Sabalones v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 106169
February 14, 1994
Facts:
Samson Sabalones was married to Remedios Gaviola-Sabalones, who managed the couple’s properties while the former was away at work. In 1981, Samson contracted a bigamous marriage with Thelma Cumareng. In 1985, upon his retirement, Samson came back to the Philippines and stayed with Cumareng. Four years later, he filed an action for judicial authorization to sell a building and lot belonging to the conjugal partnership with Remedios. He claimed that he was 68 years old and sick and needed the proceeds of the sale for his hospitalization and medical treatment.
Remedios opposed the authorization and filed a counterclaim for legal separation. She alleged that the property her husband was trying to sell was being occupied by her and their six children and that they were depending for support on the rentals from another conjugal property. The court decreed the legal separation and declared the forfeiture of Samson’s share in the conjugal properties. The court further ordered that he was not entitled to support by his wife.
While the decision was on appeal, Remedios filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Samson from interfering with the administration of their properties. She further stated that her husband threatened their tenant that the contract would not be renewed. The writ was granted by the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
Was the Court of Appeals correct in granting the writ of preliminary injunction?
Ruling:
Yes. Article 61 of the Family Code states that after a petition for legal separation, the trial court shall appoint either one of the spouses or a third person to be the administrator of the conjugal properties if there was no written agreement between the spouses. Although there was no formal declaration by the trial court, it was implicitly provided in the decision that the administration would go to the wife since the court denied the husband any share in the conjugal properties.
The primary purpose of the injunction is to preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or relations between the parties. The requirements for injunction are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violation, which was both present in the case.
It's a Ping Thing 