G.R. Nos.

78583-4 March 26, 1990

BENIGNO TODA, JR., petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ROSE MARIE TUASON-TODA, respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

FACTS

In June 1951, Benigno Toda Jr and Rose Marie Tuason-Toda got married and blessed with two children. However, their conjugal union was
jeopardized because of individual differences and the alleged Benigno’s infidelity thereby prompting Rose Marie to file for petition for termination
of conjugal partnership on the ground of alleged mismanagement and dissipation of conjugal funds against Benigno.

After hearings were held, both parties agreed to a joint petition for judicial approval of the dissolution of their conjugal partnership which was
signed on March 30, 1981, embodied a compromise agreement allocating to the spouses their respective shares in the conjugal partnership
assets and dismissing the previous appeals made before the CA and SC. Said petition was approved by the Trial Court in its order of June
9,1981. Further, the trial court issued several orders pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of the said compromise agreement.

After hearings were held, both parties agreed to a joint petition for judicial approval of the dissolution of their conjugal partnership which was
signed on March 30, 1981, embodied a compromise agreement allocating to the spouses their respective shares in the conjugal partnership
assets and dismissing the previous appeals made before the CA and SC. Said petition was approved by the Trial Court in its order of June
9,1981. Further, the trial court issued several orders pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of the said compromise agreement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the compromise agreement takes effect on the time when it was approved by the trial court

HOLDING

YES. The Supreme Court is in agreement with the Court of Appeals that the compromise agreement in this case shall become effective only
on June 9, 1981, the date when it was approved by the trial court and not March 30,1981 when it was signed by the parties involved. Under
Article 134 of the Family Code: “in the absence of the express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of the property between
the spouses during the marriage shall not take place save in virtue of a judicial order.” Hence, the separation of property is not effected by
mere execution of a contract or agreement of the parties but by the decree by the court approving the same.

Therefore, it becomes effective only upon the judicial approval, without which it is void. Article 137 of this code explicitly provides that the
conjugal partnership is dissolved only upon the issuance of a decree of separation of property.
A.M. No. 1594 May 7, 1976

ESTRELLA OCHIDA, complainant,

vs.
HONESTO CABARROGUIS, respondent

Facts: Respondents claims for Estrella Ochida to render an accounting and for them to get the court's
approval of the revocation so that the respondent cannot continue representing the heirs of Felipe
Cordova in public. Respondents claim that she is a fugitive from justice because there are five (5)
warrants of arrest pending against her yet she is in Manila.

Petitioner’s contention is that the characterization that she was a "fugitive from justice". She regarded it
as a vilification or calumny. She had posted for bailbonds.

The respondent in his comment invoked the rule that the relevant utterances of judges, lawyers and
witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely priviledged. He alleged that the statement complained
of was pertinent to the case because he wanted to underscore Mrs. Ochida's dilatory tactics; that the
truth was that she was charged with estafa in five cases, and that the special counsel of the Provincial
Fiscal's Office of Davao del Norte in his resolution dated November 26, 1975 dismissed her complaint
against Atty. Cabarroguis for grave oral defamation in connection with the same statement.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed a gross misconduct which justifies disciplinary action
against him.

Held: Respondent's infelicitous utterance does not constitute gross misconduct. Hence, ono disciplinary
action is called for. He is warned that the use of offensive language should be avoided and that a
repetition of that impropriety would be dealt with with more severely.

In connection with the topic, In case of Ochida Vs Cabarroguis, The lady lawyer
involved in this case was charged with multiple crimes of estafa in manila and there was
5 pending warrants of arrest against her. She was able to flee the place which was
jurisdiction in her case and so she was alleged to be considered a FUGITIVE FROM
JUSTICE.

Hence, (if so,) considered a FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, her spouse may file petition
before the court to transfer the administration of her exclusive properties to him as she is
already unable to manage her properties.