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

Ponente: J. Romualdez

FACTS

Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera and Concepcion Cembrano were married in 1884 under the regime of the legal conjugal partnership. They had three children: Carlos, Alfredo, and Carmen. During the marriage, Concepcion Cembrano lived separately from the conjugal home. Dr. Tavera died on March 26, 1925. In the proceedings for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the administrator, Juan Sumulong, presented a scheme for liquidation. The Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order on March 15, 1927, which, among other things, approved the allowance for Concepcion Cembrano’s subsistence from the conjugal partnership from 1913 to 1925 at P800 per month, and ordered the collation of certain sums advanced by Dr. Tavera to their children. The administrator appealed, raising several errors.

ISSUE

The main issues revolve around the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, specifically:
1. Whether Concepcion Cembrano, while living separately from the conjugal home, was entitled to an allowance for support chargeable to the conjugal partnership.
2. Whether the amount of P800 per month was reasonable.
3. Whether the right to claim such support had prescribed.
4. Whether the rents from the wife’s paraphernal property should be returned to or included in the conjugal partnership.
5. Whether the children should collate the sums they received from their father.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the appealed order with modification regarding the collation from the children.

1. On the Right to Support: The Court held that Concepcion Cembrano was entitled to support from the conjugal partnership despite living apart. Under Article 1408 of the Civil Code, the support of the family is a primary charge against the conjugal partnership. This obligation subsists as long as the marriage and the conjugal partnership exist. Mere physical separation, without proof of culpability or fault on the wife’s part, does not extinguish this right. The fact that Dr. Tavera himself arranged for and continued her monthly allowance (initially from her paraphernal property and later from other funds under administration) was a recognition of this right.

2. On the Amount of Support: The Court found no reason to modify the monthly allowance of P800 fixed by the trial court, considering the social position of the family and the extent of the conjugal partnership funds.

3. On Prescription: The Court rejected the defense of prescription. Dr. Tavera’s continuous provision of the allowance constituted a recurring acknowledgment of the debt, which interrupts prescription. Furthermore, the claim was not a simple action for unpaid support but involved the compensation of that support with the fruits of her paraphernal property.

4. On the Paraphernal Property Rents: The Court upheld the trial court’s ruling. There was no proof that Dr. Tavera ceased managing his wife’s paraphernal property. The opening of a separate account for it did not signify a cessation of management. Therefore, the rents and fruits therefrom belonged to the wife and were not required to be returned to the conjugal partnership.

5. On Collation by the Children: The Court MODIFIED the trial court’s order on this point. The evidence (Exhibits K, L, and M) showed that the sums advanced to the children Carlos, Alfredo, and Carmen (totaling P31,952.97) were drawn from Dr. Tavera’s private funds, as reflected in his private account, and not from the conjugal partnership property. Therefore, the children were not obligated to collate these amounts to the conjugal partnership.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Wherefore, with the modification that the three children shall not be required to bring the P31,952.97 into collation, the order appealed from is affirmed in all other respects. No costs.