G.R. No. L-7487, December 29, 1913
CONSTANZA YAÑEZ DE BARNUEVO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GABRIEL FUSTER, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
1. Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yañez were canonically married in Malaga, Spain, on February 7, 1875.
2. Fuster came to the Philippine Islands in 1892, acquired property, and established residence. Yañez joined him in Manila in 1896, and they lived together until April 1899.
3. On April 4, 1899, the spouses executed a public agreement to live apart. Fuster authorized Yañez to reside in Spain and obligated himself to send her a monthly support of 300 pesetas, payable in Madrid. He complied until August 1899, then ceased payments.
4. Yañez returned to the Philippines in March 1909. Fuster had departed in early February 1909.
5. On March 11, 1909, Yañez filed a complaint for divorce (more accurately, a decree of separation of bed and board) against Fuster, alleging his adultery in 1899. She also sought liquidation and division of their conjugal property and payment of arrears in support amounting to 36,000 Spanish pesetas.
6. Fuster contested the court’s jurisdiction, arguing both parties were domiciled in Spain. He admitted the support agreement but claimed he had asked her to return to Manila in 1900, which she ignored, and that the action had prescribed. He denied the adultery and alleged that Yañez had misappropriated his assets in Spain.
7. The trial court assumed jurisdiction, decreed the suspension of conjugal life, ordered Fuster to pay a reduced amount for support arrears (P5,010.17), and directed the division of conjugal property. Both parties appealed. Commissioners proceeded with the partition, and a final judgment was rendered, from which both parties again appealed.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the action for support and for separation of bed and board (divorce a mensa et thoro).
2. Whether the action to recover arrears of support had prescribed.
3. Whether the monthly support of 300 pesetas stipulated in the 1899 agreement referred to Spanish pesetas or Mexican pesos (the currency then current in the Philippines).
4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of 30,000 dollars allegedly constituting her dowry or paraphernal property.

RULING:
1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s jurisdiction. Fuster had resided continuously in the Philippines from 1892 until just before the suit was filed in 1909, acquiring real property in Manila. Yañez also resided in Manila from 1896 to 1899. Therefore, the defendant had his legal domicile in the Philippines, conferring jurisdiction on its courts over his person. Regarding the subject matter, the Court held that under the then-prevailing Marriage Law (which incorporated principles of the Spanish Civil Code), actions for separation of bed and board and for the incidental economic effects of marriage (like support and property division) were within the competence of the civil courts, not exclusively ecclesiastical tribunals.

2. On Prescription: The Court held that the action to recover arrears of support had not prescribed. The obligation to provide support is continuous and recurring, creating a new cause of action each month payment is due. The prescriptive period for each monthly installment runs separately. Since the complaint was filed in March 1909, the arrears claimed from August 1899 to that date were still within the applicable prescriptive period.

3. On the Currency of Support: The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the “300 pesetas” stipulated in the 1899 agreement referred to Mexican pesos, not Spanish pesetas. The agreement was executed in Manila where Mexican currency was the legal tender. Applying rules of interpretation from the Civil Code, in case of ambiguity, the contract must be understood in the sense most appropriate to its nature and according to the usage of the place where it was established. The phrase “de su cuenta” (at his expense) in the agreement indicated the husband was to bear the cost of transmitting the funds, implying the local currency was intended.

4. On the Claim for 30,000 Dollars: The Court denied Yañez’s claim for 30,000 dollars, whether characterized as dowry or paraphernal property. For paraphernal property delivered to the husband for administration, the law (Article 1384 of the Spanish Civil Code) required a public deed of delivery and the husband’s obligation to secure it with a mortgage. No such evidence was presented. Therefore, the necessary proof to obligate the conjugal partnership or the husband to return this amount was lacking.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The two appealed judgments of the trial court were AFFIRMED in their entirety. The partition of conjugal property was confirmed. No costs were awarded.