BANEZ V. BANEZ (REMEDIAL)

ISSUE: Is an action for legal separation one where multiple appeals are allowed?

NO.

As held in Echaus v. CA, EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL is allowed when superior circumstances demanding urgency outweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ. Otherwise, instead of being an instrument of solicitude and justice, the writ may well become a tool

In the case, considering the reasons cited by petitioner, we are of the view that there is no superior or urgent circumstance that outweighs the damage, which respondent would suffer if he were ordered to vacate the house. We note that petitioner did not refute respondent's allegations that she did not intend to use said house, and that she has 2 other houses in the US where she is a permanent resident, while he had none at all.

Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea for execution pending appeal. To do so would made execution routinary, the rule rather than the exception.

Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with accounting, in actions for partition of property with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final.

This holds true in an action for legal separation. The issues involved in the case will necessarily relate to the same marital relationship between the parties. The effects of legal separation such as entitlement to live separately, dissolution and liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership, and custody of the minor children, follow from the decree of legal separation. They are not separate and distinct matters that may be resolved by the court and become final prior to or apart from the decree of legal separation, Rather, they are mere incidents of legal separation.

Petitioner's alternative prayers that in case we do not dismiss the appeal, we return the records to the trial court and require respondent to file a record on appeal or we return the records to the trial court and retain only the pleadings and orders relevant to the appeal, are untenable. If we grant the first, we are effectively saying that the instant case is one involving multiple appeals, which it is not. If we allow the second, we are effectively applying by analogy Section 6, Rule 44 and Section 6 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, without petitioner showing support therefor in law or jurisprudence.