You are on page 1of 3


FACTS: As an ambassador petitioner Samson Sabalones was assigned to different

countries and as such, he left the administration of their conjugal properties to his
wife Remedios Gaviola-Sabalones
1985 Sabalones retired as ambassador to live in the Philippines but did not
return to his family. In 1989, he filed judicial authorization to sell their
Greenhills property. He alleged that he was 68 yrs old, very sick and living
alone with no income.
Remedies opposed the authorization and filed a counterclaim for
legal separation.
She alleged that the Greenhills property was
occupied by her and their 6 children and they were dependent on
the rentals of their other properties. She also informed the court that
despite Sabalones retirement, he did not return to his legitimate family and
instead maintained a separate residence with Thelma Cumareng and their 3
children. Remedios prayed for a decree of legal separation and liquidation of
their conjugal properties, with forfeiture of her husbands share. Also prayed
for preventing the Sabalones from disturbing the tenants in the Forbes Park
property and disposing any of the conjugal properties
After trial, Judge Mariano Umali found that the petitioner had indeed
contracted a bigamous marriage on October 5, 1981 with Thelma Cumareng.
The court, then, decreed the legal separation of Sabalones and Remedios ,
forfeiture of his share in the conjugal properties and non-entitlement to
Pendente lite, Remedios filed a motion for issuance of a write of preliminary
injunction preventing Sabalones from interfering in the administration of their
properties. Petitioner opposed motion
April 7, 1992 CA granted the preliminary injunction
Petitioner argued that the law provides of a joint administration of the
conjugal properties by the husband and wife, citing Art. 124 FC. Also the
court failed to appoint an administrator pursuant to Art. 61 FC
ISSUE: Whether or not the wife, pendente lite, can enter into a contract of lease of
a conjugal property without the consent of both spouses
HELD: While the law does indeed grant the spouses joint administration over
conjugal properties under Art. 124 FC, Art. 61 of the same code is to be applied in
the instant case since the legal separation case filed by the wife is still pending.
Pending the appointment of an administrator over the conjugal assets, CA was
justified in allowing the wife to continue with her administration pursuant to Art. 61
FC. This provision states that after a petition for legal separation has been
filed, the trial court shall, in the absence of a written agreement between
the couple, appoint either one of the spouses or a third person to act as
the administrator.
While it is true that no formal designation of the administrator has been made, such
designation was implicit in the decision of the trial court denying the petitioner any
share in the conjugal properties (and thus also disqualifying him as administrator
thereof). That designation was in effect approved by the Court of Appeals when it

issued in favor of the respondent wife the preliminary injunction now under

The primary purpose of the provisional remedy of injunction is to preserve the

status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the parties
and thus protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting these matters during the
pendency of the suit. Otherwise, the defendant may, before final judgment, do or
continue doing the act which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain and thus make
ineffectual the final judgment that may be rendered afterwards in favor of the
Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals 160 SCRA 449 (1988)
Violeta Delmo was elected treasurer of a state college organization named Student
Leadership Club. In that capacity, she extended loans from the club funds to some
students. Thus the petitioner and college president, Jose B. Ledesma claiming that
extending loans was against school rules, wrote Delmo informing her that she was
being dropped from the membership of the club and that she would not be a
candidate for any award from the school. Delmo appealed to the Office of the
Director of the Bureau of Public Schools. The Bureau directed the college president
not to deprive Delmo of any award if she is entitled to it. On April 27,1966, the
President received the Directors decision. On the same day he received a telegram
airmail records Delmo missent that office. The Bureau Director asked for the return
only of the records but the President allegedly mistook the telegram as ordering him
to also send the decision back. So he returned by mail all the records plus the
decision to the Director. The next day the President received from the Bureau
Director a telegram telling him to give a copy of the decision to Delmo. The
President in turn sent a telegram to the Bureau Director telling him that he had
returned the decision and that he had not retained a copy. On May 3, the day of
graduation, the President again received another telegram from the Director
ordering him not to deprive Delmo of any honors due her. As it was impossible by
this time to include Delmos name in the program as one of the honor students, the
President let her graduate as a plain student instead of being awarded the latin
honor magna cum laude.
The President of the state college was held liable for damages under Article 27 of
the Civil Code for failure to graduate a student with honors, on account of said
officials neglect of duty and callousness. Undoubtedly, Delmo went through a
painful ordeal brought about by the presidents neglect of duty and callousness.
Thus, moral and exemplary damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code are but

G.R. No. 120594. June 10, 1997

On April 17,1989, a case for partition and accounting was instituted by the
spouses Alfonso and Eteria Tan against Alfonsos brothers, Celestino and
Maximo Tan. Spouses claimed that 1/3 of the 906 square meter residential lot
was brought to their conjugal property during their marriage. However,
brothers of Alfonso objected the claim. They claimed that the subject
property was inherited by them from their mother and was divided among
them, Alfonso, Celestino and Maximo.
Eteria, admitted that she is legally married to Alfonso but they were now
living separately by virtue of a decree of legal separation. The Regional Trial
Court ruled in favor of Alfonso and Eteria, however, the Court of Appeals
decided otherwise.
Whether or not the said 1/3 of the subject property is a conjugal property of
Eteria and Alfonso.
It was held by the Court that, the Husbands acquisition by succession of a
parcel of land during his marriage to his wife simply means that the lot is his
exclusive property because it was acquired by him during the marriage by
lucrative title.