[08.F.08.B.04.01] SABALONES vs. COURT OF APPEALS [G.R. No.

106169, 14 February 1994]

Ownership, administration, and enjoyment of CPG pending legal separation proceedings

Petitioner: Samson T. Sabalones

Respondent: The Court of Appeals, Remedios Gaviola-Sabalones
Ponente: Cruz, J.

Facts:
 Petitioner as a member of the diplomatic service assigned to different countries, left to his wife,
private respondent, the administration of some of their conjugal properties for fifteen years. After
retirement, he returned to the Philippines, not to his legitimate family, but to a separate residence
with another woman of a bigamous marriage and their children.
 Petitioner filed an action for judicial authorization to sell a building and lot belonging to the
conjugal partnership. After the private respondent’s filing of a counterclaim for legal separation,
the trial court decreed such and the forfeiture of the petitioner’s share in the conjugal properties
and his entitlement to support from his wife because of his contracting a bigamous marriage.
 The decision was appealed from and pendente lite, the respondent wife filed a motion for court
injunction to enjoin respondent from interfering with the administration of their properties.
Respondent court, in the order assailed in this petition, granted the preliminary injunction prayed
for by the wife.

Issue Holding Ratio

Is it correct to allow YES
the wife to continue
with her
administration of
conjugal assets
despite FC Art 124
(joint administration
of conjugal assets) in
relation to Art 61
(court appointment of
an administrator in
the pendency of legal
separation
proceedings)?
While it is true that no formal designation of the administration has
been made, such designation was implicit in the decision of the trial
court denying the petitioner any share in the conjugal properties (and
thus also disqualifying his as administrator thereof). That designation
was in effect approved by the Court of Appeals when it issued in
favor of the respondent wife the preliminary injunction.
The injunction has not permanently installed the respondent wife as
the administrator of the whole mass of conjugal assets. It has merely
allowed her to continue administering the properties in the meantime
without interference from the petitioner, pending the express
designation of the administrator in accordance with FC Art 61.

DECISION: The petition was DENIED for lack of merit.