G.R. No. L-19565 - De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz

Plaintiff-appellee: Estrella de la Cruz; Defendant-appellant: Severino de la Cruz.
Married on February 1, 1938 in Bacolod City; six children: Zenia (1939), Ronnie (1942), Victoria (1944), Jessie (1945), Bella (1946), Felipe (1948).

Real properties: seven parcels in Bacolod Cadastre (assessed at P45,429) and three parcels in Silay Cadastre (assessed at P43,580), registered in both spouses' names; Silay hacienda net profit in 1957: P3,390.49.
Business enterprises: fixed assets as of December 31, 1956 valued at P496,006.92; 1956 net profit P75,655.78; Philippine Texboard Factory net profit 1957 P90,454.48.
As of December 31, 1959, total assets of various enterprises valued at P1,021,407.68 (excluding Top Service, Inc.).
Top Service, Inc. (organized 1959 in Manila, paid-up capital P50,000, with P10,000 contributed by Severino): owns Beverly Hills Subdivision (Antipolo), Golden Acres and Green Valley Subdivisions (Las Piñas), and a lot/building at M.H. del Pilar, Manila (acquired for P285,000 via Manufacturer’s Bank and Trust Co. loan).
Liabilities: loans from Philippine National Bank and Development Bank of the Philippines, secured by mortgages over Philippine Texboard Factory, Silay hacienda, conjugal house, and Bacolod parcels.

Complaint filed July 22, 1958 in CFI Negros Occidental for: separation of property; alimony pendente lite of P2,500/month; attorney’s fees of P20,000 and costs.
Trial court granted alimony pendente lite at P2,500, later reduced to P2,000 upon defendant’s motion.
Decision (June 1, 1961): ordered separation/division of conjugal assets; awarded P20,000 attorney’s fees with legal interest from July 22, 1958; costs against defendant.
Appeal to Court of Appeals; certified to Supreme Court due to total value of conjugal assets exceeding P500,000.

Abandonment and concubinage: defendant began living in Manila in 1955; on Bacolod trips he slept at Philippine Texboard Factory office in Mandalagan; since 1955 allegedly did not sleep in conjugal home; after 1955 until trial, allegedly never visited conjugal residence; alleged cohabitation with Nenita Hernandez in Manila.
Discovery incidents: in 1951 plaintiff found an unsigned note supposedly from Nenita asking “Bering” to meet near a church; husband allegedly admitted affair then promised to end it; later found letter (Exh. C) signed “D” to “Darling,” inviting to Patria Inn in Baguio; plaintiff pursued to Baguio but missed Nenita; confronted husband in Manila; husband denied continuing relations.
Domestic employee testimony: cook Celia Bañez (employed May 15, 1955–August 15, 1958) saw defendant at home only once; plaintiff herself admitted defendant had “short visits” in 1955, implying more than one visit.
Administration/mismanagement: plaintiff claimed defendant refused to inform her about business affairs; feared possible dissipation in favor of concubine; did not allege or prove actual dissipation.

Separation in fact, not abandonment: admitted starting to live separately in 1957 for peace due to plaintiff’s jealousy and quarrels; stayed in Manila since 1953 for business expansion and marketing; continued to visit family when in Bacolod; plaintiff provided his food and laundry while he stayed in Mandalagan.
Support: consistently provided support; plaintiff admitted receiving around P500/month; defense evidence (Manager Marcos V. Ganaban) showed plaintiff drew P1,000–P1,500 monthly; total allowances for wife and children allegedly P1,200–P1,500 monthly; financed children’s education, with two studying in Manila.
Concubinage denied: knew Nenita from childhood but denied any illicit relationship; denied destroying any note; claimed first time to see Exh. C was at trial; asserted plaintiff’s accusation is mere suspicion; never caught with another woman.
Administration: asserted diligence and success in business growth from one truck to multiple enterprises; presented balance sheets and P&L statements for 1958–1959 (Exhs. 1 and 2); used income to acquire equipment and amortize bank loans; attributed plaintiff’s frequent need of money to mahjong, which plaintiff admitted playing as diversion.

Frequency of defendant’s visits to conjugal home post-May 15, 1955.
Authorship of Exh. 3 and existence of concubinage with Nenita Hernandez.
State of marital relations since 1951 and timing/amount of allowances to plaintiff.
Legal “abandonment” by defendant.
Non-disclosure of business activities as “abuse of administration.”
Alleged mortgages of conjugal assets without plaintiff’s knowledge and through false pretenses.
Evidentiary rulings: allowing plaintiff to testify to facts outside her personal knowledge; disallowing defendant’s special defenses.
Propriety of ordering separation of conjugal property.
Award of P20,000 attorney’s fees with legal interest.

Whether the defendant’s separation in fact constituted “abandonment” under Article 178 of the New Civil Code sufficient to warrant receivership, administration by the wife, or separation of property.
Whether defendant’s failure and/or refusal to inform plaintiff about business affairs, absent proof of dissipation, constituted “abuse of powers of administration” under Article 167 warranting the same remedies.

Whether the evidence preponderated to prove concubinage with Nenita Hernandez (to support claim of abandonment and risk of dissipation).
Whether defendant continued to provide adequate support and maintained management of conjugal assets, negating intent of permanent desertion.
Whether the conjugal assets were mismanaged or dissipated, or instead increased through defendant’s industry.

Amount of alimony/support pendente lite appropriate under the circumstances.
Propriety and quantum of attorney’s fees under Article 2208(6) and (11) of the New Civil Code.
Whether interest should accrue on attorney’s fees.