negros; (2) that she was the legitimate wife of the defendant, having been married to him in the municipality of Guijulñgan, Province of Negros Oriental, in the year 1888; (3) that since their said marriage plaintiff and defendant had lived as husband and wife and had nine children, three of whom were

14

living and were already of age; (4) that during their marriage plaintiff and defendant had acquired property, real and personal, the value of which was about P300,000 and all of which was under the administration of the defendant; (5) that since the year 1913 and up to the date of the complaint, the defendant had been committing acts of adultery with one Ana Calog, sustaining illicit relations with her and having her as his concubine, with public scandal and in disgrace of the plaintiff; (6) that because of said illicit relations, the defendant ejected the plaintiff from the conjugal home, for which reason she was obliged to live in the city of Iloilo, where she had since established her habitual residence; and (7) that the plaintiff, scorned by her husband, the defendant, had no means of support and was living only at the expense of one of her daughters. Upon said allegations she prayed for (a) a decree of divorce, (b) the partition of the conjugal property, and (c) alimony pendente lite in the sum of P400 per month. Subsequent to the filing of the said complaint, Narcisa Geopano, the plaintiff therein, presented a motion, which was later amended, alleging, among other things, that since the filing of her complaint she had personal knowledge that the defendant was trying to alienate or encumber the property which belonged to the conjugal partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant, to the prejudice of the plaintiff, and prayed that a preliminary injunction be issued against the defendant restraining and prohibiting him in the premises. The defendant Diego de la Viña, petitioner herein, opposed the said motion for a preliminary injunction, and, subsequently, demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause, "nor over the person of the defendant." After hearing the respective parties the respondent judge, in to separate orders, dated November 1 and November 2, 1917, respectively, overruled the defendant's demurrer, and granted the preliminary injunction prayed for by the plaintiff. Thereafter and on April 27, 1918, the defendant, Diego de la Viña filed the present petition for certiorari in this court, upon the ground that the respondent judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action in question, and had exceeded his power and authority in issuing said preliminary injunction. The questions arising out of the foregoing facts are as follows: 1. May a married woman ever acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband during the existence of the marriage? 2. In an action for divorce, brought by the wife against her husband, in which the partition of the conjugal property is also prayed for, may the wife obtain a preliminary injunction against the husband restraining and prohibiting him from alienating or encumbering any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the action? I.The petitioner contends that the Court of First Instance of Iloilo had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said action for divorce because the defendant therein was a resident of the Province of Negros Oriental and the plaintiff, as the wife of the defendant, must also be considered a resident of the same province inasmuch as, under the law, the domicile of the husband is also the domicile of the wife; that the plaintiff could not acquire a residence in Iloilo before the arriage between her and the defendant was legally dissolved. This contention of the petitioner is not tenable. It is true, as a general of law, that the domicile of the wife follows that of her husband. This rule is founded upon the theoretic identity of person and of interest between the husband and the wife, and the presumption that, from the nature of the relation, the home of the one is that of the other. It is intended to promote, strenghten, and secure their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists, where union and harmony prevail. But the authorities are unanimous in holding that this is not an absolute rule. "Under modern laws it is clear that many exceptions to the rule that the domicile from of the wife is determined by that of her husband must obtain. Accordingly, the wife may acquire another and seperate domicile from that of her husband where the theorical unity of husband and wife is is dissolved, as it is by the institution of divorce proceedings; or where the husband has given cause for

divorce; or where there is a separation of the parties by agreement, or a permanent separation due to desertion of the wife by the husband or attributable to cruel treatment on the part of the husband; or where there has been a forfeiture by the wife of the benefit of the husband's domicile." (9 R. C. L., 545.)The case of Narcisa Geopano comes under one of the many exceptions above-mentioned, to wit: "Where the husband has given cause for divorce, the wife may acquire another and seperate domicile from that of her husband." In support of this proposition there is a formidable array of authorities. We shall content ourselves with illustrative quotations from a few of them, as follows:

Although the law fixes the domicile of the wife as being that of her husband, universal jurisprudence recognizes an exception to the rule in the case where the husband's conduct has been such as to furnish lawful ground for a divorce, which justifies her in leaving him, and, therefore, necessarily authorities her to live elsewhere and to acquire a separate domicile. Cheever vs. Wilson, 9 Wall. (U. S.), 108; Barber vs. Barber, 21 How. (U. S.), 582; 2 Bishop, Mar. and Div., 475; Schouler, Hus. and Wife, sec. 574; 5 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law, p. 756." (Smith vs. Smith, 43 La. Ann., 1140, 1146.) The matrimonial domicile of the wife is usually that of the husband, but if she is justified in leaving him because his conduct has been such as to entitle her to a divorce, and she thereupon does leave him and go into another state for the purpose of there permanently residing, she acquires a domicile in the latter state. (Atherton vs. Atherton, 155 N. Y., 129; 63 Am. St. Rep., 650.) The law will recognize a wife as having a separate existence, and separate interests, and separate rights, in those cases where the express object of all proceedings is to show that the relation itself ougth to be dissolved, or so modified as to establish separate interests, and especially a separate domicile and home, bed and board being put, apart for the whole, as expressive of the idea of home. Otherwise the parties, in this respect, would stand upon very unequal ground, it being in the power of the husband to change his domicile at will, but not in that of the wife. (Harteau vs. Harteau, 14 Pick. [Mass.], 181; 25 Am. Dec., 372, 375-376.)Under the pauper laws, and upon general principles, the wife is regarded as having the domicile of her husband; hut this results from his marital rights, and the duties of the wife. If the husband has forfeited those rights be misbehavior, and has left and deserted the wife, they may have different domiciles, in the view of the law regulating divorces. (Harding vs. Alden, 9 Greenl. [Me.], 140; 23 Am. Dec., 549, 552.)Though as a general principle of law the domicile of the husband is regarded as the domicile of the wife, according to the prevailing view a wife may acquire a residence or domicile separate from her husband so as to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of the state, in which her domicile or residence is established, to decree a divorce in her favor. (9 R. C. L. 400-401, citing various cases.) The law making the domicile of the husband that of the wife is applicable only to their relations with third parties, and has no application in cases of actual separation and controversy between themselves as to the temporary or permanent severance of the marriage ties by judicial proceedings. Vence vs. Vence, 15 How. Pr., 497; Schonwald vs. Schonwald, 55 N. C., 367; Cheever vs. Wilson, 76 U. S. (9 Wall.), 109; 19 L. ed., 605. (Notes, p. 498, 16 L. R. A.)

In the case of Schonwald vs. Schonwald (55 N. C., 343), the plaintiff tried to do what the petitioner in this case insists the respondent Narcisa Geopano should have done. In that case the wife filed a bill of divorce in a court in North Carolina, where her husband resided.

15

She herself had not resided in that state for three years previous to the filing of the suit, as required by the statute; but she claimed that the domicile of her husband was also her domicile and, inasmuch as her husband, the defendant, had been a resident of North Carolina for more than three years, she had also been a resident of that state during that time. The court dismissed the bill, holding that the legal maxim that "her domicile is that of her husband" would not avail in the stead of an actual residence. The court said:

It is true that for many purpose the domicile of the husband is the domicile of the wife, but it is not so for every purpose. The maxim that the domicile of the wife follows that of the husband cannot be applied to oust the court of its jurisdiction; neither, from party of reasons can it give jurisdiction. (P. 344.)

Turning to the Spanish authorities, we find that they agree with the American authorities in holding that the maxim or rule that the domicile of the wife follows that of the husband, is not an absolute one. Scaevola, commenting on article 40 of the Civil Code (which is the only legal provision or authority relied upon by the petitioner in this case), says:

Although article 64 of the Law of Civil Procedure provides that the domicile of a married woman, not legally separated from her husband, is that of the latter, yet, when the tacit consent of the husband and other circumstances justify it, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, the habitual residence of the woman should be considered as her domicile where her right may be exercised in accordance with article 63. (Scaevola, Civil Code, p. 354.)

