Facts of the case:
1946, respondent Filomena Macadangdang and petitioner Antonio
Macadangdang contracted marriage and lived together for two
From a simple buy and sell business their businesses grew and
expanded into merchandising, trucking, transportation, and others.
They were blessed with six children. Three of those were already of
majority age and other three were sill minors as of the time the case
was initiated in the lower court.
While the economic and material aspect stabilizes, the physical and
spiritual aspects became shaky.
Both accused each other of indulging to extramarital relations.
They separated in 1965. Private respondent, Filomena left for Cebu
for good. When she returned to Davao in 1971, she learned of the
illicit affairs of her estranged husband and there she decided to take
the initial action.
Meanwhile, Macadangdang instituted a complaint for legal
separation in the Court of First Instance of Davao.
Private respondent Filomena filed a petition for appointment of
administrator to administer the estate of the conjugal partnership
pending the termination of the case. Antonio opposed said petition.
The petition for appointment of administrator was not acted upon.
However, the trial court rendered the ordering of legal separation of
the plaintiff and defendant and decreed all the legal effects attendant

thereto, particularly the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal
community of property.
Antonio was ordered to pay the plaintiff 10,000 for anyway he had
been disposing some of the properties without sharing to Filomena
the fruits or proceeds thereof until the court can appoint an
Filomena, filed another motion for the appointment of an
administrator reiterating her petition for an action favorable to her
to impede unlawful sequestration of some of their conjugal assets by
the petitioner. The petitioner filed his opposition.
The respondent judge ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to submit three
names for appointment as administrator including in the list if
possible a banking institution authorized.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, praying that he be
allowed to continue administering the conjugal properties. His
motion was denied.
CA ruled in its resolution that the decision of the lower court had
become final and the appointment of an administrator was valid and
the petition was not sufficient in substance.
Private respondent, when required to comment on the petitioner’s
appeal moved for a resolution of this case because she believes that
petitioner’s death has posed new intervening circumstance that
would affect the entire purpose in filing.
1. Won the finding that the petitioner was found guilty of
concubinage and decreeing legal separation between him

Persons and Family Relations

HELD: Petition was dismissed. problem which can be resolved simply by the application of the rules on intestate succession with respect to the properties of the deceased petitioner. RULING: The court find no merit to the submission of the petitioner that the questioned decision had not become final and executory since the law clearly provides for the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership and absolute community of property as effects of the final decree of legal separation based on Art. 1979 of herein petitioner who was declared the guilty spouse by the trial court. the remaining issue is the final disposition of their conjugal partnership of gains which partnership. by reason of the final decree. 1973. 106 of the Civil code. Since the court have ruled with finality the judgment decreeing the spouses' legal separation as of January 4. regardless of whether the accounting is the principal relief sought or a mere incident or consequence of the judgment which grants recovery and delivery of absconded properties as the principal relief an expressly provides that a judgment or order directing an accounting in action shall not be stayed after its redntion and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. This procedure involves details which properly pertain to the lower court. The rules on dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains under the aforecited provisions of the Civil Code would be applied effective January 4. poses a new JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020 Persons and Family Relations . whether the intestate heirs of the deceased could inherit from the innocent surviving spouse where the latter’s share in conjugal assets is concerned. The judgment “ directing an accounting is appealable. The death on November 30. 1973 when the decree of legal separation became final.and his wife Filomena had already become final and executory 2. Should the children of both spouses predecease the surviving spouse. Upon the liquidation and distribution conformably with the law governing the effects of the final decree of legal separation. before the liquidation of the conjugal property is effected. the law on intestate succession should take over in the disposition of whatever remaining properties have been allocated to petitioner. had been automatically dissolved.

Remedios Sabalones the administration of their conjugal properties for fifteen years Samson then retired as ambassador came back to the PH but not to his wife. Four years later.SABALONES V. CA and Remedios Sabalones Facts of the Case: As a member of the diplomatic service assigned to different countries. he filed an action of judicial authorization to sell the building and lot located in Greenhills San Juan belonging to the conjugal partnership. Petitioner Samson Sabalones left to his wife. He claims that he was too old and very sick living alone without any income. He also said that the his shares in the proceeds will be used for the cost of his hospitalization and medical treatment JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020 Persons and Family Relations .

