G.R. No. 27879 , March 15, 1928
JUAN SUMULONG, administrator-appellant, vs. CONCEPCION CEMBRANO, opponent-appellee.

FACTS

Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera and Concepcion Cembrano were married in 1884 under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. They had three children. During the marriage, Concepcion Cembrano lived separately from her husband, but the marriage and the conjugal partnership subsisted until Dr. Tavera’s death in 1925. During the separation, Dr. Tavera managed his wife’s paraphernal property and caused a monthly allowance to be paid to her for her support, initially from the income of her paraphernal property and later from other funds under his administration when that income was insufficient. After Dr. Tavera’s death, the administrator of his estate presented a scheme for liquidating the conjugal partnership. The Court of First Instance of Manila disapproved the scheme and ordered a new liquidation, holding, among other things, that Concepcion Cembrano was entitled to an allowance for her support chargeable to the conjugal partnership during the period of separation, fixed at P800 per month. The administrator appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether a wife, living separately from her husband without proof of fault on her part, is entitled to support chargeable to the conjugal partnership during the subsistence of the marriage and the conjugal partnership.
2. Whether the right to such support had prescribed.
3. Whether the rents from the wife’s paraphernal property received by her during the separation must be returned to the conjugal partnership.
4. Whether the children of the marriage are obligated to collate (return to the conjugal partnership) sums of money they received from their father.

RULING

1. YES. Under Article 1408 of the Civil Code, the support of the family is a charge upon the conjugal partnership. This obligation is “the most sacred and important” among those imposed on the partnership. The mere fact of living apart, when not proven to be culpable or without judicial sanction, does not extinguish the wife’s right to support from the conjugal partnership while the marriage and the legal regime of conjugal partnership subsist. Dr. Tavera’s own act of providing and ensuring the payment of a monthly allowance to his wife during the separation constituted a recognition of this right.
2. NO. The right to support had not prescribed. The action was not for the recovery of unpaid support, but for the compensation or accounting of the support due against the amounts she received from her paraphernal property’s income. Furthermore, Dr. Tavera’s continuous provision of the allowance constituted a recurring acknowledgment that barred the defense of prescription.
3. NO. The wife is not required to return the rents from her paraphernal property received during the separation. These rents were properly applied to her support, which was a legitimate charge against the conjugal partnership. The fact that the conjugal partnership later advanced funds to cover her allowance when her paraphernal income was insufficient does not create an obligation to return the earlier rents.
4. NO. The children are not required to collate the sums they received (totaling P31,952.97). The evidence (Exhibits K, L, M) showed that these sums were debited against the private account of Dr. Tavera and not against the funds of the conjugal partnership. Therefore, these were advances from their father’s separate property, not from the conjugal assets.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed order is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the three children, Carlos, Alfredo, and Carmen Pardo de Tavera, are not required to collate the sum of P31,952.97. Affirmed in all other respects. No costs.