Manresa, commenting upon the same article (art. 40) says: The domicile of married women not legally separated from their husband shall be that of the latter. This principle, maintained by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions, was modified in a particular case by the decision of June 17, 1887, and in conformity with this last decision, three others were afterwards rendered on October 13, 23, and 28, 1899, in all of which it is declared that when married women as well as children subject to parental authority live, with the acquiescence of their husbands or fathers, in a place distinct from where the latter live, they have their own independent domicile, which should be considered in determining jurisdiction in cases of provisional support guardianship of persons, etc. (1 Manresa, 233.)

If the wife can acquire a separate residence when her husband consents or acquiesces, we see no reason why the law will not allow her to do so when, as alleged in the present case, the husband unlawfully ejects her from the conjugal home in order that he may freely indulge in his illicit relations with another woman. Under no other circumstance could a wife be more justified in establishing a separate residence from that of her husband. For her to continue living with him, even if he had permitted it, would have been a condonation of his flagrant breach of fidelity and marital duty. Furthermore, in this case no longer was there an "identity of persons and of interest between the husband and the wife." Therefore the law allowed her to acquire a separate residence. For, "it would do violence to the plainest principle of common sense and common justice of to call this residence of the guilty husband, where the wife is forbidden to come, . . . the domicile of the wife." (Champon vs. Champon, 40 La. Ann., 28.) It is clear, therefore, that a married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband, during the existence of the marriage, where the husband has given cause for divorce.

II.We come now to the second question — whether or not the respondent judge exceeded his power in issuing the preliminary injunction complained of by the petitioner. Section 164 of Act No. 190 provides:

A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established, in the manner hereinafter provided, to the satisfaction of the judge granting it:

1. That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and such relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of either for a limited period or perpetually;2. That the commission or continuance of some act complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the plaintiff;3. That the defendant is doing, or threatens, on is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of the plaintiff's rights, respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

The petitioner quotes the foregoing section and argues that the respondent Narcisa Geopano was not entitled to have a preliminary injunction issued against her husband because contrary to the requirement of the first paragraph of said section, she was not entitled to the relief demanded, which consisted in restraining the power and authority which the law confers upon the husband; that under articles 1412 and 1413 of the Civil Code, the husband is the manager of the conjugal partnership and, as such, is empowered to alienate and encumber and conjugal property without the consent of the wife; that neither could the wife obtain a preliminary injunction under paragraph 3 of said section, upon the ground that the defendant was committing some acts in violation of the plaintiff's rights, because the plaintiff, as the wife of the defendant, had nor right to intervene in the administration of the conjugal property, and therefore no right of hers was violated. We cannot subscribe to that argument of counsel. The law making the husband the sole administrator of the property of the conjugal partnership is founded upon necessity and convenience as well as upon the presumption that, from the very nature of the relating between husband and wife, the former will promote and not injure the interests of the latter. So long as this harmonious relation, as contemplated by law, continues, the wife cannot and should not interfere with the husband in his judicious administration of the conjugal property. But when that relation ceases and, in a proper action, the wife seeks to dissolve the marriage and to partition the conjugal property, it is just and proper, in order to protect the interests of the wife, that the husband's power of administration be curtailed, during the pendency of the action, insofar as alienating or encumbering the conjugal property is concerned. In her motion for a preliminary injunction, Narcisa Geopano alleged that the defendant was about to alienate or encumber the property belonging to the conjugal partnerships, with the object of injuring her interests; and this allegation does not appear to have been controverted by the defendant either in this court or in the court below. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that under both paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 164 of Act No. 190, above quoted, the respondent judge was empowered and justified in granting the preliminary injunction prayed for by her. It cannot be doubted that, if the defendant should dispose of all or any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the action for divorce, and squander or fraudulently conceal the proceeds, that act "would probably work injustice to the plaintiff," or that it would probably be "in violation of the plaintiff's rights, respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual." In this case the plaintiff's rights sought to be protected by said paragraph 3 is not the right to administer the conjugal property, as counsel for the petitioner believes, but the right to share in the conjugal property upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership. The case under consideration, then, is covered or contemplated by the statute (sec. 164, Act No. 190), so that there can be no question, in our opinion, as to the power of the respondent judge to issue the preliminary injunction complained of by the petitioner. Indeed, even in a case not covered by the statute this court had upheld the power of Court of First Instance to grant preliminary injunctions. In the case of Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company vs. Del Rosario and Jose (22 Phil., 433), Doroteo Jose asked for, and the Court of First Instance granted ex parte, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction

16

directing the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company to continue furnishing electricity to Jose. Thereupon the Light Company filed in this court a petition for the writ of certiorari against Judge S. del Rosario upon the ground that Courts of First Instance in these Islands are wholly without jurisdiction to issue preliminary mandatory injunctions under any circumstances whatever. This court denied that petition, determining the power of the Courts of First Instance to issue preliminary injunction, as follows:

The power to grant preliminary injunctions, both preventative and mandatory, is a logical and necessary incident of the general powers conferred upon Courts of First Instance in these Islands, as courts of record of general and unlimited original jurisdiction, both legal and equitable. Insofar as the statute limits or prescribes the exercise of this power it must be followed: but beyond this, and in cases not covered by or contemplated by the statute, these courts must exercise their jurisdiction in the issuance of preliminary injunctions upon sound principles applicable to the circumstances of each particular case, having in mind the nature of the remedy, and the doctrine and practice established in the courts upon which our judicial is modeled. The only limitation upon the power of Courts of First Instance to issue preliminary injunctions, either mandatory of preventative, is that they are to be issued in the "manner" or according to the "method" provided therefor in the Code of Civil Procedure.

We conclude, therefore, that in an action for divorce brought by the wife against the husband, in which the partition of the conjugal property is also prayed for, the wife may obtain a preliminary injunction against the husband, prohibiting the latter from alienating or encumbering any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the action. It follows from all of the foregoing that the respondent, the Honorable Antonio Villareal, as Auxiliary Judge sitting in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo, had jurisdiction to hear and determine the action for divorce instituted in said court by the respondent Narcisa Geopano, and that he did not exceed his power and authority in issuing a preliminary injunction against the defendant, prohibiting him from alienating or encumbering any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the action. Therefore, the petition should be and is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-48219 February 28, 1979MANUEL J. C. REYES, petitioner, vs. HON. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO, as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Quezon City, COURT OF APPEALS and CELIA ILUSTRE-REYES, respondents.

FERNANDEZ, J.:This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 06928-SP entitled "Manuel J. C. Reyes, petitioner, versus, The Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court (Quezon City) and Celia Ilustre-Reyes, Respondents", dismissing the petition to annul the order of the respondent Judge directing the petitioner to give support pendente lite to his wife, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, private respondent herein, in the amount of P40,000.00 a month. 1 The private petitioner, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City a complaint dated June 3, 1976 against her husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes, for legal separation on the ground that the defendant had attempted to kill plaintiff. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are:

6.8 On March 10, 1976, defendant went to V. Ilustre and attacked plaintiff. He pummeled her with fist blows that floored her, then held her head and, with intent to kill, bumped it several

times against the cement floor. When she ran upstairs to her father for protection, he pushed her at the stairway of 13 flights and she fell sliding to the ground floor. Determined to finish her off, he again gave her a strong swing at her abdomen which floored her half unconscious. Were it not for plaintiff's father, he would have succeeded killing her;6.9. On May 26, 1976, although on May 11 previous she ceased holding office with defendant at Bel-Air Apartments elsewhere adverted to, she went thereto to get her overnight bag. Upon seeing her, defendant yelled at her to get out of the office. When he did not mind him, he suddenly doused her with a glass of grape juice, kicked her several times that landed at her back and nape, and was going to hit her with a steel tray as her driver, Ricardo Mancera, came due to her screams for help. For fear of further injury and for life, she rushed to Precinct 5 at united Nations Avenue, Manila Metropolitan Police, for assistance and protection; 2

