MACADANGDANG V.

CA
Facts of the case:
1946, respondent Filomena Macadangdang and petitioner Antonio
Macadangdang contracted marriage and lived together for two
years.
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
administrator.
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 plaintiffs 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 petitioners
appeal moved for a resolution of this case because she believes that
petitioners death has posed new intervening circumstance that
would affect the entire purpose in filing.
ISSUE:
1. Won the finding that the petitioner was found guilty of
concubinage and decreeing legal separation between him

JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020

Persons and Family Relations

and his wife Filomena had already become final and

executory
2. Should the children of both spouses predecease the surviving
spouse, whether the intestate heirs of the deceased could
inherit from the innocent surviving spouse where the latters
share in conjugal assets is concerned.

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. 106
of the Civil code.
The judgment directing an accounting is appealable, 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.

problem which can be resolved simply by the application of the

rules on intestate succession with respect to the properties of the
deceased petitioner.
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, 1973 when the
decree of legal separation became final. Upon the liquidation and
distribution conformably with the law governing the effects of
the final decree of legal separation.
the law on intestate succession should take over in the
disposition of whatever remaining properties have been
allocated to petitioner. This procedure involves details which
properly pertain to the lower court.

HELD:
Petition was dismissed.

Since the court have ruled with finality the judgment decreeing
the spouses' legal separation as of January 4, 1973, the remaining
issue is the final disposition of their conjugal partnership of gains
which partnership, by reason of the final decree, had been
automatically dissolved.
The death on November 30, 1979 of herein petitioner who was
declared the guilty spouse by the trial court, before the
liquidation of the conjugal property is effected, poses a new
JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020
Persons and Family Relations

SABALONES V. CA and Remedios Sabalones

Facts of the Case:
As a member of the diplomatic service assigned to different
countries, Petitioner Samson Sabalones left to his wife, 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, he filed an action of judicial authorization to sell
the building and lot located in Greenhills San Juan belonging to
the conjugal partnership. 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

Remedios opposed such authorization and filed a counterclaim

for legal separation. She alleged that said house in Greenhills was
occupied by her and their children, and they were just depending
for the support of the rentals from their another conjugal
properties.
Remedios also informed the court that despite her husbands
retirement he had not returned and maintained a separate
residence with Thelma and their three children.
Remedios prayer was to grant the decree of legal separation with
forfeiture of husbands share therein because of adultery and
enjoin the petioner in disturbing the occupants of forbes park
and disposing or encumbering their conjugal properties.
The lower court granted the decree of legal separation with
forfeiture to the petitioners share in conjugal properties due to
bigamous marriage of the petitioner.
The petitioner appealed the decision to the respondent court.
CA granted the preliminary injunction ordered by his wife
enjoining the petitioner in disturbing the occupants of the forbes
park properties.
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.
He further argues that the respondent court failed to appoint an
administrator of the conjugal assets as mandated by Art. 61.

ISSUE:

1. WON a writ of preliminary injuction can be filed against the

petitioner
2. 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.
The supreme court agrees with the respondent court that
pending the appointment of an administratior, the CA was
justified in allowing the wife to continue with her administration.
It was rightful taking into account the evidence presented.
While it is true that the said decision of the court made no formal
designation of the administration of properties, 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.
The court also noted that the respondent has been administering
the properties for almost nineteen years without complaint from
the petitioner.
Held:
Petition was denied.
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.
JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020
Persons and Family Relations

Administration of properties given to the private respondent

and disqualified the petitioner to the shares of conjugal
properties.

PACETE V. CARIAGA
Facts of the case:
On October 1979, 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,
and an accounting of the separation of properties.
Concepcion and Pacete was married on 1938 before the Justice
of Peace of Cotobato.
Pacete subsequently contracted the second marriage in 1948
with Clarite in Kidapawan, North Cotobato.
Concepcion claims that she just knew of the subsequent marriage
on 1979.

JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020

Persons and Family Relations

Concepcion also stated that during her marriage to Pacete the

latter acquired vast property consisting tracts of land, fishponds,
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.
Defendants were each served with summons and filed a motion
for extension of 20 days to file an answer. The court granted the
motion. 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. Then another motion for
extension of 15 days was once again filed but it was filed beyond
the 20 days period granted.
The plaintiff then filed a motion to declare the defendants in
default which the court granted. The plaintiff was directed to
present evidence. Later on the court granted its prayed petition
for such incidental claims to the legal separation.

Art. 101. No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated

upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment.
In case of nonappearance of the defendant, the court shall order
the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion
between the parties exists. If there is no collusion, the
prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take
care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated.
The special prescriptions on actions tht can put the integrity of
marriage to a possible jeopardy are impelled by no less than
states interest.
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.

ISSUE:

HELD:

1. WON the default order issued was improperly declared

Petition for certiorari granted and proceedings of the lower court

is nullified and set aside.

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.
However the rule is not inflexible and a petition for certiorari is
allowed when default order was improperly declared.
It can be held that the default order was not legall sanctioned
because as Art. 101 provides:

JDC ATENEO LAW BATCH 2020

Persons and Family Relations