Sabalones vs. Court of Appeals

A writ of preliminary injunction may be validly issued to prevent a spouse from interfering with the administration of conjugal properties during the pendency of an appeal in a legal separation case, particularly when there is a threat of asset dissipation and the trial court has already decreed the forfeiture of that spouse's share due to adultery.

Samson Sabalones was a member of the diplomatic service who, during his assignments abroad, left the administration of their conjugal properties to his wife, Remedios, for fifteen years. Upon his retirement in 1985, Samson returned to the Philippines but did not return to his legitimate family, choosing instead to live with a paramour, Thelma Cumareng, with whom he had contracted a bigamous marriage.

• Petitioner Samson Sabalones filed an action to sell a conjugal property in Greenhills, claiming he needed funds for medical treatment, which his wife Remedios opposed.
• Remedios filed a counterclaim for legal separation, alleging Samson abandoned the family to live with a paramour and that the family relied on lease income from their Forbes Park property.
• The trial court found Samson had contracted a bigamous marriage, granted legal separation, and ordered the forfeiture of his share in the conjugal properties.
• While the trial court decision was on appeal, Remedios requested a preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals, alleging Samson harassed the tenant of the Forbes Park property and disposed of a U.S. property in favor of his paramour.
• Remedios presented evidence that Samson had executed a quitclaim over a property in California to his paramour and held sole custody of other significant assets, including dollar accounts and other real properties.
• The Court of Appeals granted the preliminary injunction to prevent Samson from interfering with Remedios' administration of the properties.
• Samson challenged this injunction, arguing it violated the law on joint administration of conjugal property.

• Under Article 124 of the Family Code, the administration and enjoyment of conjugal partnership property belong to both spouses jointly.
• No injunctive relief can be issued against him because no right is violated given the statutory mandate for joint administration.
• The Court of Appeals failed to formally appoint an administrator as mandated by Article 61 of the Family Code.

• The petitioner harassed the tenant of the Forbes Park property, threatening the non-renewal of the lease which provides the subsistence income for the wife and children.
• The petitioner had already disposed of valuable conjugal property in the United States in favor of his paramour to the prejudice of the legitimate family.
• An injunction is necessary to prevent further dissipation of the conjugal assets.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals properly issued a writ of preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the appeal.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a spouse can be enjoined from participating in the administration of conjugal properties despite the general rule of joint administration under Article 124 of the Family Code.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court upheld the issuance of the preliminary injunction, finding that the twin requirements of a valid injunction—the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violation—were present. The Court noted that the wife had a clear right to a share of the conjugal estate and there was sufficient evidence of threatened violation through the husband's dissipation of assets.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that while Article 124 of the Family Code provides for joint administration, Article 61 mandates that upon filing a petition for legal separation, the court must appoint an administrator if there is no written agreement.
  • The Court reasoned that the trial court's decision forfeiting the husband's share implicitly disqualified him as administrator, and the CA's injunction effectively approved the wife's continued administration pendente lite.
  • The Court held that allowing the husband to participate in management would be imprudent given the evidence of his bigamy, abandonment, and transfer of assets to his paramour.

• Preliminary Injunction — A provisional remedy designed to preserve the status quo of the things subject to the action or the relations between the parties to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. In this case, it was used to prevent the husband from dissipating marital assets before the final judgment on legal separation.
• Joint Administration of Conjugal Property — The principle under Article 124 of the Family Code that property administration belongs to both spouses. The Court clarified that this general rule yields to the specific provisions regarding legal separation (Article 61) and the court's power to protect assets from dissipation.

• "The twin requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violation."
• "Injunction is primarily a preventive remedy. Its province is to afford relief against future acts which are against equity and good conscience and to keep and preserve the thing in the status quo, rather than to remedy what is past or to punish for wrongful acts already committed."

• Calo, et al. v. Roldan — Cited to define the primary purpose of the provisional remedy of injunction as preserving the status quo.
• Ramnani v. Court of Appeals — Cited alongside Calo to support the principles governing the issuance of injunctions.
• Araneta v. Gatmaitan — Cited regarding the twin requirements (existence of a right and its violation) for a valid injunction.

• Article 124, Family Code — Provides that administration of conjugal partnership property belongs to both spouses jointly; cited by the petitioner to argue against the injunction.
• Article 61, Family Code — Mandates that after the filing of a petition for legal separation, the court shall designate either spouse or a third person to administer the property; cited by the Court to show that joint administration is not absolute during legal separation proceedings.