The plaintiff asked for support pendente lite for her and her three children. The defendant, petitioner herein, opposed the application for support pendente lite on the ground that his wife had committed adultery with her physician.The application for support pendente lite was set for hearing and submitted for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and the documents attached thereto by the parties.The respondent Judge issued an order dated March 15, 1977 granting plaintiff's prayer for alimony pendente lite in the amount of P5,000.00 a month commencing from June 1976. 3 The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating that his wife is not entitled to support during the pendency of the case, and, alleging that even if she entitled, the amount awarded was excessive. The respondent Judge reduced the amount from P5,000.00 to P44,00.00 a month in an order dated June 17, 1977. 4 Manuel J. C. Reyes filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals dated July 25, 1977 asking that the order granting support pendente lite to private respondent. Celia Ilustre-Reyes, be annulled on the ground that the respondent Judge, Leonor Ines-Luciano, had committed a grave abuse of discretion or that said order be modified inasmuch as the amount awarded as support pendente lite is excessive.The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because:

Considering the plight of the wife during the pendency of the case for legal separation and that the husband appears to be financially capable of giving the support, We believe that the petitioner has not presented a clear case of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent in issuing the questioned orders. We see no compelling reason to give it due course. 5

The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeal committed the following error:

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN A MANNER AMOUNTING IT CAN ERROR OF LAW AND A DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED NORMS LAID DOWN BY THIS HON. COURT IN THE CASES WE SHALL LATER ON DISCUSS, IN REFUSING TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR certiorari HEREIN AGAINST RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES, AND IN AFFIRMING THE ORDERS FOR SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE ANNEXES "F" AND "H" OF THIS PETITION WHEN HELD THAT RESPONDENT-APPELLEE JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT ANY

17

ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING SAID ORDERS, FOR THE REASONS THAT:A. IN ACTIONS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION THE WIFE IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT FROM THE HUSBAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A CASE FOR ADULTERY HAD BEEN FILED BY THE HUSBAND AGAINST HER; AND B. IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COURT ASCERTAIN THE KIND AND AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE EVEN BY AFFIDAVITS ONLY OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE APPEARING IN THE RECORDS. 6

It is true that the adultery of the wife is a defense in an action for support however, the alleged adultery of wife must be established by competent evidence. The allegation that the wife has committed adultery will not bar her from the right receive support pendente lite. Adultery is a good defense and if properly proved and sustained wig defeat the action. 7 In the instant case, at the hearing of the application for support pendente lite before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court presided by the respondent Judge, Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano the petitioner did not present any evidence to prove the allegation that his wife, private respondent Celia Ilustre-Reyes, had committed adultery with any person. The petitioner has still the opportunity to adduce evidence on the alleged adultery of his wife when the action for legal separation is heard on the merits before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. It is to be noted however, that as pointed out by the respondents in their comment, the "private respondent was not asking support to be taken from petitioner's personal funds or wherewithal, but from the conjugal property—which, was her documentary evidence ...". 8 It is, therefore, doubtful whether adultery will affect her right to alimony pendente lite. In Quintana vs. Lerma, 9 the action for support was based on the obligation of the husband to support his wife.The contention of the petitioner that the order of the respondent Judge granting the private respondent support pendente lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month is not supported by the allegations of the complaint for legal separation and by competent evidence has no merit. The complaint or legal separation contains allegations showing that on at least two occasions the defendant, petitioner herein, had made attempts to kill the private respondent. Thus it is alleged that on March 10, 1976, the defendant attacked plaintiff, pummeled her with fist blows that floored her, held her head and with intent to kill, bumped it several times against the cement floor and when she ran upstairs to her father for protection, the petitioner pushed her at the stairway of thirteen (13) flights and she fell sliding to the ground floor and defendant gave her a strong swing at her abdomen which floored her half unconscious and were it not for plaintiff's father, defendant would have succeeded in killing her. 10 It is also alleged that on May 26, 1976, the defendant doused Celia Ilustre-Reyes with a glass of grape juice, kicked her several times at her back and nape and was going to hit her with a steel tray if it were not for her driver who came due to her creams for help." 11 In fixing the amount of monthly support pendente lite of P4,000,00, the respondent judge did not act capriciously and whimsically. When she originally fixed the amount of P5,000.00 a month, the respondent Judge considered the following:

On record for plaintiff's cause are the following: that she and defendant were married on January 18, 1958; that she is presently unemployed and without funds, thus, she is being supported by her father with whom she resides: that defendant had been maltreating her and Cried to kill her; that all their conjugal properties are in the possession of

defendant who is also president, Manager and Treasurer of their corporation namely:1. Standard Mineral Products, which was incorporated on February 9, 1959: presently with paid-in capital of P295,670.00; assets and liabilities of P757,108.52; Retained Earnings of P85,654.61: and majority stockholder is defendant; 2. Development and Technology Consultant Inc. incorporated on July 12, 1971, with paid-in capital of P200,000.00; Assets and liabilities of P831,669.34; defendant owns 99% of the stocks; and last Retained Earnings is P98,879.84. 3. The Contra-Prop Marine Philippines, Inc. which was incorporated on October 3, 1975, with paid-in capital of P100,000 defendant owns 99% of the stocks. To secure some of the of said Agreement of Counter-Guaranty Mortgage with Real Estate, and Real Estate Mortgage were undertaken by plaintiff of their properties outside of other accommodations; and that she needs of P5,000.00 a month for her support in accordance with their station in life. 12

The amount of support pendente lite was reduced to P4,000.00 inasmuch as the children are in the custody of the petitioner and are being supported by him.It is thus seen that the respondent judge acted with due deliberation before fixing the amount of support pendente lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month. In determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be entered. Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite. 13 It is enough the the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record. 14 The private respondent has submitted documents showing that the corporations controlled by the petitioner have entered into multi-million contracts in projects of the Ministry of Public Highways. Considering the high cost of living due to inflation and the financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the documents of record, We find that the amount of P4,000.00 a month granted by the respondent Judge as alimony pendente lite to the private respondent is not excessive. There is no showing that the respondent Judge has committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting said support. In a resolution dated July 31, 1978, this Court issued a temporary restraining order effective immediately against the enforcement of the lower court's order giving support pendente lite to private respondent in the sum of P4,000.00 monthly commencing June 1976 and in lieu thereof to allow such support only to the extent of P1,000.00 a month. 15 Later the petitioner was required to pay the support at the rate of P1,000.00 a month which had accumulated since June 1976 within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution: 16 The private respondent acknowledged on November 20, 1978 having received from the petitioner, through his counsel a check in the amount of P30,000.00 as payment of support for the period from June 1976 to November 1978 or thirty (30) months at P1,000.00 a month in compliance with the resolution of this Court dated October 9, 1978.In view of the foregoing, the support of P4,000.00 should be made to commence or, March 1, 1979. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied and the decision of the Council of Appeals sought to be reviewed is affirmed with the modification that the support pendente lite at the rate of Four

18

Thousand Pesos (P4.000.00) a month should commence from March 1, 1979 without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-30977 January 31, 1972CARMEN LAPUZ SY, represented by her substitute MACARIO LAPUZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. EUFEMIO S. EUFEMIO alias EUFEMIO SY UY, respondent-appellee.

