Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz

Estrella Dela Cruz filed for legal separation from her husband Severino, claiming abandonment and mismanagement of their business assets. Severino argued he still visited the family home and provided financial support. The court found that physical separation alone does not constitute abandonment if the spouse continues managing assets and providing support. As Severino still fulfilled his marital duties, the court ruled he did not intend to permanently abandon his family. Mere failure to inform one's spouse about business affairs does not alone constitute abuse of administration over joint property.

Uploaded by

Ron Jacob Almaiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz

Estrella Dela Cruz filed for legal separation from her husband Severino, claiming abandonment and mismanagement of their business assets. Severino argued he still visited the family home and provided financial support. The court found that physical separation alone does not constitute abandonment if the spouse continues managing assets and providing support. As Severino still fulfilled his marital duties, the court ruled he did not intend to permanently abandon his family. Mere failure to inform one's spouse about business affairs does not alone constitute abuse of administration over joint property.

Uploaded by

Ron Jacob Almaiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Estrella Dela Cruz v Severino Dela Cruz, 22 SCRA 333

G.R. No. L-19565, 30 January 1968

DOCTRINE: Physical separation alone is not the full meaning of the term “abandonment,” if the
husband or the wife, despite his or her voluntary departure from the society of his or her spouse,
neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support to his wife or
her husband.

NATURE: Appeal from the decision of the LC ordering the separation and division of the conjugal
assets and alimony pendente lite of P2,000.00.

FACTS:

 Estrella, the plaintiff, and Severino, the defendant was married in Bacolod and begotten 6
children.
 They acquired several parcels of land and were engage in various businesses.
 The plaintiff filed an action against her husband for the separation of their properties. She
further alleged that her husband aside from abandoning her also mismanaged their conjugal
properties.
 On the other hand, Severino contended that he had always visited the conjugal home and had
provided support for the family despite his frequent absences when he was in Manila to
supervise the expansion of their business.
 Since 1955, he had not slept in the conjugal dwelling instead stayed in his office at Texboard
Factory although he paid short visits in the conjugal home, which was affirmed by Estrella.
 The latter suspected that her husband had a mistress named Nenita Hernandez, hence, the
urgency of the separation of property for the fear that her husband might squander and
dispose the conjugal assets in favor of the concubine.
 LC ruled in favor of Estrella.

ISSUE: W/N there has been abandonment on the part of the husband and whether or not there has
been an abused of his authority as administrator of the conjugal partnership. (NO)

RULING:

The husband has never desisted in the fulfillment of his marital obligations and support of the family.

To be legally declared as to have abandoned the conjugal home, one must have willfully and with
intention of not coming back and perpetual separation. The law provides that there must be real
abandonment and not mere separation. The abandonment must not only be physical estrangement but
also amount to financial and moral desertion. Therefore, physical separation alone is not the full
meaning of the term “abandonment”, if the husband, despite his voluntary departure from the society
of his spouse, neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support
to his wife.

In the case at bar, the Court believed that the defendant did not intend to leave his wife and children
permanently. Thus, the SC held that lower court erred in holding that mere refusal or failure of the
husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the
business constitutes abuse of administration. In order for abuse to exist, there must be a willful and
utter disregard of the interest of the partnership evidenced by a repetition of deliberate acts or
omissions prejudicial to the latter.

You might also like