Partosa-Jo vs. CA
Ong
The petitioner, Prima Jo, is the legal wife of Jose Jo, herein
private respondent. Wherein the husband admitted to have
cohabited with 3 women and fathered 15 children.
Prima filed a complaint against the husband for judicial
separation of conjugal property in addition to an earlier action
for support which was consolidated.
RTC decision was a definite disposition of the complaint for
support but none of that for the judicial separation of conjugal
property.
Jose elevated an appeal to CA which affirmed rulings of the trial
court. The complaint on the separation of property was
dismissed for lack of cause of action on the ground that
separation by agreement was not covered in Art. 178 of the Civil
Code.
The wife contested that the agreement between her and Jose
was for her to temporarily live with her parents during the initial
period of her pregnancy and for him to visit and support her, and
that they never agreed to be separated permanently. She even
returned to him but the latter refused to accept her.
Issue is WON there is abandonment on the part of Jose Jo to
warrant judicial separation of conjugal property.
Ruling: SC believes that respondent court should have made the
necessary modification instead of dismissing the case filed.
For abandonment to exist, there must be an absolute cessation
of marital relations, duties and rights, with the intention of
perpetual separation.
The fact that Jo did not accept her demonstrates that he had no
intention of resuming their conjugal relationship. In fact, the
husband refused to provide financial support to Prima. Hence,
the physical separation of the parties, coupled with the refusal
by the private respondent to give support to the petitioner,
sufficed to constitute abandonment as a ground for the judicial
separation of their conjugal property.
Thus, the petition was granted and in favor of the petitioner and
that the court ordered the conjugal property of the spouses be
divided between them, share and share alike.
The division will be implemented after the determination of all
the properties pertaining to the said conjugal partnership
including those that may have been illegally registered in the
name of the persons.
Ong vs.
William Ong and Lucita Ong were married and had 3 children.
Later on, Lucita filed a complaint for legal separation under Art
55 (1) of FC on grounds of physical violence, threats, intimidation
and grossly abusive conduct of petitioner. And the RTC granted
prayer for legal separation.
CA upheld RTCs decision when herein petitioner, the husband,
filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
In fact, when the respondent asked petitioner to bring their son
back from Bacolod which turned into a violent quarrel with the
petitioner hitting the respondent on the head, left cheek, eye,
stomach, arms, and ultimately pointing a gun at respondents
head asking her to leave the conjugal house.
Many more instances of indisputable physical and verbal abuse
where committed by the husband towards his wife. He also said
that such legal separation would label him as a wife-beater and
child abuser.
Issue is WON CA erred in upholding the RTCs decision granting
legal separation to Lucita when she herself has given ground for
legal separation when abandoned her family.
Ruling: No. It is true that a decree of legal separation should not
be granted when both parties have given ground for legal
separation (Art 56 (4) FC). However, the abandonment referred
to in the Family Code is abandonment without justifiable cause
for more than one year.
But in this case, it was established that Lucita left William due to
his abusive conduct which does not constitute the abandonment
contemplated in the said provision.
Thus, petition of husband was denied for lack of merit because
the wifes ground for legal separation was indisputable, while
the husbands petition against his wife, where he said that she
herself has given ground for legal separation, did not fly with the
court.
 Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz Najera vs. Najera

Estrella, the plaintiff, and Severino, the defendant were married

in Bacolod and begotten 6 children. During their marriage, they
acquired several parcels of land and were engage in various
businesses.
The plaintiff filed an action against her husband for the
separation of their properties.
She further alleged that her husband aside from abandoning her,
also mismanaged their conjugal properties.
On the other hand, Severino contended that he had always
visited the conjugal home and had provided support for the
family despite his frequent absences when he was in Manila to
supervise the expansion of their business. Since 1955, he had
not slept in the conjugal dwelling instead stayed in his office at
Texboard Factory although he paid short visits in the conjugal
home, which was affirmed by Estrella.
Furthermore, the wife suspected that her husband had a
mistress named Nenita Hernandez, hence, the urgency of the
separation of property for the fear that her husband might
squander and dispose the conjugal assets in favor of the
concubine.
Issue is WON there has been abandonment on the part of the
husband and (lesser issue:) WON there has been an abused of
his authority as administrator of the conjugal partnership.
Ruling: On the first issue: No. The husband has never desisted in
the fulfillment of his marital obligations and support of the
family.
To be legally declared as to have abandoned the conjugal home,
one must have willfully and with intention of not coming back
and perpetual separation. There must be real abandonment and
not mere separation. In fact, the husband never failed to give
monthly financial support as admitted by the wife. This negates
the intention of coming home to the conjugal abode. The
plaintiff even testified that the husband paid short visits
implying more than one visit. Likewise, as testified by the
manager of one of their businesses, the wife has been drawing a
monthly allowance of P1,000-1,500 that was given personally by
the defendant or the witness himself.
On the 2nd issue: SC held that lower court erred in holding that
mere refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the
conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the
business constitutes abuse of administration. In order for abuse
to exist, there must be a willful and utter disregard of the interest
of the partnership evidenced by a repetition of deliberate acts or
omissions prejudicial to the latter.