REYES J.B.L., J.:pPetition, filed after the effectivity of Republic Act 5440, for review by certiorari of an order, dated 29 July 1969, of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 20387, dismissing said case for legal separation on the ground that the death of the therein plaintiff, Carmen O. Lapuz Sy, which occurred during the pendency of the case, abated the cause of action as well as the action itself. The dismissal order was issued over the objection of Macario Lapuz, the heir of the deceased plaintiff (and petitioner herein) who sought to substitute the deceased and to have the case prosecuted to final judgment. On 18 August 1953, Carmen O. Lapuz Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio S. Eufemio, alleging, in the main, that they were married civilly on 21 September 1934 and canonically on 30 September 1934; that they had lived together as husband and wife continuously until 1943 when her husband abandoned her; that they had no child; that they acquired properties during their marriage; and that she discovered her husband cohabiting with a Chinese woman named Go Hiok at 1319 Sisa Street, Manila, on or about March 1949. She prayed for the issuance of a decree of legal separation, which, among others, would order that the defendant Eufemio S. Eufemio should be deprived of his share of the conjugal partnership profits. In his second amended answer to the petition, herein respondent Eufemio S. Eufemio alleged affirmative and special defenses, and, along with several other claims involving money and other properties, counter-claimed for the declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage with Carmen O. Lapuz Sy, on the ground of his prior and subsisting marriage, celebrated according to Chinese law and customs, with one Go Hiok, alias Ngo Hiok. Issues having been joined, trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidence. But before the trial could be completed (the respondent was already scheduled to present surrebuttal evidence on 9 and 18 June 1969), petitioner Carmen O. Lapuz Sy died in a vehicular accident on 31 May 1969. Counsel for petitioner duly notified the court of her death. On 9 June 1969, respondent Eufemio moved to dismiss the "petition for legal separation" 1 on two (2) grounds, namely: that the petition for legal separation was filed beyond the one-year period provided for in Article 102 of the Civil Code; and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation. On 26 June 1969, counsel for deceased petitioner moved to substitute the deceased Carmen by her father, Macario Lapuz. Counsel for Eufemio opposed the motion. On 29 July 1969, the court issued the order under review, dismissing the case. 2 In the body of the order, the court stated that the motion to dismiss and the motion for substitution had to be resolved on the question of whether or not the plaintiff's cause of action has survived, which the court resolved in the negative. Petitioner's moved to reconsider but the motion was denied on 15 September 1969. After first securing an extension of time to file a petition for review of the order of dismissal issued by the juvenile and domestic relations court, the petitioner filed the present petition on 14 October 1969. The same was given due course and answer thereto was filed by respondent, who prayed for the affirmance of the said order. 3 Although the defendant below, the herein respondent Eufemio S. Eufemio, filed counterclaims, he did not pursue them after the court below dismissed the case. He acquiesced in the dismissal of said counterclaims by praying for the affirmance of the order that dismissed not only the petition for legal separation but also his

counterclaim to declare the Eufemio-Lapuz marriage to be null and void ab initio. But petitioner Carmen O. Lapuz Sy (through her self-assumed substitute — for the lower court did not act on the motion for substitution) stated the principal issue to be as follows:

When an action for legal separation is converted by the counterclaim into one for a declaration of nullity of a marriage, does the death of a party abate the proceedings?

The issue as framed by petitioner injects into it a supposed conversion of a legal separation suit to one for declaration of nullity of a marriage, which is without basis, for even petitioner asserted that "the respondent has acquiesced to the dismissal of his counterclaim" (Petitioner's Brief, page 22). Not only this. The petition for legal separation and the counterclaim to declare the nullity of the self same marriage can stand independent and separate adjudication. They are not inseparable nor was the action for legal separation converted into one for a declaration of nullity by the counterclaim, for legal separation pre-supposes a valid marriage, while the petition for nullity has a voidable marriage as a pre-condition. The first real issue in this case is: Does the death of the plaintiff before final decree, in an action for legal separation, abate the action? If it does, will abatement also apply if the action involves property rights? .An action for legal separation which involves nothing more than the bed-and-board separation of the spouses (there being no absolute divorce in this jurisdiction) is purely personal. The Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes this in its Article 100, by allowing only the innocent spouse (and no one else) to claim legal separation; and in its Article 108, by providing that the spouses can, by their reconciliation, stop or abate the proceedings and even rescind a decree of legal separation already rendered. Being personal in character, it follows that the death of one party to the action causes the death of the action itself — actio personalis moritur cum persona.

... When one of the spouses is dead, there is no need for divorce, because the marriage is dissolved. The heirs cannot even continue the suit, if the death of the spouse takes place during the course of the suit (Article 244, Section 3). The action is absolutely dead (Cass., July 27, 1871, D. 71. 1. 81; Cass. req., May 8, 1933, D. H. 1933, 332.") 4 .Marriage is a personal relation or status, created under the sanction of law, and an action for divorce is a proceeding brought for the purpose of effecting a dissolution of that relation. The action is one of a personal nature. In the absence of a statute to the contrary, the death of one of the parties to such action abates the action, for the reason that death has settled the question of separation beyond all controversy and deprived the court of jurisdiction, both over the persons of the parties to the action and of the subject-matter of the action itself. For this reason the courts are almost unanimous in holding that the death of either party to a divorce proceeding, before final decree, abates the action. 1 Corpus Juris, 208; Wren v. Moss, 2 Gilman, 72; Danforth v. Danforth, 111 Ill. 236; Matter of Grandall, 196 N.Y. 127, 89 N.E. 578; 134 Am St. Rep. 830; 17 Ann. Cas. 874; Wilcon v. Wilson, 73 Mich, 620, 41 N.W. 817; Strickland v. Strickland, 80 Ark. 452, 97 S. W. 659; McCurley v. McCurley, 60 Md. 185, 45 Am. Rep. 717; Begbie v. Begbie, 128 Cal. 155, 60 Pac. 667, 49 L.R.A. 141. 5

The same rule is true of causes of action and suits for separation and maintenance (Johnson vs. Bates, Ark. 101 SW 412; 1 Corpus Juris 208).

19

A review of the resulting changes in property relations between spouses shows that they are solely the effect of the decree of legal separation; hence, they can not survive the death of the plaintiff if it occurs prior to the decree. On the point, Article 106 of the Civil Code provides: .

Art. 106. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects: (1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed; .(2) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute conjugal community of property shall be dissolved and liquidated, but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or community, without prejudice to the provisions of article 176; (3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, unless otherwise directed by the court in the interest of said minors, for whom said court may appoint a guardian; (4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent one shall be revoked by operation of law.

From this article it is apparent that the right to the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains (or of the absolute community of property), the loss of right by the offending spouse to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or community, or his disqualification to inherit by intestacy from the innocent spouse as well as the revocation of testamentary provisions in favor of the offending spouse made by the innocent one, are all rights and disabilities that, by the very terms of the Civil Code article, are vested exclusively in the persons of the spouses; and by their nature and intent, such claims and disabilities are difficult to conceive as assignable or transmissible. Hence, a claim to said rights is not a claim that "is not thereby extinguished" after a party dies, under Section 17, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, to warrant continuation of the action through a substitute of the deceased party.

Sec. 17. Death of party. After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted...

The same result flows from a consideration of the enumeration of the actions that survive for or against administrators in Section 1, Rule 87, of the Revised Rules of Court:

SECTION 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. No action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against the executor or administrator; but actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against him.

Neither actions for legal separation or for annulment of marriage can be deemed fairly included in the enumeration..A further reason why an action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if property rights are involved, is that these rights are mere effects of decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the pendency

of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive separation; and the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn. As to the petition of respondent-appellee Eufemio for a declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage to Carmen Lapuz, it is apparent that such action became moot and academic upon the death of the latter, and there could be no further interest in continuing the same after her demise, that automatically dissolved the questioned union. Any property rights acquired by either party as a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 6 could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant. In fact, even if the bigamous marriage had not been void ab initio but only voidable under Article 83, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, because the second marriage had been contracted with the first wife having been an absentee for seven consecutive years, or when she had been generally believed dead, still the action for annulment became extinguished as soon as one of the three persons involved had died, as provided in Article 87, paragraph 2, of the Code, requiring that the action for annulment should be brought during the lifetime of any one of the parties involved. And furthermore, the liquidation of any conjugal partnership that might have resulted from such voidable marriage must be carried out "in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spouse", as expressly provided in Section 2 of the Revised Rule 73, and not in the annulment proceeding. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of the Manila Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations is hereby affirmed. No special pronouncement as to costs.

