SABALONES V.

SABALONES
GR No. 106169 | February 19, 1994

Petitioner: Samson T. Sabalones

Respondent: CA; Remedios Gaviola - Sabalones
Facts:
1. Petitioner Samson Sabalones, as a member of diplomatic services assigned to
different countries during his successive tours of duties, left to his wife,
respondent Remedios, the administration of some of their conjugal properties for
fifteen (15) years.
2. Samson retired as ambassador in 1985 and came back to the Philippines but
not to his wife and children. After 4 years, Samson now 68 and sick, filed an
action for judicial authorization to sell a building and lot located at Greenhills,
San Juan. He claimed that he was going to use the share of the proceeds of the
sale to defray the costs of his hospitalization.
3. Remedios opposed the authorization and filed a counterclaim for legal
separation. She alleged that the house in Greenhills was occupied by her and
their 6 kids and they were depending for their support on the rentals from
another conjugal property in Forbes Park on lease to Nobumchi Izumi. She
further said that despite her husband’s retirement, he had not returned to his
legitimate family and was instead in a separate residence with another woman
and their 3 kids.
4. Remedios asked the court to grant the decree of her legal separation and
order the liquidation of their conjugal properties, with forfeiture of her husband’s
share because of his adultery.
5. The court found out that Samson had indeed a bigamous second marriage to
whom he came home to upon his retirement. The court thus decreed Remedios’
prayer of legal separation between the spouses, forfeiture of the petitioner’s
share in their properties, declaring that Samson was not entitled to support from
his respondent wife.
6. Remedios filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to
enjoin the petitioner from interfering with the administration of their properties
in Greenhills and Forbes Park. CA granted.
7. The husband opposed, arguing that since the law provides a joint
administration of the conjugal properties by the husband and wife, no injunctive
relief can be issued against one or the other because no right will be violated.
Issue:
W/N a preliminary injunction can be issued by the Court?
Ruling:
Yes. SC agreed with CA that pending the appointment of an administrator over
the whole mass of conjugal assets, the respondent court was justified in allowing
the wife to continue with her administration.
The law does indeed grant to the spouses joint administration over the conjugal
properties as clearly provided in the above-cited Article 124 of the Family Code.
However, Article 61, also above quoted, states that after a petition for legal
separation has been filed, the trial court shall, in the absence of a written
agreement between the couple, appoint either one of the spouses or a third
person to act as the administrator.
In her motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the respondent wife
alleged that the petitioner's harassment of their tenant at Forbes Park would
jeopardize the lease and deprive her and her children of the income therefrom
on which they depend for their subsistence. The wife also complained that on
June 10, 1991, the petitioner executed a quitclaim over their conjugal property in
California, USA to favour the husband’s paramour.

These allegations, none of which was refuted by the husband, show that the
injunction is necessary to protect the interests of the private respondent and her
children and prevent the dissipation of the conjugal assets.
Let it be stressed that 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 Article 61 of the Family Code.