Case Digest (G.R. No. 82606)
Facts:
Prima Partosa-Jo v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Ho Hang (with aliases Jose Jo and Consing), G.R. No. 82606, December 18, 1992, First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner is Prima Partosa-Jo; the private respondent is Jose Jo (also known as Ho Hang and Consing); the Court of Appeals is respondent in the petition before the Supreme Court. In 1980 the petitioner filed two actions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Negros Oriental, Branch 35: an earlier complaint for support (Civil Case No. 36) and a later complaint for judicial separation of conjugal property (Civil Case No. 51). The two cases were consolidated and tried together.
On November 29, 1983, Judge German G. Lee, Jr. rendered an extensive decision that, in its dispositive portion, awarded the petitioner monthly and past support, a sum for construction of a house, and attorney’s fees — but did not expressly dispose of Civil Case No. 51 (the judicial separation of conjugal property), although the body of the decision discussed that issue and contained a penultimate paragraph addressing the properties in question.
The private respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals, in a decision promulgated January 28, 1987 (Chua, J., ponente), affirmed the RTC insofar as it granted support, but dismissed Civil Case No. 51 for lack of cause of action, holding that the parties’ separation was by agreement (void under Article 221 of the Civil Code) and that judicial separation of property was not warranted under Articles 175, 178 and 191. Motions for reconsideration were denied. Both parties sought relief in the Supreme Court; the private respondent’s petition for review on certiorari was dismissed as tardy in a February 17, 1988 resolution in which the Court also affirmed the legality of the marriage and the support obligation.
The present petition to the Supreme Court (reviewing the Court of Appeals’ disposition of Civil Case No. 51) challenges the dismissal of that complaint and contends that the RTC’s penultimate paragraph constituted an effective disposition that should have appeared in the decretal portion; alternatively, the petitioner asserts she is entitled to judicial separation of conjugal property because the private respondent abandoned her and fa...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court amend or clarify an omission in the dispositive portion of a trial court’s decision after the decision has become final and executory so as to give effect to a ruling manifest in the body of the judgment?
- On the merits, did the petitioner establish grounds for judicial separation of conjugal property (abandonment or failure to comply with family obligations) under Article 178(3) of the Civil Code as interpreted and under Articles 128 and 135 of the Family Code, thereby entitlin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)