[G.R. No. L-9325.  May 30, 1956.]ROSARIO MATUTE, Petitioner, vs. HON. HIGINIO B.

MACADAEG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch X, and ARMANDO MEDEL, Respondents.

 CONCEPCION, J.:In an action for legal separation brought by Armando Medel against Rosario Matute, upon the ground of adultery committed with his brother and her brother-in-law, Ernesto Medel — which action was docketed as civil case No. 14190 of the Court of First Instance of Manila — decision was, on November 6, 1952, rendered by the latter, finding Rosario guilty of the charge against her, decreeing said legal separation, and awarding to Armando the custody of their four (4) minor children, Florencia, Manuel, Carmelita and Benito, all surnamed Medel, then 12, 10, 8 and 4 years of age, respectively. Thereafter, Armando went to the United States, leaving the children in the City of Davao under the care of his sister Pilar Medel, in whose house Rosario subsequently lived in order to be with her offspring. Armando returned to the Philippines late in 1954. At the close of the then current school year, during which the children were enrolled in a school in Davao, or in March, 1955, they joined their father in Cebu. With his permission, Rosario brought the children to Manila in April, 1955, to attend the funeral of her father. Armando alleges that he consented thereto on condition that she would return the children to him within two (2) weeks. However, Rosario did not do so. Instead, on June 10, 1955, she filed, in said civil case No. 14190, a motion the prayer of which is of the following tenor:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“WHEREFORE, movant respectfully prays this Honorable Court, after due hearing:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“(1)  to issue an order awarding the custody of the above-named children to the herein movant, their mother, in deference to the preference expressed by the children (Sec. 6, Rule 100, Rules of Court); chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand“(2)  to order Armando Medel, father of the said minor children, to support said children by paying their school fees and giving them a reasonable allowance both items in an amount not less than P200 a month.”Said motion was based upon the ground that the children — three (3) of whom, namely, Florencia, Manuel and Carmelita, were then 16, 14 and 12 years of age, respectively — do not want to go back to their

20

father, because he “is living with a woman other than” their mother. Armando opposed this motion and countered with a petition to declare and punish Rosario for contempt of court, in view of her failure and alleged refusal to restore the custody of their children to him. After due hearing the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Hon. Higinio B. Macadaeg, Judge, issued an order, dated June 29, 1955, absolving Rosario from the charge of contempt of court, she having secured Armando’s consent before bringing the children to Manila, but denying her motion for their custody and ordering her to deliver them to Armando within twenty-four (24) hours from notice. The dispositive part of said order reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, motion for the custody of the minor children, Florencia, Manuel, Carmelita, and Benito, all surnamed Medel, is hereby denied. Rosario Matute is hereby ordered to deliver to Armando Medel the persons of the said minor children, within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of copy of this Order.“Let copies of this Order be served immediately by the Sheriff of this Court, not only on the lawyers appearing in this case, but also on the parties themselves.”Thereupon, Rosario instituted, against Armando and Judge Macadaeg, the present action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, upon the ground that said order of June 29, 1955, had been issued with grave abuse of discretion, and that there is no other plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. The prayer in her petition, is as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays this Honorable Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction upon Petitioner’s filing a bond in such sum as this Honorable Court may fix, ordering Respondents, their attorneys, agents and other persons acting by and under their orders to cease and desist from enforcing in any way the order of the Respondent Court dated June 19, 1965, and after hearing, to annul the said Order and to award the custody of the children to your Petitioner.“Petitioner likewise prays for such other or further relief as may be just and equitable, without costs.”Upon the filing of the petition, we issued the writ of preliminary injunction therein prayed for, without bond.Briefly stated, Petitioner herein maintains that the children should be under her custody, because:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) she is their legitimate mother and they wish to stay with her, not their father Armando Medel; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) three (3) of the children are over ten (10) years of age, and, hence, their aforementioned wish must, pursuant to Rule 100, section 6, of the Rules of Court, be heeded, unless “the parent so chosen be unfit to take charge” of them “by reason of moral depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity or poverty”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(3) the act of infidelity of which she had been found guilty in the decision of November 6, 1952, does not involve “moral depravity”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(4) in any event, it is a thing of the past, not a present reality; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(5) Respondent Armando Medel is now unfit to have the children under his care, for he is living maritally with a woman by the name of Paz Jesusa Concepcion; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (6) although he had married the latter, after securing in the United States a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with Petitioner herein, said decree is null and void and, accordingly, he is guilty of bigamy.In the present action, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the merits of such pretense. The case before us is one of certiorari and prohibition, governed by sections 1 and 2 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, reading:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“SECTION 1.  Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, end adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that

judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board, or officer as the law requires, with costs.“SEC. 2.  Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of any tribunal corporation board, or person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the Defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, with costs.”Pursuant to these provisions, neither the writ of certiorari nor that of prohibition lies unless the act complained of has been performed “without or in excess of” jurisdiction “or with grave abuse of discretion”. There is no question but that Respondent Judge had jurisdiction to pass upon the issue raised by Petitioner’s motion of June 10, 1955, for custody of the children, and the petition of Respondent Medel, dated June 22, 1955, to declare Petitioner guilty of contempt of court, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary whether said custody should be retained by Respondent Medel, as adjudged in the decision of November 6, 1952, or should be given to Petitioner herein. Which ever alternative taken by Respondent Judge would not vitiate his choice as being “without or in excess” of jurisdiction. Whatever mistakes, if any, he may have committed in the appraisal of the situation — on which we do not express our view — in determining the best solution to said issue or which one of the litigants is best qualified or least disqualified to take charge of the children, would, at best, constitute “merely errors of judgment.” They are not “errors of jurisdiction”, but errors in the exercise of the jurisdiction which the lower court admittedly had. Such errors do not affect the legality or validity of the order complained of. They may be reviewed by appeal, not by writ of certiorari or prohibition. (Comments on the Rules of Court, by Moran, Vol. II, pp. 167 and 168).Neither does the aforementioned order of June 29, 1955, involve a grave abuse of discretion for it merely enforces the award made in the decision of November 6, 1952, which is admittedly final and executory. It is true that, insofar as it refers to the custody of the minor children, said decision is never final, in the sense that it is subject to review at any time that the Court may deem it for the best interest of said minors. It is no less true, however, that, unless and until reviewed and modified, said award must stand. No such modification having been made, at yet, Respondent Judge had, not only the authority; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut, also, the duty to execute and implement said award.Furthermore, by virtue of said decision of November 6, 1952, Respondent had, admittedly, the custody of said minors. Petitioner merely obtained his permission to bring them to Manila, for the purpose of attending the funeral of their maternal grandfather, which took place in April, 1955. Thus, Petitioner obtained and has the physical possession of the minors in a precarious manner. She holds it in the name, on behalf and by authority of Respondent Medel, whose agent she, in effect, is. He may, therefore, demand their return at any time, and she is bound to comply immediately with such demand. She cannot even question his authority to make it, although she is free to seek a review of the order or decision awarding the custody of the minors to him, and to ask that they be placed under her charge.Again, it is conceded that children over ten (10) years of age, whose parents are divorced or living separately, may choose which parent they prefer to live with, unless the parent chosen is unfit to take charge of their care by reason of “moral depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity or poverty” (Rule 100, section 6, Rules of Court). Without deciding whether the adultery committed by herein Petitioner with her own brother-in-law involves moral depravity, it is clear to our mind that the affirmative assumption implicit in the order complained of cannot be characterized as an “abuse of discretion”, much less a “grave” one.

