Title
Agapito vs. Molo
Case
G.R. No. 27120
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1927
Juana Agapito retained net income from her paraphernal property as alimony, upheld by courts, affirming her right to administer it under Civil Code provisions.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 27120)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff and Appellee: Juana Agapito
    • Defendant and Appellant: Candido Molo
  2. Nature of the Case:

    • Juana Agapito filed a case against Candido Molo, her husband, seeking to retain the net income from her paraphernal property after deducting administration expenses, in lieu of maintenance (alimony) she is entitled to receive from him.
  3. Property in Question:

    • The property is the paraphernal property of Juana Agapito, meaning it is her exclusive property under the Civil Code.
  4. Legal Context:

    • Under Article 1384 of the Civil Code, Juana Agapito is entitled to administer her paraphernal property since she did not deliver it to her husband for management.
    • Article 1401 of the Civil Code states that the fruits, income, or interest from paraphernal property during marriage belong to the conjugal partnership.
    • Article 1412 of the Civil Code designates the husband as the administrator of conjugal property.
  5. Trial Court Decision:

    • The Court of First Instance of Manila issued a preliminary injunction, allowing Juana Agapito to retain the net income from her paraphernal property after deducting administration expenses, in lieu of maintenance.
    • The court also granted Juana exclusive authority to administer her property without her husband’s intervention.
  6. Appeal:

    • Candido Molo appealed the decision, assigning three errors:
      (1) The trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction.
      (2) The trial court erred in dismissing his cross-complaint.
      (3) The trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

Issue:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction allowing Juana Agapito to retain the net income from her paraphernal property.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Candido Molo’s cross-complaint.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Candido Molo’s motion for a new trial.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.