Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digests For Persons and Family Compiled
Case Digests For Persons and Family Compiled
Ruling: Two cases were cited to explain the Issue RTC: Jan 4 1973 Order for Legal Separation
- dissolution of Conjugal Property , (d) ordered to pay 10000
Accourding to (Echaus V CA) the execution pending appeal is allowed for her support (disposing properties and mortgaging them
when supertior circumstances demanding urgency overweigh the with out (w) knowledge) under the circumstances the court
damages that may result from the issuance of the writ otherwise can appoint an administrator who will manage the conjugal
instead of being an instrument of solitude and justice, the writ may well estate and act as guardian to the minors , to protect the said
become a tool of oppression and equity . properties from dissipation and who will submit the inventory
of properties for liquidation.
In the case at bar the court deemed that there is no urgency in the - Aug 25, private respondent filed for another motion for
awarding of damages , considering that the wife has ample resources appointment of an administrator
while (h) has none “Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to - Sept 20 respondent judge issued order directing plaintiff to
justify her plea” for execution pending her appeal to do so would make submit 3 names for appointment
an execution routinary to the rule rather than exeption - Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, with prayer that
he be allowed to continue to administer the conjugal
Accourding to Archbishop v CA – the rational behind the multiple properties, the request was denied
appeals is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a - Private respondent submitted nominees for administrator
separate and distinct issues is resolved by the court and held final.-this - Respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration
can’t be applied because splitting the appeals in this case would only filed by petitioner declaring legal sep is already final.
be a violative rule of multiple appeals. CA: Affirmed
- (H) died the civil case was declared moot and academic
In the case at bar legal separation the court contended that legal
separation should not be subject to multiple appeals. Issue: 1. Did the CA gravely erred in holding that respondent
judge’s incomplete decision of Jan 4 1973 had become final and
On the first issue it was denied for lack of merit , the court of appeals is executory?
hereby directed to give due course with regard to the action. 2)Did petitioner’s death render the case moot and academic?
Macadangdang V CA
Rationale Legal Problems do not extinguish simply because of the
Facts: Filomena and Antionio got married on Mrch 1967 death of one part; the same might come out again in another case.
-Both had extramarital relationships Yes, law explicitly and clearly provides for dissolution and liquidation of
-1965 they separated for good the CPG (art 106) dissolution and liquidation are the consequences of
1971- Wife files for legal separation the final decree.
Jan 4 1973- Legal Spearation was granted but no complete list of
conjugal properties were divided, P 10000 support until court can
appoint the administrator.
Rights and Obligations between Husband and Wife OFELIA P. TY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, and
EDGARDO M. REYES, respondents.
Relief [Article 72] Gotia vs. Campos Rueda Case Digest (by jamic)
The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff by 1. Whether their separation is unjustified
way of maintenance on or before the 10th day of each month, NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to
the sum of Php. 500. the frequent fights.Isabelo ordered her to leave the house &
threatened to ill-treat her if she returned.Prisca’s situation is
RATIONALE: embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo
causedPrisca’s pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead
In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to to further quarrels.
require separate maintenance from her husband, it is not necessary 2. Whether transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal
that the husband should bring a concubine into the marital domicile. NO. Failed to prove that property was community property.
Repeated illicit relations with women outside of the marital Documentary evidence
establishment are enough. The law is not so unreasonable as to even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage.
require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose 3.Whether Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance
propensity towards other women makes common habitation with him NO. That’s too much. P50.00 would be enough.
unbearable. 4. Whether Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property
NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right.
5. Whether Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorney’s fees
NO.
CASE: GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO AND SANTIAGO. 53 Phil. 952. GR
No. L-28904. December 29, 1928 HELD:
That the judgment appealed from is therefore modified. Separation
PLAINTIFF: Cipriana Garcia is allowed. Isabelo is ordered to provide Cipriana with a P50.00
DEFENDANT: Isabelo Santiago and Alejo Santiago monthly allowance to be paid within the first 10 days of the month.
No costs allowed.