Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
B
FRANCISCO V. ZANDUETA, 61 PHIL. 752 DY
SYLLABUS
1. PARENT AND CHILD; SUPPORT OF CHILD WHILE HIS
CIVIL STATUS IS IN LITIGATION. In the present case the
action for support is brought by a minor, through his
guardian ad litem, who alleges that he is the son of the
petitioner; therefore it is necessary for him to prove his
civil status as such son. His alleged civil status being in
litigation, it is evident that nothing can be taken for
granted upon the point in issue.
2. ID.; ID. There is no law or reason which authorizes
the granting of support to a person who claims to be a
son in the same manner as to a person who establishes
by legal proof that he is such son. In the latter case legal
evidence raises a presumption of law, while in the former
there is no presumption, there is nothing but a mere
allegation, a fact in issue, and a simple fact in issue must
not be confounded with an established right recognized
by a final judgment.
3. ID.; ID. The civil status of sonship being denied and
this civil status, from which the right to support is
derived, being in issue, it is apparent that no effect can
be given to such a claim until an authoritative
declaration has been made as to the existence of the
cause. It is also evident that there is a substantial
difference between the capacity of a person after the
rendition of a final judgment in which that person is
declared to be in possession of the status of a son and
his capacity prior to such time when nothing exists other
that his suit or claim to be declared in possession of such
a status.
Facts:
Petitioner, Luis Francisco, sought to annul the ruling of
respondent judge granting private respondent, Eugenio
Leopold Francisco, a support pendent lite at the amount
of Php 30/month.
Ruling:
NO.
The SC held in the previous case of Yangco vs. Rohde
that the fact of a civil status must be proved before a
right of support can be derived, to wit,In the present
case the action for the support or alimony is brought by a
woman who alleges that she is a wife; therefore it is
necessary for her to prove possession of the civil status
of a spouse that is, a marriage, without which one has
no right to the title of husband or wife, . . .. "This
evidence being lacking, and the civil status of marriage
being in litigation, it is evident that nothing can be taken
for granted upon the point in issue. There is no law or
reason which authorizes the granting of alimony to a
person who claims to be a spouse in the same manner as
to a person who conclusively establishes by legal proof
that he or she is such a spouse, and sues for divorce or
separation. In this case the legal evidence raises a
presumption of law; in the former there is no
presumption, there is nothing but a mere allegation a
fact in issue - and a simple fact in issue must not be
confounded with an established right recognized by a
final judgment or based upon a legal presumption. The
civil status of marriage being denied, and this civil
status, from which the right to support is derived, being
in issue, it is difficult to see how any effect can be given
to such a claim until an authoritative declaration has
been made as to the existence of the cause. It is evident
that there is of necessity a substantial difference
between the capacity of a person is declared to be in
possession of the status of marriage and his capacity
prior to such time when nothing exists other that his suit
or claim to be declared in possession of such status of
marriage . . .."
3.
DIGEST:
FACTS:
Short digest:
EL Francisco sought for the support of Luis Francisco, his
alleged father, through the institution of the action by his
mother Rosario. The herein respondent alleged that he
was an acknowledged son of the petitioner. However,
petitioner
denied
the
allegationshe
never
acknowledged the child, he was married at the time of
the birth of the child, physical absence during the
baptism.
The trial court ruled in favor of the child and ordered Luis
Francisco to pay Php 30/month as support.
Issue:
WON Eugenio Leopold Francisco is entitled to the support
without establishing his status as the son of Luis
Francisco?
Ruling:
No.
It held that (t)here is no law or reason which authorizes
the granting of support to a person who claims to be a
son in the same manner as to a person who establishes
by legal proof that he is such son. In the latter case the
legal evidence raises a presumption of law, while in the
former there is no presumption, there is nothing but a
mere allegation, a fact in issue, and a simple fact in issue
must not be confounded with an established right
recognized by a final judgment.
Additionally, the respondent judge was without
jurisdiction to order for the monthly support in light of
herein private respondents absence of aforementioned
status.
YANGCO V. RHODE, 1 PHIL. 404 FERNANDEZ
PRINCIPLES:
1.
2.
