CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

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 WON there
Dela Cruz
plaintiff filed an action against her husband for the separation of their has been The husband has never desisted in the fulfillment of his marital obligations and support of the family. To be legally
properties. She further alleged that her husband aside from abandoning abandonment declared as to have abandoned the conjugal home, one must have willfully and with intention of not coming back and
her, also mismanaged their conjugal properties. on the part of perpetual separation. There must be real abandonment and not mere separation. In fact, the husband never failed to
vs. the husband give monthly financial support as admitted by the wife. This negates the intention of coming home to the conjugal
and WON abode. The plaintiff even testified that the husband paid short visits implying more than one visit. Likewise, as
there has testified by the manager of one of their businesses, the wife has been drawing a monthly allowance of P1,000-1,500
On the other hand, Severino contended that he had always visited the
been an that was given personally by the defendant or the witness himself.
Dela Cruz conjugal home and had provided support for the family despite his
frequent absences when he was in Manila to supervise the expansion of abused of his
SC held that lower court erred in holding that mere refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the conjugal
their business. Since 1955, he had not slept in the conjugal dwelling authority as
partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the business constitutes abuse of administration. In order for abuse to
instead stayed in his office at Texboard Factory although he paid short administrator
GR 19565, exist, there must be a willful and utter disregard of the interest of the partnership evidenced by a repetition of
visits in the conjugal home, which was affirmed by Estrella. The latter of the
January 30, deliberate acts or omissions prejudicial to the latter.
suspected that her husband had a mistress named Nenita Hernandez, conjugal
1968 partnership.
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.