Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 559 views

    Garcia vs. Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Micho Diez
    Cipriana Garcia filed a complaint against her husband Isabelo Santiago and his son Alejo Santiago. Cipriana accused Isabelo of countenancing an illicit relationship between Alejo and Cipriana's daughter, and of improperly transferring conjugal properties to Alejo. Cipriana sought separation from Isabelo, a monthly pension, and administration of conjugal properties. The court found the separation justified due to family dissensions. It ordered Isabelo to pay Cipriana 50 pesos monthly support but did not find evidence to deprive Isabelo of property administration or grant other claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garcia vs. Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Micho Diez
    559 views2 pages
    Cipriana Garcia filed a complaint against her husband Isabelo Santiago and his son Alejo Santiago. Cipriana accused Isabelo of countenancing an illicit relationship between Alejo and Cipriana's daughter, and of improperly transferring conjugal properties to Alejo. Cipriana sought separation from Isabelo, a monthly pension, and administration of conjugal properties. The court found the separation justified due to family dissensions. It ordered Isabelo to pay Cipriana 50 pesos monthly support but did not find evidence to deprive Isabelo of property administration or grant other claims.

    Original Title

    GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cipriana Garcia filed a complaint against her husband Isabelo Santiago and his son Alejo Santiago. Cipriana accused Isabelo of countenancing an illicit relationship between Alejo and Cipriana's daughter, and of improperly transferring conjugal properties to Alejo. Cipriana sought separation from Isabelo, a monthly pension, and administration of conjugal properties. The court found the separation justified due to family dissensions. It ordered Isabelo to pay Cipriana 50 pesos monthly support but did not find evidence to deprive Isabelo of property administration or grant other claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    559 views2 pages

    Garcia vs. Santiago

    Uploaded by

    Micho Diez
    Cipriana Garcia filed a complaint against her husband Isabelo Santiago and his son Alejo Santiago. Cipriana accused Isabelo of countenancing an illicit relationship between Alejo and Cipriana's daughter, and of improperly transferring conjugal properties to Alejo. Cipriana sought separation from Isabelo, a monthly pension, and administration of conjugal properties. The court found the separation justified due to family dissensions. It ordered Isabelo to pay Cipriana 50 pesos monthly support but did not find evidence to deprive Isabelo of property administration or grant other claims.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE: GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO AND SANTIAGO. 53 Phil. 952. GR No. L-28904.

    December 29, 1928

    PLAINTIFF: Cipriana Garcia


    DEFENDANT: Isabelo Santiago and Alejo Santiago

    NATURE OF THE CASE:

    The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First


    Instance of Nueva Ecija.

    This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of First


    Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing the complaint.

    FACTS:

    1. April 8, 1910- alleged date of marriage between the plaintiff, Cipriana Garcia and
    the defendant, Isabelo Santiago.
    2. February 3, 1925- the date when the plaintiff was compelled to leave her conjugal
    dwelling due to continued family dissensions.
    3. Alejo Santiago (Defendant No. 2)
    -Son of Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1)
    -allegedly seduced Prisca Aurelio
    4. Prisca Aurelio
    –daughter of Cipriana Garcia (the Plaintiff)
    -gave birth to a child that was allegedly Alejo Santiago’s child
    5. Isabelo Santiago
    -failed to see the vindication of the honor of Prisca Aurelio, the plaintiff’s daughter
    by requiring his son to marry her.
    - refused to get involved with the matter, thus seemingly countenancing the illicit
    relations between his son and the plaintiff’s daughter
    -has allegedly conveyed/been conveying their conjugal properties to Alejo to
    foster latter’s whims & caprices and thus, damaging & prejudicing her rights.
    Some of these properties include lands acquired during the plaintiff’s and the
    defendant’s marriage with money belonging to the conjugal partnership.
    -publicly maintained illicit relationship with Geronima Yap
    6. February 3, 1925
    -separation of the plaintiff and defendant.
    -the separation was necessary to avoid personal violence

    7. Isabelo Santiago
    -continually refused to provide for the plaintiff’s support
    8. Cipriana Garcia (the plaintiff)
    -could not live in their conjugal dwelling because of the illicit relationship between
    her daughter, Prisca Aurelio and Alejo Santiago, countenanced by the other
    defendant, Isabelo Santiago.
    -demanded that she is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite monthly pension from
    conjugal partnership
    -claimed that her husband, Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1) has shown
    himself unfit to administer the property of conjugal partnership and the court
    should therefore order its administration to be placed in her hands.

    ISSUE/RATIONALE:

    1. Whether their separation is unjustified


    NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to the frequent
    fights.Isabelo ordered her to leave the house & threatened to ill-treat her if she
    returned.Prisca’s situation is embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo
    causedPrisca’s pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead to further
    quarrels.
    2. Whether transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal
    NO. Failed to prove that property was community property. Documentary evidence
    even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage.
    3.Whether Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance
    NO. That’s too much. P50.00 would be enough.
    4. Whether Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property
    NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right.
    5. Whether Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorney’s fees
    NO.

    HELD:
    That the judgment appealed from is therefore modified. Separation is allowed.
    Isabelo is ordered to provide Cipriana with a P50.00 monthly allowance to be paid
    within the first 10 days of the month. No costs allowed.

    You might also like