Ruling:
YES. Rule 63 of the Rules of the Court, which authorizes
the granting of alimony pendente lite" at the
commencement of the proper action, or at any time
afterwards but prior to the final judgment," is not
applicable to this case. The action commenced before
the respondent judge was not for support but for the
recovery of the ownership and possession of real
property. Manifestly such an action is not "the proper
action" contemplated by said rule The mere fact that the
plaintiffs have legal and equitable rights in the property
they seek to recover (Q. E. D. ) does not authorize the
court to compel the defendants to support the plaintiffs
pending the determination of the suit. Moreover, the
petitioners, who are sister and brother-in law,
respectively, of the deceased Alfredo Coquia, are not
bound to support the alleged natural children of the
latter. Under the article 143 of the Civil Code only the
following are bound to support each other: (1) husband
and wife: (2) legitimate ascendants and descendants:
and (3) parents and acknowledged natural children, and
the legitimate descendants of the latter.
VERSION 2: (DOCTRINE)
The action in the present case was not for support but for
the recovery of the ownership and possession of real
property. Manifestly such an action is not the proper
action contemplated by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The mere fact that the plaintiffs have legal and equitable
rights in the property they seeks to recover (Q .E. D.)
does not authorize the court to compel the defendants to
support the plaintiffs pending the determination of the
suit.
Villanueva v. Villanueva, 54 Phil. 92 TRIXIE
MAGOMA V. MACADAEG, G.R. NO. L-5153,
DECEMBER 10, 1951 FAITH RAVENS
PRINCIPLE: Before action is taken on the matter [of
support pendente lite], an opportunity should be given
him to be heard, considering the serious nature of his
special defense.
LONG DIGEST:
Facts:
Respondent Candelaria Bautista filed an action against
petitioner seeking the separation of the property of the
spouses and the consequent dissolution and liquidation
of their conjugal partnership. Months thereafter, prior to
the trial on the merits, respondent prayed the court that
pending the determination of the case, she and her
daughter Leticia be given support pendente lite in the
amount of P1,000 a month and that petitioner be ordered
to act accordingly. Her motion is based on the following
ground: On August 30, 1945, while their marriage was
still subsisting, petitioner contracted another marriage
with one Luceria Bernardo; in January, 1946, petitioner
abandoned respondent and two minor daughters and
went to live with his second wife; while the bigamy case
against petitioner was under investigation by the City
Fiscal of Manila, petitioner refused to give any support to
respondent and her children for their maintenance;
petitioner and respondent, through their joint effort and
PETITION DISMISSED.
Short digest:
FACTS:
Assisted by their mother, Felisa and Lorraine
Lagos, both minors, filed with the Court of First
Instance of Batangas, a complaint against petitioner Luis
T. Ramos, for support and damages, who had failed and
refused to support said minors, notwithstanding repeated
demands, and despite the fact that he has, as a
municipal mayor, the means to do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA abused its discretion in
issuing the aforementioned resolution "there having been
neither a recognition of paternity by the petitioner nor its
establishment by final judgment"
RULING:
The Rules of Court clearly authorizes the granting
of support pendente lite, even prior to the rendition of
judgment by the trial court. Sections 1 and 5 of Rule 61
provide:
SEC. 1. Application. The plaintiff, at the
commencement of the proper action, or at any time
afterwards but prior to final judgment, may file an
application for support pendente lite, stating the grounds
for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties,
and shall be accompanied by affidavits, depositions or
other authentic documents in support thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 5. Order. The court shall determine
provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render
such order as equity and justice may require, having due
regard to the necessities of the applicant, the means of
the adverse party, the probable outcome of the case,
and such other circumstances as may aid in the proper
elucidation of the question involved. If the application is
granted, the court shall fix the amount of money to be
provisionally paid, and the terms of payment. ... .
It goes without saying that if, before the rendition
of judgment, the trial court may "provisionally" grant
alimony pendente lite, with more reason may an
appellate court exercise a similar authority, after a full
dress trial and a decision of the trial court on the merits
finding that the claim of filiation and support has been
adequately proven in the case at bar, beyond doubt
even if such decision were still pending appeal taken by
the party adjudged to be bound to give such support.
Needless to say, the refusal of the trial court to
grant, said alimony pendente lite did not and cannot
deprive the appellate court of said authority, or even
dent the wisdom of the action taken by the latter,
considering that the former did not give any plausible
reason for its aforementioned refusal and that the same
may have, in fact, been due to the appeal taken by the
defendant, whose record on appeal had already been
approved.
