Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Relucio v. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
Relucio v. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578
138497 January 16, 2002 "In order to avoid defendant Lopez obligations as a father and husband, he
excluded the private respondent and their four children from sharing or
IMELDA RELUCIO, petitioner, benefiting from the conjugal properties and the income or fruits there from. As
vs. such, defendant Lopez either did not place them in his name or otherwise
ANGELINA MEJIA LOPEZ, respondent. removed, transferred, stashed away or concealed them from the private-
respondent. He placed substantial portions of these conjugal properties in the
name of petitioner Relucio.1âwphi1.nêt
PARDO, J.:
"It was also averred that in the past twenty five years since defendant Lopez
The Case
abandoned the private-respondent, he has sold, disposed of, alienated,
transferred, assigned, canceled, removed or stashed away properties, assets
The case is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to set aside the decision2 of the and income belonging to the conjugal partnership with the private-respondent
Court of Appeals that denied a petition for certiorari assailing the trial court's order and either spent the proceeds thereof for his sole benefit and that of
denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the case against her inclusion as party defendant petitioner Relucio and their two illegitimate children or permanently and
therein. fraudulently placed them beyond the reach of the private-respondent and
their four children.
The Facts
"On December 8, 1993, a Motion to Dismiss the Petition was filed by herein
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: petitioner on the ground that private respondent has no cause of action
against her.
"On September 15, 1993, herein private respondent Angelina Mejia Lopez
(plaintiff below) filed a petition for "APPOINTMENT AS SOLE ADMINISTRATIX "An Order dated February 10, 1994 was issued by herein respondent Judge
OF CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF PROPERTIES, FORFEITURE, ETC.," against denying petitioner Relucio's Motion to Dismiss on the ground that she is
defendant Alberto Lopez and petition Imelda Relucio, docketed as Spec. Proc. impleaded as a necessary or indispensable party because some of the subject
M-3630, in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141. In the petition, properties are registered in her name and defendant Lopez, or solely in her
private-respondent alleged that sometime in 1968, defendant Lopez, who is name.
legally married to the private respondent, abandoned the latter and their four
legitimate children; that he arrogated unto himself full and exclusive control "Subsequently thereafter, petitioner Relucio filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and administration of the conjugal properties, spending and using the same for to the Order of the respondent Judge dated February 10, 1994 but the same
his sole gain and benefit to the total exclusion of the private respondent and was likewise denied in the Order dated May 31, 1994." 3
their four children; that defendant Lopez, after abandoning his family,
maintained an illicit relationship and cohabited with herein petitioner since
On June 21, 1994, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari
1976.
assailing the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss. 4
"It was further alleged that defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio, during
On May 31, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision denying the petition. 5 On
their period of cohabitation since 1976, have amassed a fortune consisting
June 26, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.6 However, on April 6, 1996,
mainly of stockholdings in Lopez-owned or controlled corporations, residential,
the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 7
agricultural, commercial lots, houses, apartments and buildings, cars and other
motor vehicles, bank accounts and jewelry. These properties, which are in the
names of defendant Lopez and petitioner Relucio singly or jointly or their Hence, this appeal.8
dummies and proxies, have been acquired principally if not solely through the
actual contribution of money, property and industry of defendant Lopez with The Issues
minimal, if not nil, actual contribution from petitioner Relucio.
1. Whether respondent's petition for appointment as sole administratrix of the The first cause of action is for judicial appointment of respondent as administratrix of
conjugal property, accounting, etc. against her husband Alberto J. Lopez the conjugal partnership or absolute community property arising from her marriage to
established a cause of action against petitioner. Alberto J. Lopez. Petitioner is a complete stranger to this cause of action. Article 128 of
the Family Code refers only to spouses, to wit:
2. Whether petitioner's inclusion as party defendant is essential in the
proceedings for a complete adjudication of the controversy.9 "If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his
or her obligations to the family, the aggrieved spouse may petition the court
The Court's Ruling for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the
sole administrator of the conjugal partnership property xxx"
We grant the petition. We resolve the issues in seriatim.
The administration of the property of the marriage is entirely between them, to the
exclusion of all other persons. Respondent alleges that Alberto J. Lopez is her husband.
First issue: whether a cause of action exists against petitioner in the proceedings below.
Therefore, her first cause of action is against Alberto J. Lopez. There is no right-duty
"A cause of action is an act or omission of one party the defendant in violation of the
relation between petitioner and respondent that can possibly support a cause of action.
legal right of the other."10 The elements of a cause of action are:
In fact, none of the three elements of a cause of action exists.
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law
The second cause of action is for an accounting "by respondent husband." 14 The
it arises or is created;
accounting of conjugal partnership arises from or is an incident of marriage.
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to
Petitioner has nothing to do with the marriage between respondent Alberto J. Lopez.
violate such right; and
Hence, no cause of action can exist against petitioner on this ground.
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of
Respondent's alternative cause of action is for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez' share in the
the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
co-owned property "acquired during his illicit relationship and cohabitation with
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. 11
[petitioner]"15 and for the "dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains between him
[Alberto J. Lopez] and the [respondent]."
A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged
facts were admitted or proved.12
The third cause of action is essentially for forfeiture of Alberto J. Lopez' share in
property co-owned by him and petitioner. It does not involve the issue of validity of the
In order to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must co-ownership between Alberto J. Lopez and petitioner. The issue is whether there is
show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been merely basis in law to forfeit Alberto J. Lopez' share, if any there be, in property co-owned by
defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. 13 him with petitioner.
Hence, to determine the sufficiency of the cause of action alleged in Special Proceedings Respondent's asserted right to forfeit extends to Alberto J. Lopez' share alone. Failure of
M-3630, we assays its allegations. Alberto J. Lopez to surrender such share, assuming the trial court finds in respondent's
favor, results in a breach of an obligation to respondent and gives rise to a cause of
In Part Two on the "Nature of [the] Complaint," respondent Angelina Mejia Lopez action.16 Such cause of action, however, pertains to Alberto J. Lopez, not petitioner.
summarized the causes of action alleged in the complaint below.
The respondent also sought support. Support cannot be compelled from a stranger.
The complaint is by an aggrieved wife against her husband.
The action in Special Proceedings M-3630 is, to use respondent Angelina M. Lopez' own
Nowhere in the allegations does it appear that relief is sought against petitioner. words, one by "an aggrieved wife against her husband." 17 References to petitioner in the
Respondent's causes of action were all against her husband. common and specific allegations of fact in the complaint are merely incidental, to set
forth facts and circumstances that prove the causes of action alleged against Alberto J.
Lopez.
Finally, as to the moral damages, respondent's claim for moral damages is against
Alberto J. Lopez, not petitioner.
To sustain a cause of action for moral damages, the complaint must have the character
of an action for interference with marital or family relations under the Civil Code.
A real party in interest is one who stands "to be benefited or injured by the judgment of
the suit."18 In this case, petitioner would not be affected by any judgment in Special
Proceedings M-3630.
The Judgment
No costs.
SO ORDERED.