Case Digest: Estrella de la Cruz vs. Severino de la Cruz

No. L-19565          30 January 1968

Castro, J.

FACTS:

On 01 February 1938, Estrella and Severino married in Bacolod City.  During their union, six (6) children were born, and seven (7) parcels of land from Bacolod Cadastre and three (3) parcels of land from Silay Cadastre were acquired.  These lands were assessed at P45,429 and P43,580, respectively.  The hacienda in Silay had a net profit of P3,309.49 in 1957.  Aside from these properties, the spouses also owned a number of varied businesses and subdivisions.

On 22 July 1958, Estrella de la Cruz filed a complaint alleging that her husband had not only abandoned her, but also mismanaged their conjugal partnership properties.  According to Estrella, since 1955, Severino had not lived in their conjugal home, but instead had lived in his office and thereafter had been living in Manila with his concubine, Nenita Hernandez.  This was supported by notes and letters written by Nenita which Estrella found hidden in the pocket of her husband’s polo shirt and then in his iron safe thereafter.  When confronted, Severino denied of abandoning his wife and children.  He reasoned that he was only living in his office to teach a lesson to his quarrelsome and extremely jealous wife.  He further averred that he never failed to give his family financial support as evidenced by the allowance drawings of the wife in the amounts ranging from P1000 to P1500 from the office, which was corroborated by Marcos Ganaban, the assistant general manager of Philippine Textboard Factory. 

Furthermore, Estrella insists that her husband refused and failed to inform her of the status of their various business concerns.  She further claims that such actuations are tantamount to an abuse of administrative powers over the conjugal partnership properties.  However, no evidence from the plaintiff was presented.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the separation of the defendant from the plaintiff constitute abandonment in law and would justify a separation of the conjugal partnership properties?
2. Whether the defendant’s failure and/or refusal to inform the plaintiff of the state of their business enterprises such an abuse of his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership as to warrant a division of matrimonial assets?

HELD:

1. NO, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY OF ABANDONMENT. 

The Court held that the plaintiff’s prayer that her plea for separation of conjugal partnership properties under Articles 167 and 178 of the new Civil Code requires a presentment of real abandonment and not mere separation.  The abandonment must not only be physical estrangement but also amount to financial and moral desertion.  Physical separation alone is not the full meaning of the term “abandonment”, if the husband, despite his voluntary departure from the society of his spouse, neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support to his wife.  The Court further believed that the defendant did not intend to leave his wife and children permanently despite his absence from the conjugal home, as shown by the evidence on record that he continued to give support to his family.  Furthermore, the evidence on record fails to preponderate in favour as to whether Severino kept Nenita as a concubine.  Credible evidence is needed, which the plaintiff failed to show and is negatived by her testimony that she had not seen Nenita’s handwriting before.

2. NO, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY OF ABUSING HIS POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION OVER THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.

There is no evidence on the record to show that he has squandered the conjugal assets.  The refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the family businesses does not constitute in abuse.