21

Lastly, said order further declares:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“ cralaw The facts remains that Defendant-movant is without means of livelihood and, according to her own admission, she lives on the charity of her brothers. She has no home of her own to offer to her children, but only she would shelter them under the roof of her brothers.”and the substantial accuracy of this statement is not contested. We are not prepared to hold, that a grave abuse of discretion was committed when the lower court impliedly deduced, from these circumstances, that “poverty”, among other causes, rendered Petitioner unfit to take charge of her children or made it unwise to place them under her care.Wherefore, without prejudice to such appropriate action as Petitioner may deem fit to take for the purpose of securing a review of the order of Respondent Judge of June 29, 1955, or a modification of the award made in the decision of November 6, 1952, relative to the custody of the children, or both, the petition is denied and the case dismissed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved, with costs against the Petitioner. It is SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-18008            October 30, 1962ELISEA LAPERAL, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor.

BARRERA, J.:On May 10, 1960, Elisea Laperal filed in the Court of First Instance of Baguio (Sp Proc. No. 433) a petition which reads:

1. That petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the City of Baguio for the last three years prior to the date of the filing of this petition;2. That petitioner's maiden name is ELISEA LAPERAL; that on March 24, 1939, she married Mr. Enrique R. Santamaria; that in a partial decision entered on this Honorable Court on January 18, 1958, in Civil Case No. 356 of this Court, entitled 'Enrique R. Santamaria vs. Elisea L. Santamaria' Mr. Enrique Santamaria was given a decree of legal separation from her; that the said partial decision is now final;3. That during her marriage to Enrique R. Santamaria, she naturally used, instead of her maiden name, that of Elisea L. Santamaria; that aside from her legal separation from Enrique R. Santamaria, she has also ceased to live with him for many years now;4. That in view of the fact that she has been legally separated from Mr. Enrique R. Santamaria and has likewise ceased to live with him for many years, it is desirable that she be allowed to change her name and/or be permitted to resume using her maiden name, to wit: ELISEA LAPERAL.WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prayed that after the necessary proceedings are had, she be allowed to resume using her maiden name of Elisea Laperal.

The petition was opposed by the City Attorney of Baguio on the ground that the same violates the provisions of Article 370 (should be 372) of the Civil Code, and that it is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court.In its decision of October 31, 1960, the court denied the petition for the reason that Article 372 of the Civil Code requires the wife, even after she is decreed legally separated from her husband, to continue using the name and surname she employed before the legal separation. Upon petitioner's motion, however, the court, treating the petition as one for change of name, reconsidered its decision and granted the petition on the ground that to allow petitioner, who is a businesswoman decreed legally separated from her husband, to continue using her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. Hence, this appeal by the State.The contention of the Republic finds support in the provisions of Article 372 of the New Civil Code which reads:

ART. 372. When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation. (Emphasis supplied)

Note that the language of the statute is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal separation has been decreed, shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation. This is so because her married status is unaffected by the separation, there being no severance of the vinculum. It seems to be the policy of the law that the wife should continue to use the name indicative of her unchanged status for the benefit of all concerned.The appellee contends, however, that the petition is substantially for change of her name from Elisea L. Santamaria, the one she has been using, since her marriage, to Elisea Laperal, her maiden name, giving as reason or cause therefor her being legally separated from the husband Enrique R. Santamaria, and the fact that they have ceased to live together for many years.There seems to be no dispute that in the institution of these proceedings, the procedure prescribed in Rule 103 of the Rules of Court for change of name has been observed. But from the petition quoted in full at the beginning of these opinion, the only reason relied upon for the change of name is the fact that petitioner is legally separated from her husband and has, in fact, ceased to live with him for many years. It is doubtful, to say the least, whether Rule 103 which refers to change of name in general, may prevail over the specific provisions of Article 372 of the New Civil Code with regards to married women legally separated from their husbands. Even, however, applying Rule 103 to this case, the fact of legal separation alone — which is the only basis for the petition at bar — is, in our opinion, not a sufficient ground to justify a change of the name of herein petitioner, for to hold otherwise would be to provide an easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of Article 372.It is true that in the second decision which reconsidered the first it is stated that as the petitioner owns extensive business interests, the continued used of her husband surname may cause undue confusion in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. This finding is however without basis. In the first place, these were not the causes upon which the petition was based; hence, obviously no evidence to this effect had been adduced. Secondly, with the issuance of the decree of legal separation in 1958, the conjugal partnership between petitioner and her husband had automatically been dissolved and liquidated. (Art. 106[2], Civil Cod). Consequently, there could be no more occasion for an eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets.WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court of December 1, 1960, granting the petition, is hereby set aside and the petition dismissed. Without costs. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-38287 October 23, 1981ANTONIO MACADANGDANG, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS; HONORABLE ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Davao, 16th Judicial District, Sala 1, Tagum, Davao del Norte; FILOMENA GAVIANA, MACADANGDANG; and ROLANDO RAMA, respondents.

 MAKASIAR, J.:This petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order presents for review the Court of Appeal's resolution dated December 21, 1973, which dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. No. Sp-02656-R, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said resolution having been denied on January 29, 1974. From the records, it appears that respondent Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang (hereinafter referred to as private respondent) and petitioner Antonio Macadangdang contracted marriage in 1946 after having lived together for two years. From a humble buy-and-sell business and sari-sari store operation in Davao City, the spouses moved to Mawab Davao del Norte where, through hard work and good fortune, their small business grew and expanded into merchandising, trucking, transportation, rice and corn mill business,

22

abaca stripping, real estate and others. They were blessed with six children, three of whom were already of majority age and the other three were still minors as of the time this case was initiated in the lower court. With their established businesses and accumulated wealth, their once simple life became complicated and their relationship started to suffer setbacks. While the economic or material aspect of their marriage was stabilized the physical and spiritual aspects became shaky. Both accused each other of indulging in extramarital relations. Married life for them became so intolerable that they separated in 1965 when private respondent left for Cebu for good. When she returned to Davao in 1971, she learned of the illicit affairs of her estranged husband. Then and there, she decided to take the initial action.On April 28, 1971, private respondent (plaintiff therein) instituted a complaint for legal separation in the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch VI I I at Tagum, Davao, which complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 109 and entitled "Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang vs. Antonio Macadangdang" [P. 156, rec]. Petitioner (then defendant) filed his answer with counterclaim dated May 31, 1971 [p. 158, rec]. On February 9, 1972, private respondent filed a petition for appointment of administrator, to administer the estate of the conjugal partnership pending the termination of the case [p. 100, rec.]. Petitioner opposed the aforesaid petition in a pleading dated February 21, 1972 [P. 102, rec] On January 4, 1973, the petition for appointment of administrator not having been acted upon, the trial court handed down its decision, the dispositive portion of which states thus:

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the legal separation of plaintiff and the defendant, or what under the old law was separation from bed and board — a mensa et thoro — with all the legal effects attendant thereto, particularly the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal community of property. Since there is no complete list of the community property which has to be divided, pending the dissolution of the conjugal property, the defendant is ordered to pay to plaintiff P10,000.00 for her support, for any way he had been disposing some of the properties or mortgaging them without sharing the plaintiff any part of the fruits or proceeds thereof until the court can appoint an administrator, as prayed for by plaintiff in a separate petition, who will take over the administration and management of all the conjugal partnership properties, and act as guardian of the minor children; to protect said properties from dissipation, and who will submit a complete inventory of said properties so that the Court can make a just division, such division to be embodied in a supplemental decision. ... [pp. 104-115, rec.].

