Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Sabalones v.


230 SCRA 79
NATURE: Preliminary injunction issued by the respondent court pending resolution of a case on appeal


 Samson Sabalones, a diplomatic service assigned in different countries, left his wife Remedios for
15 years.
 He came back to Philippines in 1985 but not to his legitimate wife and children.
 He filed an action for judicial authorization to sell conjugal property.
 In her answer, wife 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 that they were
depending for their support on the rentals from another conjugal property (building and lot in
Forbes Park). She also informed the court that despite her husband’s retirement, he had not
returned to his legitimate family and was instead maintaining a separate residence with another
woman and their 3 kids.
 Prayer of Remedios – asked to grant legal separation and liquidation of property with forfeiture
of his husband’s share because of adultery
 RTC RULING: Petitioner had indeed contracted a bigamous marriage with Thelma. Court thus
decreed the legal separation and forfeiture of Sabalones’s share in the conjugal properties,
declaring as well that he was not entitled to support from his wife.
 Remedios filed the motion for the issuance of writ of preliminary injuction to enjoin the
petitioner from interfering with the administration of their properties). She alleged that:
- He harassed the tenant in Forbes Park that his lease would not be renewed.
 Appeal in CA was granted.
 Petitioner now assails the decision, arguing that:
- Since the law provides joint administration of conjugal properties, no injunctive relief can
be issued against one spouse because no right will be violated. He also cited Art. 124 and
61 of FC.

ISSUE: WON CA can issue a writ of preliminary injunction against husband on part of his conjugal property

 Purpose of preliminary injunction: 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
 Requirements: (1) existence of a right (2) actual or threatened violation.
 Art 61 of FC which provides for an administrator of conjugal assets was already made when TC
denied petitioner any share on conjugal relations and CA gave respondent the preliminary
 Allegations: harassing tenant of Forbes park, having other properties, issuing quit claim on US
conjugal party and all of which was not contested by petitioner thus just gives more reason to
grant preliminary injunction
 RESULT: prelim injunction is granted however this does not permanently make the respondent
the administrator of the whole mass of conjugal assets
 SC agrees with the CA that the pending 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. It was also correct, taking into account the evidence adduced in the hearing, in
enjoining the petitioner from interfering with his wife’s administration pending resolution of the