ISSUE: 1. It was rightful taking into account the evidence presented. the CA was justified in allowing the wife to continue with her administration. The petitioner appealed the decision to the respondent court. such designation was implicit in the decision that it denies the petitioner any share in the conjugal properties thus also disqualifying him to be an administrator.Remedios opposed such authorization and filed a counterclaim for legal separation. Writ of preliminary injuction is affirmed due to the need of preserving the status quo of the said properties and failure of the petitioner to refute the allegation of harassment caused to the tenants of forbes park properties. The supreme court agrees with the respondent court that pending the appointment of an administratior. 61. The petitioner assails such resolution arguing that the law provides joint administration of conjugal properties and no injunctive relief can be filed against the other. Remedios also informed the court that despite her husband’s retirement he had not returned and maintained a separate residence with Thelma and their three children. The court also noted that the respondent has been administering the properties for almost nineteen years without complaint from the petitioner. While it is true that the said decision of the court made no formal designation of the administration of properties. Remedios prayer was to grant the decree of legal separation with forfeiture of husband’s share therein because of adultery and enjoin the petioner in disturbing the occupants of forbes park and disposing or encumbering their conjugal properties. Held: Petition was denied. She alleged that said house in Greenhills was occupied by her and their children. WON the respondent court erred in appointing an administrator of the properties as mandated by Article 61 of the Family Code RULING: The petition has no merit. CA granted the preliminary injunction ordered by his wife enjoining the petitioner in disturbing the occupants of the forbes park properties. and they were just depending for the support of the rentals from their another conjugal properties. He further argues that the respondent court failed to appoint an administrator of the conjugal assets as mandated by Art. The lower court granted the decree of legal separation with forfeiture to the petitioner’s share in conjugal properties due to bigamous marriage of the petitioner. JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020 Persons and Family Relations . WON a writ of preliminary injuction can be filed against the petitioner 2.

North Cotobato. Concepcion and Pacete was married on 1938 before the Justice of Peace of Cotobato.Administration of properties given to the private respondent and disqualified the petitioner to the shares of conjugal properties. Concepcion claims that she just knew of the subsequent marriage on 1979. PACETE V. Concepion Alanis filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage between Enrico Pacete and Clarita dela Conception as well as legal separation between her and Pacete. Pacete subsequently contracted the second marriage in 1948 with Clarite in Kidapawan. CARIAGA Facts of the case: On October 1979. JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020 Persons and Family Relations . and an accounting of the separation of properties.

However the rule is not inflexible and a petition for certiorari is allowed when default order was improperly declared. No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. The special prescriptions on actions tht can put the integrity of marriage to a possible jeopardy are impelled by no less than state’s interest. In case of nonappearance of the defendant. and motor vehicles and that Pacete fraudulently placed the several pieces of property either his name or Clarita or the name of their children and other dummies. The plaintiff was directed to present evidence. If there is no collusion. After 20 days lapsed the defendants through its new counsel filed a second motion for an extension of 30 days but the court only granted another 20 days. fishponds. Then another motion for extension of 15 days was once again filed but it was filed beyond the 20 days period granted. WON the default order issued was improperly declared Petition for certiorari granted and proceedings of the lower court is nullified and set aside. the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated. Defendants were each served with summons and filed a motion for extension of 20 days to file an answer. The plaintiff then filed a motion to declare the defendants in default which the court granted. RULING: Under ordinary circumstances the petition should have been outrightly been dismissed because the proper remedy of the petitioner should have been an appeal from the judgement by default or a petition of relief of judgement. Art. ISSUE: HELD: 1. It can be held that the default order was not legall sanctioned because as Art.Concepcion also stated that during her marriage to Pacete the latter acquired vast property consisting tracts of land. the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. The court granted the motion. The court also reiterated that there are no default actions in annumlment or legal separation and the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether a collusion exist or the pieces of evidence are not suppressed or fabricated. 101 provides: JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020 Persons and Family Relations . Later on the court granted its prayed petition for such incidental claims to the legal separation. 101.