Case Digest: PRIMA PARTOSA-JO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and HO HANG

G.R. No. 82606     18 December 1992

CRUZ, J.

FACTS:

Jose Jo, herein respondent, admits to having cohabited with three different women and fathered fifteen children.  The first of these women, Prima Partosa, claims to be his legal wife by who he begot a daughter, Monina Jo.  The petitioner filed a complaint against Jose for judicial separation of conjugal property to which the RTC of Negros Occidental ruled in favour of Prima as regards to support but none is mentioned in the dispositive portion of its decision regarding the judicial separation of conjugal property.  Upon elevation, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the separation of conjugal property sought was allowed under Articles 175, 178, 191 of the Civil Code
2. Whether or not there is such a separation decreed by the trial court  in the dispositive portion of its decision

HELD:

1. YES, THE SEPARATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY IS ALLOWED UNDER THE SAID ARTICLES.

The record shows that as early as 1942, the private respondent had already rejected the petitioner, whom he denied admission to their conjugal home in Dumaguete City when she returned from Zamboanguita.  The fact that she was not accepted by Jose demonstrates all too clearly that he had no intention of resuming their conjugal relationship.  Furthermore, Jose refused to provide financial support to the petitioner.

2. YES, THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION IN QUESTION WAS INCOMPLETE INSOFAR AS IT CARRIED NO RULING ON THE COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL SEPARATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY.

However, the technicality invoked in this case should not be allowed to prevail over considerations of substantive justice.  The trial court made definite findings that the Jose and Prima were legally married and that the properties mentioned by Prima were acquired by Jose during their married although they were registered in the name of an apparent dummy.  As there is no question that the trial court’s decision is based on the said facts, the Supreme Court then modified the decision to grant the prayer of the plaintiff on the conjugal property’s division between the spouses.