This  action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu by Aleida Saavedra against her husband, Ceferino Ybañez Estrada. The purpose of the complaint is to secure a judgment for  maintenance for the plaintiff and her children from the defendant, who is her husband, and to obtain an order requiring him to  pay such maintenance not only in the  future but for a period in the past, beginning in 1920, during which the  defendant has contributed nothing for the support of his  family.  The petitory  part of the complaint asks  for other incidental relief consisting of an accounting, and  a writ of injunction to prohibit the defendant, his attorneys, agents and representatives from selling, mortgaging, or in any manner transferring the property pertaining to the conjugal partnership,  without express authorization from the court.

Upon hearing the  cause the trial court entered an order requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P200 per month beginning September, 1929, the date of the filing of this action, and  ending with the month of March,  1930, when  this decision was promulgated, after which he required the defendant to pay, in future installments, a monthly stipend of P200, and further to reimburse the plaintiff in the amount of P2,000 for  attorneys' fees, and the costs  of the action.   From this  judgment  the plaintiff appealed.

The parties in this case are husband and wife, who were married in January,  1904, in Dumaguete, Oriental Negros. As  a result of their marriage nine children have been born, three of whom are dead and six living.  Two of the living children are already  of age, namely, Manuel and Gabriela. The other four are still minors, living with their mother. In the course of their marriage a large amount of land has been  acquired,  consisting  of  over  400 hectares of land, which property was  at the time of the institution of  this action stocked  with  several  hundred head  of cattle, all property of the conjugal partnership.

The married life of the spouses appears not to have been happy,  owing to  the loose morals  and violent disposition of the defendant and his frequent and persistent mistreatment of his wife.  In order to escape from his abuse, the plaintiff was compelled in 1914 to take refuge with all her children in the house of a neighbor.  Upon promise upon the part of the husband to mend his ways, marital life  was resumed towards the end of the same year.   Four years later, while the plaintiff was enceinte  with her  ninth child, the defendant treated her with personal violence, and she was compelled to  remove herself from contact with him by obtaining accommodations for herself and all her children in the San Jose asylum in Cebu.  She there remained for some time under the care of the sisters of charity, giving birth to her last child.  Finally, about September, 1920, the plaintiff was forced to present a civil action seeking an order requiring the defendant to supply maintenance for herself  and children, but in  1926 the defendant prevailed upon her to dismiss said action upon his  promise to  supply her needs. This promise was not kept; and for more than a decade this woman has struggled alone maintaining her family as best she could by obtaining credit from strangers and sacrificing paraphernal property of her own.

Worst of all, from a marital point of view, the defendant has been in the  habit of using the servant women around his place as mistresses, and he has a child by a woman who was his servant  in years past.  At the time this  case was tried, he was in illicit relations with another servant.   This course of conduct has made cohabitation between the plaintiff and defendant a moral impossibility.

The first error assigned by the appellant is directed to the failure  of his Honor, the trial judge, to allow the amount of P330 per month  for the plaintiff's expenses,  from the date of the filing of the complaint, in taking care of herself and the four  children who are  dependent upon  her.  As already stated, only P200 per month was allowed  for these expenses, and we are of the opinion that  the estimate of the trial court was too conservative.   The plaintiff specified in detail the items deemed absolutely necessary to defray her expenses, and these  items are, in our opinion, within the bounds of  strict economy.  There is nothing claimed for luxuries or extravagances, such as automobile hire, salary of chauffeur, telephone rent, and the  like.  The ages  of the children at the  time this  action was  tried were between 10 and 16 or 17 years, that is to say, they were then arriving at the age  when expenses for schooling, clothing, and other necessary items  are  beginning to make  themselves felt in the family.  On  the other hand, the value of the community property is considerable, consisting of a large hacienda with many thousand coconut trees  in bearing and several hundred head of cattle and carabao, worth all together around P100,000.  We think that the allowance of the full amount claimed,  or P330 per month,  since the institution of this action, as well as for the future, is a proper allowance, and the judgment will be modified accordingly.