On August 7, 1973, private respondent filed a motion praying that she be allowed to withdraw P10,000.00 from the lease rental of a portion of their conjugal property deposited by Francisco Dizon [p. 116, rec.]. Respondent Judge acted on the aforesaid motion by issuing the order of August 13, 1973 which directed the clerk of court "to deliver, under receipt, to plaintiff Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang and/or to her counsel, Atty. Marcial Fernandez, the amount of P10,000.00" [p. 118, rec]. On August 25, 1973, private respondent filed another motion for the appointment of an administrator, reiterating her previous petition and urging favorable action thereon "to impede unlawful sequestration of some conjugal assets and clandestine transfers" by petitioner [p. 120, rec.]. Petitioner again filed his opposition dated September 6, 1973 [p. 122, rec.]. On September 20, 1973, respondent Judge issued an order directing plaintiff's counsel "to submit three (3) names for appointment as

administrator, including in the list, if possible, a banking institution authorized to handle cases of administration of properties, furnishing a copy of said list to defendant, who shag be given three (3) days from receipt thereof to present his observations and objections to said recommended persons or entity, after which the Court will select the administrator as may seem best suited for the purpose" [pp. 126-127, rec] Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration dated October 3, 1973 of the order of September 20, 1973 with prayer that he be allowed to continue administering the conjugal properties in accordance with law [p. 128, rec.]. This motion for reconsideration was denied in the order of October 13, 1973 [p. 133, rec]. On October 13, 1973, herein private respondent filed a motion for appointment of administrator and submission of complete fist of conjugal assets by defendant, submitting therein three nominees for administrator [p. 135, rec]. On October 23, 1973, petitioner filed his second motion for reconsideration praying therein that the orders of September 20, 1973 and October 13, 1973 be reconsidered by not proceeding with the appointment of an administrator of the conjugal properties of the parties [p. 137, rec]. Respondent Judge denied the aforesaid second motion for reconsideration in his order of November 19, 1973, reiterating therein his ruling that the decree of legal separation had become final [p. 141, rec]. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order filed on December 18, 1973. Said petition sought to review, set aside and declare null and void the orders of September 20, 1973, October 13, 1973 and November 19, 1973 of respondent Judge; to prohibit respondent Judge from carrying out and executing the aforecited orders; and to prohibit him from treating, regarding and construing his decision of January 4, 1973 as being "final and executory" as well as from enforcing the same in any manner whatsoever [pp. 1, 4, & 5, CA rec.]. The Court of Appeals, in its resolution of December 21, 1973, ruled that the questioned January 4, 1973 decision of the lower court had become final and, consequently, the appointment of an administrator was valid and that the petition was not sufficient in substance, since the applicable law and jurisprudence afford the petitioner no valid cause to impugn the three questioned orders. The appellate court accordingly dismissed the petition [pp. 70-80, rec]. Hence, this appeal from the resolution of December 21, 1973. On February 6, 1980, counsel for petitioner, through a notice of death and motion to dismiss, informed this Court that petitioner Antonio Macadangdang died on November 30, 1979 and as a consequence thereof, this case and Civil Case No. 109 of the Court of First Instance of Davao have become moot and academic [p. 516, rec.]. Private respondent, when required to comment on the aforesaid motion, moved for a resolution of this case although she believes that petitioner's death has posed new intervening circumstances that would affect the entire purpose in filing the same. In effect, private respondent agrees with petitioner's counsel that her husband's death has rendered the instant petition moot and academic [pp. 522, 524, rec.]. Petitioner had averred that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that respondent Judge's incomplete decision of January 4, 1973 had become final and executory and that the same Court committed an error in holding that the appointment of an administrator in the case below was proper. Private respondent, upon the other hand, has always maintained that —

1. the decision of January 4, 1973 had become final and executory when the petitioner failed to appeal therefrom within the reglementary period of 30 days from receipt thereof, despite the non-issuance of a supplemental decision regarding the division of the conjugal properties; and

23

2. the appointment of an administrator pending the actual division of said properties is proper being a must and an exercise of the sound discretion of the Honorable Presiding Judge in the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch VIII in Tagum [pp. 193-194, rec].

Did petitioner's death on November 30, 1979 render the case moot and academic? Legal problems do not cease simply because one of the parties dies; the same problems may come up again in another case of similar magnitude. Considering also the far-reaching significance and implications of a pronouncement on the very important issues involved, this Court feels bound to meet said issues frontally and come out with a decisive resolution of the same. Thus, the questions for resolution have been narrowed down to the following:

1. Whether the decision of the trial court dated January 4, 1973 in Civil Case No. 109 finding herein petitioner guilty of concubinage and decreeing legal separation between him and his wife Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang (private respondent herein) had already become final and executory long before the herein petition was filed; 2. Should the children of both spouses predecease the surviving spouse, whether the intestate heirs of the deceased could inherit from the innocent surviving spouse, particularly where the latter's share in the conjugal assets is concerned, in view of Article 106, No. 4 of the New Civil Code; and 3. The effect of the pendency of Special Proceedings No. 134 in the Court of First Instance of Davao for the settlement of the estate of the deceased petitioner herein, on the decision in Civil Case No. 109 as well as on the instant petition.

In support of his contention that the Court of Appeals committed grave error in holding that respondent Judge's incomplete decision of January 4, 1973 had become final and executory, petitioner had consistently asserted the following reasons:

1. Private respondent's complaint for legal separation and division of properties was a single complaint. Thus, she explicitly prayed: xxx xxx xxx3. That upon trial of this action judgment be rendered ordering the legal separation of the plaintiff and the defendant and the division of all the assets of the conjugal partnership, ... [p. 157, rec)

In this single action, private respondent asked the trial court to decide if petitioner and she should be legally separated, and if they should, what properties would form part of the conjugal regime and which properties would be assigned to each spouse. 2. Of the aforesaid issues, the lower court resolved only the issue of legal separation and reserved for supplemental decision the division of the conjugal properties. Petitioner had further argued that —

Inasmuch as the Decision failed to dispose of all the issues before the Court, which necessitated the announcement of a forthcoming supplemental decision, petitioner respectfully submits that the Decision was an incomplete judgment. In Santos v. de Guzman, 1 SCRA 1048, is found this very succinct explanation of what an incomplete judgment is: ... There was but one case before the lower court. Its first decision (of June 12, 1956) was, as already stated, incomplete the same not having resolved the issues involved in the litigation. For this reason the trial had to be reopened and a

supplemental decision had to be rendered ... (at p. 1053; emphasis supplied).

WE do not find merit in petitioner's submission that the questioned decision had not become final and executory since the law explicitly and clearly provides for the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains of the absolute community of property as among the effects of the final decree of legal separation. Article 106 of the Civil Code thus reads:

Art. 106. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects: 1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed; 2) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute conjugal community of property shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or community, without prejudice to the provisions of article 176; xxx xxx xxx[emphasis supplied].

