Aida Banez v.

Gabriel Banez damages, as well as

Effect of Decree | Quisumbing | January 23, 2002
Doctrine: An action for legal separation is not one where multiple appeals are allowed for
Summary: The RTC decreed the legal separation between the the spouses Banez. Pending theappeal
and motions.
Facts:
RTC of Cebu decreed the legal separation between petitioner
Aida Bañez and respondent Gabriel Bañez on the ground of the
latter’s sexual infidelity; and ordered:
o the dissolution of their conjugal property
relations and the division of the net conjugal
assets;
o the forfeiture of respondent’s one-half share
in the net conjugal assets in favor of the
common children;
o the payment to petitioner’s counsel of the sum
of ₱100,000 as attorney’s fees to be taken
from petitioner’s share in the net assets; and
o the surrender by respondent of the use
and possession of a Mazda motor vehicle
and the smaller residential house located
at Maria Luisa Estate Park Subdivision to
petitioner
Petitioner filed an urgent ex-parte motion to modify said
decision, while respondent filed a Notice of Appeal. (please turn
to FOCUS)
litigation expenses
- she filed a motion
execution
pending appeal, Aida filed several appeals
RTC - denied Aida’s motion for moral and exemplary damages
and litigation expenses but gave due course to the execution
pending appeal
▪ Aida was ordered to post a bond in the amount of
P1,500,000.00 to answer for all the damages that
respondent may suffer arising from the issuance of
said writ of execution pending appeal and to further
answer for all the advances that petitioner may have
received from the Special Administrator in this case
pending final termination of this present case
CA – Gabriel filed a certiorari Rule 65 case
▪ authorized the release of the sum of P100,000.00 to
private respondent’s counsel as the advanced share of
private respondent [Aida Bañez] in the net remaining
conjugal assets
▪ granted the motion for execution pending appeal by
ordering petitioner [Gabriel Bañez] to vacate the
premises of the small residential house situated in
Maria Luisa Estate Park Subdivision, Lahug, Cebu
City, and to surrender the use and possession of the
Mazda Motor vehicle to private respondent are hereby
SET ASIDE

Aida’s Motions Gabriel’s Appeal [FOCUS on this]

1. trial court granted Aida:
petitioner Aida Banez - She doesn’t question the RTC’s order regarding the
urgent ex-parte motion filed a consolidated Mazda car.
to modify the decision written opposition to the - She only prays now that she and her children could use
- obliging petitioner two motions, and also and occupy their house in Cebu.
to pay as attorney’s prayed for the - She posted a bond of 1.5 million for the damages. She
fees the equivalent reconsideration now asks for the execution pending appeal
of 5% of the total - as an alternative, she simply be required to put up an
value of additional bond. She also agreed to submit to an
respondent’s ideal accounting as regular administratrix and the advance
share in the net attorney’s fees be charged to her share in the net
conjugal assets conjugal assets
- ordering the
administrator to Gabriel
pay petitioner’s - denied petitioner’s allegation that she did not have the
counsel, Atty. chance to occupy the residential house. He averred
Adelino B. Sitoy, that she could have, had she chosen to.
the sum of - According to him, as the inventory of the couple’s
₱100,000 as properties showed, petitioner owned two houses and
advance attorney’s lots and two motor vehicles in the United States, where
fees she is a permanent resident.
- Respondent contended that there was no compelling
2. Aida Bañez sought moral reason for petitioner to have the judgment executed
and exemplary pending appeal.
 Disposition: WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DENIED
for lack of merit.
Issue 1: whether execution of judgment pending appeal was
justified –
Held: NO
• execution pending appeal is allowed when superior
circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the
damages that may result from the issuance of the writ
[Echaus vs. Court of Appeals]
• we are of the view that there is no superior or urgent
circumstance that outweighs the damage which
respondent would suffer if he were ordered to
vacate the house.
• We note that petitioner did not refute respondent’s
allegations that she did not intend to use said house,
and that she has two (2) other houses in the United
States where she is a permanent resident, while he
had none at all.
• Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to
justify her plea for execution pending appeal.

Issue 2: is an action for legal separation one where multiple

appeals are allowed?
Held: NO.

[Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals]

• Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in
actions for recovery of property with accounting, in
actions for partition of property with accounting, in the
special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure
of mortgage.
• The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in
the same case is to enable the rest of the case to
proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue
is resolved by the court and held to be final.
• Splitting the appeals in that case would only be
violative of the rule against multiplicity of appeals.

In this case:
• The same holds true in an action for legal
separation.
• The issues involved in the case will necessarily
relate to the same marital relationship between the
parties.
• The effects of legal separation, such as entitlement
to live separately, dissolution and liquidation of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership, and
custody of the minor children, follow from the
decree of legal separation.
• They are not separate or distinct matters that may
be resolved by the court and become final prior to
or apart from the decree of legal separation.
Rather, they are mere incidents of legal separation.
• Thus, they may not be subject to multiple appeals.