Case:

De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz

Plaintiff-Appellee: Estrella De la Cruz
Defendant-Appellant:
Severino De la Cruz
FACTS:
1. Estrella de la Cruz and Severino de la Cruz were married and had six children
born to them. During their converture they acquired seven parcels of land,
has yielded their hacienda and also ventured in different businesses.
2. After more or less 20 years of marriage, Estrella de la Cruz filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against Severino de la Cruz
alleging that the latter not only abandoned her but as well was mismanaging
their conjugal partnership properties, and prays for the follows: (1) separation
of property, (2) monthly support (alimony lite) of P2,500 during the pendency
of the action (but was reduced to P2,000 upon defendants motion), and (3)
payment of P20,000 as attorneys fees and costs.
3. Plaintiff reasons that the defendant has stopped residing in their conjugal
home in Bacolod City and instead started living in Manila and denied
communications with her (abandonment). Plaintiff alleges that based on
unsigned notes she found, that the defendant was having illicit liaisons with
another woman (Nenita). Plaintiff fears that the defendant will squander their
conjugal assets on this alleged mistress. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant
had abused his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership for his
failure to inform the plaintiff the state of their business enterprises.
4. On the defendants part, he denied accusation of having a mistress, and that
the reason he lived separately was because he could not concentrate with
work at their conjugal home because of the plaintiffs quarrelsome nature. He
asserts that instead of mismanaging their conjugal partnership property, he
has successfully expanded through his own hard work and diligence. He also
alleges that he had never abandoned the family. In fact, he had been giving
the plaintiff P500 monthly support, allowances for their children ranging from
P1200- P1500 a month, as well as financing their education.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants abandoned his family, abused his powers of
administration be grounds for legal separation of the conjugal partnership
properties
RULING:
1. No. With regards to abandonment, the Court held that the defendant is not
guilty of abandonment of his wife nor abuse of his administrative powers. To
entitle the plaintiff to any of the remedies she asks for, under article 178,
there must be real abandonment, and not mere separation. The
abandonment must not only be physical estrangement but also amount to
financial and moral desertion. The Court believes that the defendant did not
intend to leave his family permanently. The facts show that he continued to
give support in his absence, thus he was not guilty of abandonment. The
Court also believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the
defendant had married and was living with a concubine.

2. The Court believed that the defendants refusal to inform the plaintiff of the
progress and status of their family businesses does not constitute abuse.
Abuse connotes willful and utter disregard of the interest of the partnership,
evidenced by a repetition of deliberate acts and/or omissions prejudicial to
the latter, which is not the case for the defendant.
3. 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.
4. The judgment of the Court of First Instance 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.