Sumulong v. Cembrano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera and Concepcion Cembrano were married in 1884, establishing a legal conjugal partnership. They had three children. During the marriage, the wife, Concepcion Cembrano, left the conjugal dwelling. Dr. Tavera died on March 26, 1925, survived by his wife and children. An administrator presented a scheme for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila approved the inventories and accounts rendered by the administrator, with a correction. It denied the administrator's motion to include fruits and rents from certain properties. Crucially, it disapproved the administrator's scheme for liquidation and ordered a new liquidation, including fruits and income from the time of death, and collation by the children. The court also decreed that Concepcion Cembrano was entitled to an allowance for subsistence from 1913 to 1925, amounting to P800 a month, and that the late husband managed her paraphernal property during their separation. It also held that the children did not need to reimburse certain sums delivered to them by the decedent. The Petition: The administrator appealed the trial court's decree, alleging several errors, primarily concerning the wife's entitlement to subsistence allowance, the amount thereof, the management of her paraphernal property, prescription of support claims, inclusion of rents, reimbursement of funds delivered to the wife and children, and the disapproval of his liquidation scheme.
Issue(s)
Whether a wife who lived away from the conjugal roof during the husband's lifetime is entitled to support chargeable to the conjugal partnership. Whether the right of the wife to claim for support has prescribed. Whether the children of the deceased are required to bring into collation sums received from their father's private accounts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision with a modification. It held that Concepcion Cembrano was entitled to an allowance for subsistence from the conjugal partnership from 1913 to 1925. The amount of P800 per month was deemed reasonable. The Court ruled that the children of the deceased were not required to bring into collation the sums totalling P31,952.97, as these were taken from the deceased's private funds, not the conjugal partnership. The rest of the appealed order was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the support of the family is a charge against the conjugal partnership pursuant to Article 1408, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code. Citing Manresa, the Court emphasized that this is the most sacred and important obligation of the partnership, covering food, dwelling, clothing, and medical attendance. The mere fact that the wife lived away from the conjugal roof does not constitute a reason for annulling this right, as there was no evidence that her living apart was culpable. Even under Article 152 regarding mutual support between spouses, the obligation does not extinguish if the separation is not proven to be the fault of the claimant. In this case, the marriage subsisted and the legal regime of the conjugal partnership prevailed until Tavera's death. On Issue 2: The Court rejected the administrator's argument regarding prescription. It found that Dr. Tavera himself had recognized his wife's right to receive support by ordering and paying a monthly allowance even while she was living apart. Under Article 1948 of the Civil Code and Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a voluntary act by the debtor constitutes a recognition of the right and acts as a bar to prescription. Furthermore, the Court noted that the case at hand was not merely an action for unpaid support, but a proceeding for the compensation of amounts paid to her as fruits of her paraphernal property in the context of a final liquidation. On Issue 3: Regarding the collation of sums received by the children, the Court found in favor of the administrator's eighth assignment of error. Based on summaries K, L, and M admitted as evidence, these sums were recorded in the private account of the late Dr. Tavera. There was no evidence that these amounts were taken from the conjugal partnership funds. Consequently, since the funds originated from the decedent's private property rather than the partnership, the children Carlos, Alfredo, and Carmen cannot be required to bring these sums into collation for the purpose of liquidating the conjugal partnership. The Court thus modified the trial court's order to exclude these specific sums from the collation requirement.
Main Doctrine
The conjugal partnership is liable for the support of the spouses while the marriage subsists and the legal regime of the conjugal partnership prevails, even if the wife lives away from the conjugal dwelling, provided such separation is not proven to be culpable. The husband's voluntary provision of a monthly allowance to the wife, even if initially from her paraphernal property, constitutes recognition of her right to support from the partnership and bars prescription.