Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz

    Uploaded by

    Ron Jacob Almaiz
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz

    Uploaded by

    Ron Jacob Almaiz
    1K views1 page
    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.

    Original Title

    Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz

    Uploaded by

    Ron Jacob Almaiz
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 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

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy