custody of the minor children follow from the decree of legal separation.

They are not separate or distinct RTC decreed legal separation between Aida Baez and matters, rather they are mere incidents of legal Gabriel Baez on the ground of the latters sexual separation. Thus they may not be subject to multiple infidelity, the dissolution of their conjugal property appeals. relations and the division of the net conjugal assets, the forfeiture of husbands one-half share in the net conjugal LaRUE v LaRUE assets in favor of the common children, the P100k payment to wifes counsel to be taken from wifes share Parties were married in 1950. Their marriage was a in the net assets, and the surrender by husband of the use traditional one wherein the husband exclusively and possession of a Mazda motor vehicle and the smaller handled the familys financial affairs and the wife was residential house to wife and common children. Wife mainly a homemaker. Out of the 30 years of marriage, filed an urgent ex parte motion to oblige her to pay wife was employed only in the early years of marriage, attorneys fees the equivalent of 5% of the total value of and her gross earnings over 7 years totaled $51,000. husbands ideal share in the net conjugal assets and Evidence showed that husband encouraged wife to be a ordering the administrator to pay her counsel P100k as housewife. A divorce was granted to them in 1980 advance attorneys fees chargeable against aforecited 5%, based on irreconcilable differences, where husbands which the RTC granted. She sought moral and exemplary abusive conduct far outweighed that of wife. The wife damages, and litigation expenses in another motion. In was awarded only alimony and an allowance for health yet another motion, she filed for execution pending insurance since 2 children were already grown. The appeal. The RTC denied the damages but gave due divorce did not provide for any distribution of marital course to the execution pending appeal. CA set aside the assets and the parties were unable to agree on any RTC ruling for husband to vacate the residential house division except as to some items of personal property. and surrender the motor vehicle. Wife petitioned for one-half interest in all property owned by husband, an undivided one-half interest in all WON execution of judgment pending appeal was real estate owned by him, a conveyance to her of all justified real and personal property in the name of and under the control of husband, and a reservation to her of a dower WON multiple appeals are allowed in an action for interest in the real property of husband. The court legal separation denied this because she did not prove that assets were to be equally owned or that any of her earnings were NO. Execution pending appeal is allowed when superior titled to husbands name. Early in the marriage, they circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages owned a home titled in both their names jointly. They that may result from the issuance of the writ. In this case, sold this and bought a new home which was under the there is no superior or urgent circumstance that wifes name. They later executed a deed transferring it outweighs the damage which respondent would suffer if under husbands name. he were to vacate the house. She did not intent to use the house as she has 2 other houses in the US where she WON wife is entitled to equitable distribution resides permanently. Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending YES. Wife was entitled to equitable distribution in a approval. no-fault divorce especially since she contributed her NO. The issues involved in a case of legal separation will earnings during the early years of marriage to conjugal necessarily relate to the same marital relationship property and since her homemaker services were between the parties. The effects of the decree, such as contributed over a considerable period of time, which entitlement to live separately, dissolution and liquidation also contributed to the economic well-being of the of the absolute community or conjugal partnership, and family unit.

BANEZ v BANEZ

EX PARTE DEVINE The parties were married in 1966 and divorced in 1979. They have 2 children, born in 1972 and 1975 respectively, who are currently under the mothers custody as awarded by the court based on the tender years presumption although court recognized that both parents were equally fit and proper to be granted custody of the minor children. WON the tender years presumption as applied in child custody proceedings violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution (equal protection clause) YES. The tender years presumption represents an unconstitutional gender-based classification which discriminates between fathers and mothers in child custody proceedings solely on the basis of sex. It creates a presumption of fitness and suitability of one parent without any consideration of the actual capabilities of the parties. Instead of this, the court should apply the best interests of the child rule and consider the individual facts of the case.