G.R. No.
L-19565 January 30, 1968 has been an abused of his authority as
ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-
appellee,
vs.
SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ, defendant-
appellant.
FACTS:
Estrella, the plaintiff, and Severino, the
defendant were married in Bacolod and
begotten 6 children. During their coverture,
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.
ISSUE: WON there has been abandonment
on the part of the husband and WON there
administrator of the conjugal partnership.
HELD:
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. There must be real abandonment
and not mere separation. In fact, the
husband never failed to give monthly
financial support as admitted by the wife.
This negates the intention of coming home
to the conjugal abode. The plaintiff even
testified that the husband “paid short visits”
implying more than one visit. Likewise, as
testified by the manager of one of their
businesses, the wife has been drawing a
monthly allowance of P1,000-1,500 that was
given personally by the defendant or the
witness himself.
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.