The second error  is directed to the failure of the lower court to award judgment for past due maintenance accruing under a preliminary order in  case No. 3335, effective September, 1920, and running until the present action  was instituted.   In this connection it appears that an order for maintenance pendente lite was entered by the trial court in that case, and nothing has ever been paid upon said account. Nevertheless it appears that,  on  May 21, 1926, the herein plaintiff, also plaintiff in case No. 3335, caused said action to be dismissed, in reliance upon the defendant's promises. The dismissal of  said  case necessarily  had the  effect of abrogating the order for  maintenance pendente  lite, and placed the plaintiff in a position where she is unable to enforce that  order.   An  order  pendente  lite is in its very nature contingent, and the dismissal of the action had the effect of abrogating the order.

It appears, however, that as a result of the failure of the defendant  to pay said maintenance under  the  order  referred to, the present plaintiff has been compelled to incur debts for the maintenance of herself and family, and to pay these debts, so far as they have been paid, she has been compelled  to sacrifice valuable  paraphernal  property  under authority granted by the court.  The  amount which  the plaintiff has been compelled to disburse in this way, and the value of the paraphernal property sacrificed, or obligations incurred, have not been proved; and while it is  obvious that the defendant is under an obligation to reimburse the plaintiff for these outlays and sacrifices, we are not in a position  to give her  relief  as  to  such items, under  the prayer of the present complaint.  But the order hereinafter made for the affirmance  of the judgment in this respect will be made without prejudice to her right hereafter, by independent action,  or  in the ultimate liquidation of the conjugal estate, to be reimbursed as to the  matters  mentioned.

The third error is directed to the failure of the  court to concede to the plaintiff an  accounting of the income received by the defendant from  the property of the  conjugal partnership; and she seeks judgment for her share therein. We are unable to see  the necessity for such an accounting, as it will be more appropriate in the liquidation of  the conjugal  estate.

The fourth assignment of  the appellant is directed to the supposed error of the trial court in refusing  to grant to the plaintiff an injunction to restrain him and his agents from  alienating the  conjugal property without the permission of the court.  The proof undoubtedly  shows a  situation where the plaintiff and her children are in danger  of being embarrassed  or defrauded by possible  future acts of the defendant in  alienating the conjugal property, unless some step  is taken to protect  their interest.   The majority of the court, however,  are  of the  opinion  that the proper method to accomplish this is for the plaintiff to cause to be noted upon the registry of property, as she is hereby authorized to do, the fact  that  the  conjugal property is subject to the rights of the  plaintiff to future maintenance at the rate of P330 per month, payable out of said property or its proceeds  (Baello vs. Villanueva and Villanueva,  54  Phil., 213) ; and although  the record before us does not contain a description of the  property  sufficient to make the proper order here, the trial court will be directed to make the proper order for the  annotation  of this lien, upon proof,  if necessary,  to be submitted by the plaintiff.

It being understood, therefore, first, that the amount of maintenance accruing to the plaintiff from the date of the institution of this action is at the rate of P330 per month, amounting to P7,920, to  the  date of the promulgation of this decision,  which  amount the  defendant is directed to pay to  the plaintiff; secondly, that  from and after this date she is entitled to recover the sum of P330 per month, which the defendant is ordered to  pay into court on or before the 10th day of each month, beginning October, 1931; thirdly, that the plaintiff is entitled to have the encumbrance indicated in this right to maintenance inscribed on the registry of property; and,  fourthly, that this judgment is without prejudice to the right of the  plaintiff to be reimbursed for any amount, or amounts, which she may have expended from the proceeds of her paraphernal property, or for which she may have become indebted upon account of the  necessary maintenance of herself and  children prior to the bringing of this action, the judgment appealed from, as thus modified, is affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellee.

Avancena, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.