SPOUSES LIM V. LIM, G.R. NO. 163209, 30
OCTOBER 2009 HIYAS
PRINCIPLE:
FACTS:
Respondent Cheryl S. Lim married Edward Lim.
She bore Edward three children, they resided at the
house of herein petitioners (Edwards parents) in Forbes
Park, Makati City together with Edwards ailing
grandmother, Chua Giak and her husband Mariano Lim
(Mariano). Edwards family business, which provided him
with a monthly salary of P6,000, shouldered the family
expenses. Cheryl had no steady source of income.
Cheryl abandoned the Forbes Park residence,
bringing the children with her (then all minors), after a
violent confrontation with Edward whom she caught with
the in-house midwife of Chua Giak in what the trial court
described a very compromising situation.
Cheryl, for herself and her children, sued
petitioners, Edward, Chua Giak and Mariano (defendants)
in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for support.
RTC RULING:
Ordered Edward and petitioners to jointly
provide P40,000 monthly support to respondents, with
Edward shouldering P6,000 and petitioners the balance
of P34,000 subject to Chua Giaks subsidiary liability.
PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
Petitioners argued that while Edwards income is
insufficient, the law itself sanctions its effects by
providing that legal support should be in keeping with
the financial capacity of the family under Article 194 of
the Civil Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 209
(The Family Code of the Philippines).
CA RULING:
affirmed the trial court invoking Article
195 of the Family Code as well as Article 200
paragraph (3) of the Family Code.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
whether petitioners are concurrently liable with Edward
to provide support to respondents.
RULING:
YES., with modification by limiting petitioners liability to
the amount of monthly support needed by respondents.
Petitioners Liable to Provide Support
but only to their Grandchildren
FACTS:
Petition denied.
QUICK DIGEST:
b.
c.
SHORT DIGEST
FACTS:
X, Filipino and Y, foreigner were married in Muntinlupa.
They had a child named Z. Their marital relationship
seemed to have soured Y, initiated divorce proceedings
in the foreign country. The foreign court ordered the
dissolution of the couple's marriage. However, after
several years, Y filed another petition, this time before
the Muntinlupa City RTCon the ground of X 's alleged
psychological incapacity. Y also sought the dissolution of
the conjugal partnership of gains with application for
support pendente lite for her and her child Z. Y also
prayed that X be ordered to pay a permanent monthly
support for their child.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree is valid and support
pendente lite is tenable?
HELD:
Yes, the divorce decree is valid and the application for
support pendent lite is no longer tenable.
considered,
this
Petition
is
The CA, in ruling for the respondent said that all the
foregoing expenses already incurred by the respondent
should, in equity, be considered advances which may be
properly deducted from the support in arrears due to the
petitioner and the two children. Said court also noted the
absence of petitioners contribution to the joint obligation
of support for their children.
We reverse in part the decision of the CA.
Judicial determination of support pendente lite in cases
of legal separation and petitions for declaration of nullity
or annulment of marriage are guided by the following
provisions of the Rule on Provisional Orders24
Sec. 2. Spousal Support.In determining support for the
spouses, the court may be guided by the following rules:
(a) In the absence of adequate provisions in a written
agreement between the spouses, the spouses may be
supported from the properties of the absolute community
or the conjugal partnership.
(b) The court may award support to either spouse in such
amount and for such period of time as the court may
deem just and reasonable based on their standard of
living during the marriage.
(c) The court may likewise consider the following factors:
(1) whether the spouse seeking support is the custodian
of a child whose circumstances make it appropriate for
that spouse not to seek outside employment; (2) the
time necessary to acquire sufficient education and
training to enable the spouse seeking support to find
appropriate employment, and that spouses future
earning capacity; (3) the duration of the marriage; (4)
the comparative financial resources of the spouses,
including their comparative earning abilities in the labor
market; (5) the needs and obligations of each spouse; (6)
Short digest:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in not awarding the
judgment for past due maintenance accruing under a
preliminary order from September, 1920 running until
the present action was instituted.
RULING:
NO. It appears that an order for maintenance pendente
lite was entered by the trial court in the first case filed by
plaintiff and nothing has ever been paid upon said
account. Nevertheless, it appears that plaintiff cause said
action to be dismissed in the first case, in reliance upon
the defendant's promises. The dismissal of the 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.