G.R. No. 28904 , December 29, 1928
CIPRIANA GARCIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ISABELO SANTIAGO and ALEJO SANTIAGO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Cipriana Garcia was married to Isabelo Santiago. She left their conjugal home on February 3, 1925, alleging that continued family dissensions compelled her to do so. The dissensions arose from two main issues: (1) the alleged seduction of her daughter (from a prior marriage), Prisca Aurelio, by Isabelo’s son (from a prior marriage), Alejo Santiago, and Isabelo’s refusal to address the matter; and (2) Isabelo’s alleged fraudulent conveyance of conjugal property to Alejo. Cipriana filed a complaint seeking a declaration that her separation was justified, the annulment of the property transfers, the right to administer the conjugal property, a monthly support of P500, and attorney’s fees. The trial court dismissed her complaint.

ISSUE

1. Was Cipriana Garcia’s separation from her husband, Isabelo Santiago, justified?
2. Should the transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo Santiago be annulled?
3. Should the administration of the conjugal property be taken from the husband and given to the wife?
4. Is the wife entitled to a monthly support allowance, and if so, in what amount?
5. Is the wife entitled to attorney’s fees?

RULING

1. Yes, the separation was justified. The Supreme Court found that the wife was virtually driven out of the home by her husband, who ordered her to leave and threatened violence if she returned. The continued presence under one roof of the wife’s dishonored daughter and the husband’s son, whose illicit relationship was seemingly countenanced by the husband, created an intolerable and embarrassing situation. Compelling cohabitation would likely lead to further quarrels. Therefore, the separation was deemed necessary and justified.

2. No, the property transfers should not be annulled. The plaintiff failed to prove that the properties conveyed were conjugal assets. Documentary evidence showed that the lands in question were acquired by Isabelo Santiago *before* his marriage to Cipriana Garcia, and thus were his exclusive property.

3. No, the husband should not be deprived of the administration of the conjugal property. The Court found no sufficient reason to strip the husband of his legal right to administer the conjugal partnership property.

4. Yes, the wife is entitled to support, but not in the amount claimed. While the wife’s separation was justified, her claim for P500 monthly was excessive. The Court modified the trial court’s judgment and ordered Isabelo Santiago to pay a monthly support of P50.

5. No, the wife is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Under the circumstances of the case, the Court found no error in the trial court’s denial of this claim.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was MODIFIED. Defendant Isabelo Santiago was ordered to pay plaintiff Cipriana Garcia a monthly support of P50. The dismissal of the complaint on all other points (annulment of sale, change of administrator, attorney’s fees) was AFFIRMED. No costs were awarded.