The aforequoted provision mandates the dissolution and liquidation of the property regime of the spouses upon finality of the decree of legal separation. Such dissolution and liquidation are necessary consequences of the final decree. This legal effect of the decree of legal separation ipso facto or automatically follows, as an inevitable incident of, the judgment decreeing legal separation—for the purpose of determining the share of each spouse in the conjugal assets. Even American courts have made definite pronouncements on the aforestated legal effect of a divorce (legal separation) decree. Generally speaking, the purpose of a decree in divorce insofar as the disposition of property is concerned is to fix and make certain the property rights and interests of the parties (Mich-Westgate vs. Westgate, 288 N.W. 860, 291 Mich. 18, 300 [1] p. 354, C.J.S. Vol. 27B); and it has been held that the provisions of the decree should definitely and finally determine the property rights and interests of the parties (Wash.-Shaffer vs. Shaffer, 262 P. 2d. 763, 43 Wash. 2d 629; 300 [11 p. 354 C.J.S. Vol. 27B); and that any attempted reservation of such questions for future determination is improper and error (Mich.-Karwowski vs. Karwowski, 20 N.W. 2d 851, 313 Mich. 167, 300 11] p. 354, C.J.S., Vol. 27B; emphasis supplied). Some statutes providing for the division or disposition of the property of the parties to a divorce have been held mandatory and hence to require the court to decree some division of their property rights (U.S.—Pearce vs. CIR, 62 S. Ct. 154, 315 U.S. 543, 86 L. ed. 1016, construing Texas statute; 291 [1] p. 263 C.J.S. Vol. 27B). Likewise, it has been held that the settlement of some pro-property rights between the parties is an incident of every decree of divorce where there is any property involved (Utah-Smith vs. Smith, 291 P. 298, 77 Utah 60, 291 [1] p. 264, C.J.S., Vol. 27B). It has been held that notwithstanding the division of property between the parties, the subject matter of a divorce action remains the marital status of the parties, the settlement of the property rights being merely incidental (Wash.-State ex rel. Atkins vs. Superior Court of King Country, 97 P. 2d. 139, 1 Wash. 2d 677; 291 [1] p. 264 C.J.S., Vol. 27B; emphasis supplied). Under other authorities, by the very nature of the litigation, all property rights growing out of marital relations are settled and included in divorce proceedings (Ind.-Novak vs. Novak, 133 N.E. 2d 578, 126 Ind. App. 428) and a decree of divorce is an adjudication of all property rights connected with the marriage and precludes the parties as to all matters which might have been legitimately proved in support of charges or defenses in the action (U.S.—Spreckles vs. Wakefield, C.C.A. 286 F. 465) and bars any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights (Fla.—Cooper vs. Cooper, 69 So. 2d 881; Finston vs. Finston, 37 So. 2d 423,160 Fla. 935; p. 751, C.J.S. Vol. 27A). An absolute divorce ordinarily terminates all property rights and interests, not actually vested, of divorced persons in property of each

24

other, which are dependent on the marriage (U.S.—Cockrill vs. Woodson, D.C. Mo., 70 F. 752), at least where no proceedings have been taken to vacate or modify the decree by appeal until the statutory time therefor has expired (Kan.—Roberts vs. Fagan 92 P. 559, 76 Kan. 536). Accordingly, unless the court granting the decree is without jurisdiction, inchoate rights of the wife in the husband's property are usually cut off (Ky—Bowling vs. Little, 206 S.W. 1, 182 Ky 86) especially where by the terms of the decree all property obtained by either spouse from or through the other during the marriage is restored to such spouse (Tex. Houston, etc., R. Co. vs. Helm, Civ. App. 93 S.W. 697; pp. 752-753, C.J.S. Vol. 27A). Enunciating with directness and finality, one U.S. court held: "The part of a divorce suit regarding property is a part of the very divorce action itself" (Tex.—Ex parte Scott 123 S.W. 2d. 306, 313, 133 Tex. 1, answers to certified questions conformed to, Civ. App. 126, S.W. 2d 525; 291 [1] p. 264, C.J.S. Vol. 27B). Petitioner erred in invoking the case of Vda. de Zaldarriaga vs. Zaldarriaga which in turn cited the doctrine of Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso, which We have already declared abrogated in the case of Miranda vs. Court of Appeals (L-33007, 71 SCRA 295, [June 18, 1976]). In this case, this Court explicitly stated:

For the guidance of the bench and bar, the court declares as abandoned the doctrine of Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso and adopts the opposite rule that judgments for recovery with accounting are final and appealable (without need of awaiting the accounting) and would become final and executory if not appealed within the reglementary period.

In resolving the question of whether or not the judgment directing an accounting in an action for recovery of properties is final and appealable, this Court further explained:

The judgment "directing an accounting is appealable, regardless of whether the accounting is the principal relief sought or a mere incident or consequence of the judgment which grants recovery and delivery of absconded properties as the principal relief and expressly provides that"a judgment or order directing an accounting in an action, shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. xxx xxx xxxIf a judgment which directs solely an accounting is appealable notwithstanding that it "does not finally dispose of the action and the accounting has yet to be rendered to complete the relief sought," much more so is a judgment which orders accounting as a mere incident appealable, because the judgment which orders the delivery of properties does finally dispose of the action on its merits, xxx xxx xxxImperative and controlling considerations of public policy and of sound practice in the courts to achieve the desideratum of just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action militate against such a novel and unprecedented situation where a judgment on the merits for recovery of properties would be left dangling and would be considered as "interlocutory" and subject to revision and alteration at will for as long as the accounting ordered as a mere incident and logical consequence has not been rendered and acted upon by the trial court. xxx xxx xxxThe Court, however, deems it proper for the guidance of the bench and bar to now declare as is clearly indicated from the compelling reasons

and considerations herein-above stated:— that the court considers the better rule to be that stated in H.E. Heacock Co. vs. American Trading Co. (53 Phil. 481 [19291, to wit, that where the primary purpose of a case is to ascertain and determine who between plaintiff and defendant is the true owner and entitled to the exclusive use of the disputed property, "the judgment ... rendered by the lower court [is] a judgment on the merits as to those questions, and (that) the order of the court for an accounting was based upon and is incidental to the judgment on the merits. That is to say, that the judgment ... (is) a final judgment ... ; that in this kind of a case an accounting is a mere incident to the judgment; that an appeal lies from the rendition of the judgment as rendered ...xxx xxx xxx—that accordingly, the contrary ruling in Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso which expressly reversed the Heacock case and a line of similar decisions (Africa vs. Africa, 42 Phil. 934; Villanueva vs. Capistrano; Prophylactic Brush Co., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 46254, Nov. 23, 1938 [Unpublished) and ruled that such a decision for recovery of property with accounting 'is not final but merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable and subsequent cases Adhering to the same Zaldarriaga vs. Enriquez, 1 SCRA 1188) must be now in turn abandoned and set aside. xxx xxx xxxThe Court's considered opinion is that imperative considerations of public policy and of sound practice in the courts and adherence to the constitutional mandate of simplified, just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action can for considering such judgments for recovery of property with accounting as final judgments which are duly appealable (and would therefore become final and executory if not appealed within the reglementary period) with the accounting as a mere incident of the judgment to be rendered during the course of the appeal as provided in Rule 39, section 4 or to be implemented at the execution stage upon final affirmance on appeal of the judgment (as in Court of Industrial Relations unfair labor practice cases ordering reinstatement of the worker with accounting, computation and payment of his backwages less earnings elsewhere during his layoff) and that the only reason given in Fuentebella for the contrary ruling, viz, "the general harm that would follow from throwing the door open to multiplicity of appeals in a single case is of lesser import and consequence".

Considering the aforestated well-established jurisprudence on the matter, the clear mandate of Article 106 of the Civil Code and the aforequoted ruling in the Miranda case, the decision of the trial court dated January 4, 1973 decreeing the legal separation between then spouses Antonio Macadangdang and Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang had long become final and executory and the division of the conjugal property in a "supplemental decision" is a mere incident of the decree of legal separation. Since We have ruled on the finality of the judgment decreeing the spouses' legal separation as of January 4, 1973, the remaining issue for Our resolution is the final disposition of their conjugal partnership of gains which partnership, by reason of the final decree, had been automatically dissolved. The law (Articles 106, 107 and 176 of the

25

Civil Code) clearly spells out the effects of a final decree of legal separation on the conjugal property. The death on November 30, 1979 of herein petitioner who was declared the guilty spouse by the trial court, before the liquidation of the conjugal property is effected, poses a new problem which can be resolved simply by the application of the rules on intestate succession with respect to the properties of the deceased petitioner. Thus, the rules on dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains under the aforecited provisions of the Civil Code would be applied effective January 4, 1973 when the decree of legal separation became final. Upon the liquidation and distribution conformably with the law governing the effects of the final decree of legal separation, the law on intestate succession should take over in the disposition of whatever remaining properties have been allocated to petitioner. This procedure involves details which properly pertain to the lower court. The properties that may be allocated to the deceased petitioner by virtue of the liquidation of the conjugal assets, shall be distributed in accordance with the laws of intestate succession in Special Proceedings No. 134. WHEREFORE, THIS PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED, WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER'S ESTATE. SO ORDERED.

26