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

FACTS

Plaintiff Estrella de la Cruz filed a complaint against her husband, defendant Severino de la Cruz, alleging abandonment and mismanagement of conjugal partnership properties. She prayed for separation of property, monthly support, and attorney’s fees. The spouses were married in 1938 and had six children. During coverture, they acquired significant conjugal assets, including parcels of land in Bacolod and Silay, a hacienda, and various business ventures (including the Philippine Texboard Factory) with total assets valued at over P1,000,000 by 1959. They also had substantial debts secured by mortgages on conjugal properties. The plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant started living separately in 1955, primarily in Manila, and alleged he was living with a concubine, Nenita Hernandez. She also claimed he failed to inform her about their business affairs. The defendant denied abandonment, asserting his separate living was due to his wife’s quarrelsomeness and jealousy, and was necessary for business management in Manila. He denied having a mistress and emphasized he continuously provided financial support to his family, ranging from P1,200 to P1,500 monthly. The trial court granted separation of property and ordered the defendant to pay P20,000 as attorney’s fees. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Did the defendant’s separation from the plaintiff constitute legal abandonment justifying separation of conjugal properties?
2. Was the defendant’s failure to inform the plaintiff of their business affairs such an abuse of his administrative powers as to warrant division of conjugal assets?

RULING

1. No. The Supreme Court held that the defendant’s act of living separately did not constitute legal abandonment. Abandonment requires a voluntary and absolute cessation of marital cohabitation with the intent to desert, perpetrated without cause or consent from the other spouse. Here, the defendant’s separation was not absolute or perpetual. He continued to provide ample financial support, financed the children’s education, and maintained contact with them. His living apart was attributed to domestic discord and business necessities, not an intent to desert. Therefore, the factual basis for judicial decree of separation of property under Article 191 of the Civil Code was absent.
2. No. The Court found no abuse of administrative powers. The defendant’s silence about business matters, while perhaps lacking consideration, did not amount to mismanagement or endangerment of the conjugal assets. The evidence showed the defendant diligently managed and expanded the conjugal enterprises, increasing their value substantially. There was no proof of dissipation or squandering of assets. Mere suspicion of future mismanagement is insufficient to justify separation of property.
The Court reversed the decree of separation of property. However, it increased the monthly support (alimony pendente lite) from P2,000 to P3,000, ordering the defendant to pay this until he rejoins the conjugal home, subject to future court adjustment. The award of attorney’s fees was reduced to P10,000, without interest, as the defendant’s separation gave cause for the action for support. The Court urged the spouses to seek reconciliation.