G.R. No. 27120 , September 28, 1927
JUANA AGAPITO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CANDIDO MOLO, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: VILLA-REAL, J.

FACTS

Juana Agapito (wife) filed a case against her husband, Candido Molo, concerning the administration of her paraphernal property. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction and later rendered a judgment making the injunction permanent. The judgment allowed Juana Agapito to retain the net rents from her paraphernal property (after deducting administration expenses) in lieu of the maintenance she is entitled to receive from her husband. It also granted her exclusive authority to administer her paraphernal property without her husband’s intervention. Candido Molo appealed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction and granting the wife exclusive administration of her paraphernal property.
2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the husband’s cross-complaint.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.

1. On the Administration of Paraphernal Property: The property in question is the wife’s paraphernal property. Under Article 1384 of the Civil Code, the wife is entitled to administer her paraphernal property unless she has formally delivered its administration to her husband in the manner prescribed by law. The fact that the fruits or income from paraphernal property belong to the conjugal partnership (Article 1401) and that the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Article 1412) does not give him the right to collect or receive that income directly. The income only becomes conjugal property after deducting the expenses of administration. Since the wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband, and such maintenance can be sourced from the husband’s personal property or the net income from the wife’s paraphernal property, the wife may retain said net income as her alimony, especially as the spouses were living apart. This is consistent with the ruling in *Goitia vs. Campos Rueda*.

2. On the Cross-Complaint and Motion for New Trial: The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-complaint or in its denial of the motion for a new trial. The judgment was supported by the facts and the law.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. Costs against the appellant.

CONCURRING: Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ.