AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. NAD JIB TANNUS HASHIM ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

OSTRAND, J.:

This action is brought to set aside a number of conveyances of real and
personal property alleged to have been made for the purpose of defrauding the
plaintiff of her rights.

It appears from the evidence that on the 8th day of February, 1906, the
plaintiff and the defendant Nadjib Tannus Hashim were legally married in Syria.
About three months after the marriage they came to the Philippine Islands and
established their residence in Manila. In the year 1910 the plaintiff went on a
visit to Syria returning to this country about eight months later. She again
went to Syria in 1914. She contends that the journey was necessary for her
health but it appears that she had considerable trouble in obtaining her
husband’s consent thereto. He maintains that when she left the understanding
between them was that she would not return, and in corroboration of this
statement has shown that he, on April 18, 1914, published a notice in the Syrian
newspaper Lisan-Ul-Hall to the effect that his wife had separated from
him and warning the public that he would not be responsible for her debts.

The plaintiff asserts that she always-intended to return; that while she was
in Syria the Turkish Possessions became involved in the World War and that she
therefore was unable to get back to Manila until in the month of May, 1920. On
her return the defendant N. T. Hashim refused to receive her in his house and
she appears to have been living in the house of one of her cousins ever
since.

In the month of June, 1920, shortly after the plaintiffs return to the
Philippines, the defendant N. T. Hashim executed conveyances of practically all
of his property to several of his relatives, the other defendants herein, and
the plaintiff now seeks to have these conveyances set aside. The property
conveyed is alleged to be worth over a half a million pesos, but need not here
be described in detail. The court below found that the conveyances were
fraudulent only as to the following described pieces of real estate and held the
transfers of the rest of the property valid:

“(a) Two building lots on Rizal Avenue opposite the Grand Opera
House and designated as lots Nos. 1 and 2 of block No. 8 of the San Lazaro
Estate and measuring 730 square meters each. One of the lots was bought by N. T.
Hashim from the Government in 1914 for P6,720 and the other was bought in 1915
for P4,240. On June 12,1920, N. T. Hashim transferred the lots to A. T. Hashim
for the alleged consideration of P15,000 each.

“(b) Lot No. 2, block No. 2212 of the same estate, bought by N. T.
Hashim from the Government in 1915, for the sum of P2,560. There is a house on
the lot which is designated as house No. 1001 Calle Oroquieta. The lot and house
were transferred to A. T. Hashim on October 14, 1920, the consideration named
being W,000 for the whole property.”

In an exhaustive and well prepared decision the court below annulled the
transfers of these properties and ordered that certified copies of the
dispositive part of the decision be filed by the clerk of the Court of First
Instance with the register of deeds of Manila and with the Director of Lands. No
special provision was made for the administration of the property. From this
decision all of the parties appeal.

There can be no question that upon the evidence presented the trial court was
warranted in annulling the transfers of the real estate above described and its
findings upon this point must therefore be affirmed.

The judgment of the court below has the effect of turning the property
fraudulently conveyed back to the conjugal partnership, leaving the
administration thereof in the hands of the husband. It appears, however, from
the record that before instituting the present action the plaintiff on November
12, 1920, brought an action against the defendant N. T. Hashim for a separate
maintenance allowance. The trial court granted her an allowance pendente
lite of P1,000 per month, and afterwards a permanent allowance of P500 per
month. The defendant husband failed to make payment and a writ of execution was
issued. The writ was returned unsatisfied and supplementary proceedings were had
under Chapter 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter an alias writ of
execution was issued and levied upon all the rights and interest of the husband
in the house and lot above described under (b) and such rights and
interest were sold to the plaintiff on June 13, 1921, and a sheriff’s deed was
executed therefore on the 30th day of November, 1923. Subsequently a writ of
execution was issued for other due and unpaid installments of the maintenance
allowance, which execution was levied Upon all of the defendant husband’s rights
and interest in the two lots above described under (a), and the
property was sold to the plaintiff on December 12,1923. The period of redemption
from these sales having now expired, the legal title to the property sold has
become vested in the plaintiff, subject to such preexisting debts as may be
properly charge able against the conjugal partnership. (30 C. J., 1095 and
authorities there cited; 30 Cyc, 477.)

In view of the fact that the defendant husband has, by his acts, virtually
abdicated as administrator of the wife’s property, she must be given the
administration thereof.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the
modification that the plaintiff be declared the sole owner of the property, the
conveyance of which to the defendant A. T. Hashim was declared fraudulent, and
that she be given the administration of said property. No costs will be allowed
in this instance. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ.,
concur.