Title: Dela Cruz vs.
Dela Cruz
G.R. No. L-19565 Castro, J. Date: January 30, 1968
Doctrine: To constitute abandonment of the
wife by the husband, there must be absolute
cessation of marital relations and duties and Topic: Effect of Abandonment
rights, with the intention of perpetual
separation.
I. Facts of the case
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in Bacolod City on February 1, 1938. Six
children were born to them. During their coverture they acquired seven parcels of land of
the Bacolod Cadastre and three parcels of the Silay Cadastre. They are also engaged in
varied business ventures.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant started living in Manila in 1955, although he
occasionally returned to Bacolod City, sleeping in his office at the Philippine Texboard
Factory in Mandalagan, instead of in the conjugal home at 2nd Street, Bacolod City. He has
abandoned her and their children, to live in Manila with his concubine, Nenita Hernandez. In
1949 she began to suspect the existence of illicit relations between her husband and
Nenita.
Celia Bañez, testifying for the plaintiff, declared that she was employed as a cook in the
home of the spouses from May 15, 1955 to August 15, 1958, and that during the entire
period of her employment she saw the defendant in the place only once. This declaration is
contradicted, however, by the plaintiff herself who testified that in 1955 the defendant "used
to have a short visit there," which statement implies more than one visit.
The defendant, for his part, denied having abandoned his wife and children, but admitted
that in 1957, or a year before the filing of the action, he started to live separately from his
wife. He decided to live apart from his wife temporarily because at home he could not
concentrate on his work as she always quarreled with him, while in Mandalagan he could
pass the nights in peace. From the time he started living separately in Mandalagan up to
the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff herself furnished him food and took care of his
laundry. This latter declaration was not rebutted by the plaintiff. In point of fact, his wife and
children continued to draw allowances from his office of a total ranging from P1,200 to
P1,500 a month. He financed the education of their children, two of whom were studying in
Manila at the time of the trial and were not living with the plaintiff. While in Bacolod City, he
never failed to visit his family, particularly the children.
II. Issue
Whether or not the separation of the defendant from the plaintiff constitute abandonment in
law that would justify a separation of the conjugal partnership properties. – NO.
III. Ratio/Legal Basis
No. The defendant is not guilty of abandonment of the plaintiff. It will be noted that the
plaintiff does not ask for legal separation. To entitle her to any of these remedies, under
article 178, 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.
The concept of abandonment in article 178 may be established in relation to the alternative
remedies granted to the wife when she has been abandoned by the husband, namely,
receivership, administration by her, or separation of property, all of which are designed to
protect the conjugal assets from waste and dissipation rendered imminent by the husband's
continued absence from the conjugal abode, and to assure the wife of a ready and steady
source of support. 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.
When referring to desertion of a wife by a husband, the word has been defined as "the act
of a husband in voluntarily leaving his wife with intention to forsake her entirely, never to
return to her, and never to resume his marital duties towards her, or to claim his marital
rights; such neglect as either leaves the wife destitute of the common necessaries of life, or
would leave her destitute but for the charity of others." It seems rather clear that to
constitute abandonment of the wife by the husband, there must be absolute cessation of
marital relations and duties and rights, with the intention of perpetual separation.
The Court believes that the defendant did not intend to leave his wife and children
permanently. The record conclusively shows that he continued to give support to his family
despite his absence from the conjugal home. This fact is admitted by the complainant,
although she minimized the amount of support given, saying that it was only P500 monthly.
On the contrary, the plaintiff admitted, albeit reluctantly, that she frequently played mahjong,
from which we can infer that she had money; to spare. The fact that the defendant never
ceased to give support to his wife and children negatives any intent on his part not to return
to the conjugal abode and resume his marital duties and rights.
If there is only physical separation between the spouses (and nothing more), engendered
by the husband's leaving the conjugal abode, but the husband continues to manage the
conjugal properties with the same zeal, industry, and efficiency as he did prior to the
separation, and religiously gives support to his wife and children, as in the case at bar, the
Court is not disposed to grant the wife's petition for separation of property.
