SABALONES v CA
on such lease revenues. More over, that when he returned, he
Topic: Effects of pendency of legal separation – administration of
properties.
Doctrine: The right of a spouse to administer the conjugal
property is also forfeited when his or her share to it was forfeited
as a result of a petition for legal separation.
In the absence of a written agreement between the spouses, the
court shall designate either of them or a third person to administer
the absolute community or conjugal partnership property.
The court may grant preliminary injunction to preserve the status
quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between the
parties and thus protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting these
matters during the pendency of the suit.
Facts:
Samson Sabalos was an ambassador. While out of the country,
Remedios was the administrator of their conjugal properties.
After retiring in 1985, Sabalones returned to the Philippines but
not to his wife, Remedios.
He filed an action for judicial authorization to sell a building and
lot belonging to the conjugal partnership; for his medical
expenses.
Remedios opposed the authorization and filed a counterclaim
for legal separation. She alleged that she and her six children with
him are living in the said property; and that their residence in
Forbes Park was on lease; and that they depend for their support
instead cohabits with Curameng and their children.
Because of this, Remedios prayed for legal separation, the
liquidation of the conjugal properties, and that Sabalones is
forfeited of his share because of his adultery. She also prayed to
enjoin him from disturbing the tenants in Forbes Park and from
disposing any of the conjugal properties.
The lower court decreed the legal separation and the forfeiture
of Sabalones’ share in the conjugal properties.
Sabalones appealed this decision. While the case was pending,
Remedios filed a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent
Sabalones from interfering with the administration of their
properties – alleging that Sabalones was harassing the tenants in
Forbes Park.
The Court of Appeals granted the preliminary injunction.
Sabalones filed for petition for review of this order – arguing FC
Art. 124 provides that the administration and enjoyment of the
conjugal properties belong to both spouses jointly. Therefore, no
injunctive relief can be issued against him.
And that the court failed to appoint an administrator of the
conjugal assets after the filing of the petition for legal separation,
as mandated by Art. 61.
Issue: Whether the injunctive relief should be issued despite FC Art
124.
Held: Yes. Petition denied. Injunction affirmed.

Ratio:
“It is true that there was no formal designation of administrator,
but the designation was implicit when the lower court denied
Sabalones of his share in the conjugal properties. Thus,
disqualifying him as well to be an administrator.”
There is enough evidence to raise doubts that entrusting the
properties to Sabalones may result to the detriment of his wife
and children.
The Supreme Court agrees that it would be prudent not to allow
him in the meantime to participate in its management; given that
he harassed the tenants and that he issued a quit claim regarding
a conjugal property in US in favor of Curameng.
Therefore, injuctive relief is proper to protect Remedios and their
children.