Facts:
Cipriana Garcia sued
Isabelo Santiago and
Alejo Santiago after she alleged that she had married
Isabelo Santiago on April 8, 1910 and lived with him until she left the conjugal dwelling on February 3, 1925 because of continued family dissensions; she alleged that
Alejo Santiago, a son of
Isabelo Santiago by a prior marriage, had seduced her daughter
Prisca Aurelio, who bore a child, and that
Isabelo Santiago refused to vindicate his stepdaughter’s honor or require his son to marry her, thereby apparently countenancing the illicit relations; she further alleged that
Isabelo Santiago was conveying and attempting to convey property of the
conjugal partnership to
Alejo Santiago to favor him, that the lands described in the complaint were important and had been acquired during the marriage with conjugal funds, fruits, or the industry of the spouses and produced about 4,500 cavanes of palay at P4 per cavan, that repeated quarrels culminating in threats and her being driven from the home had compelled her separation, that
Isabelo Santiago refused to provide support and even maintained illicit relations with a woman named Geronima Yap, and that she was therefore entitled to pendente lite
maintenance of P500, to injunctive relief to restrain conveyances, and to the administration of the conjugal property by her; the defendants filed a general denial, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed assigning errors contesting the justification of her separation, the dissolution of a preliminary injunction and the refusal to set aside transfers to
Alejo Santiago, the denial of maintenance of P500, the refusal to grant her administration of the conjugal property, and the refusal to grant other prayed remedies including attorney’s fees.
Issues:
Was the separation of
Cipriana Garcia from
Isabelo Santiago justified? Was the Court of First Instance justified in dissolving the
preliminary injunction and refusing to set aside the transfers made by
Isabelo Santiago to
Alejo Santiago? Did the plaintiff prove that the lands conveyed were part of the
conjugal partnership? Was the plaintiff entitled to pendente lite
maintenance of P500 per month? Was the plaintiff entitled to the administration of the
conjugal partnership property and to an allowance of attorney’s fees?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: