G.R. Nos.
175279-80 June 5, 2013
SUSAN LIM-LUA, Petitioner,
vs.
DANILO Y. LUA, Respondent.
Suffice it to state that the matter of increase or reduction of support should be submitted to the trial
court in which the action for declaration for nullity of marriage was filed, as this Court is not a trier of
facts. The amount of support may be reduced or increased proportionately according to the
reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person
obliged to support.34 As we held in Advincula v. Advincula35
…Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that its
allowance is essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is entitled to
support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or
decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final
determination.36
[ G.R. No. 213687, January 08, 2020 ]
SIMON R. PATERNO, PETITIONER, VS. DINA MARIE LOMONGO PATERNO, RESPONDENT.
Indeed, petitioner is not precluded from seeking the reduction of the amount of support he was
obliged to provide in the event that he can sufficiently prove that its reduction is warranted. After all,
judgment of support does not become final, and may be reduced or increased proportionately
according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means
of the person obliged to support.42
G.R. No. 131286 March 18, 2004
JOSE LAM, petitioner,
vs.
ADRIANA CHUA, respondent.
The Pasay RTC and the Court of Appeals are both correct insofar as they ruled that the amount of
support is by no means permanent. In Advincula vs. Advincula,12 we held that another action for
support could be filed again by the same plaintiff notwithstanding the fact that the previous case for
support filed against the same defendant was dismissed. We further held in said case that:
. . . Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that its
allowance is essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is entitled to
support, his or her alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or
decreased needs, and with the means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final
determination.13
Thus, there is no merit to the claim of Jose that the compromise agreement between him and
Adriana, as approved by the Makati RTC and embodied in its decision dated February 28, 1994 in
the case for voluntary dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains, is a bar to any further award of
support in favor of their child John Paul. The provision for a common fund for the benefit of their child
John Paul, as embodied in the compromise agreement between herein parties which had been
approved by the Makati RTC, cannot be considered final and res judicata since any judgment for
support is always subject to modification, depending upon the needs of the child and the capabilities
of the parents to give support.
G.R. No. 165166 August 15, 2012
CHARLES GOTARDO, Petitioner,
vs.
DIVINA BULING, Respondent.
Since filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation; a parent is obliged to
support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Support consists of everything indispensable for
45
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with
the financial capacity of the family. Thus, the amount of support is variable and, for this reason, no
46
final judgment on the amount of support is made as the amount shall be in proportion to the
resources or means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased
47
proportionately according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the
resources or means of the person obliged to support. 48
G.R. No. 125041 June 30, 2006
MA. BELEN B. MANGONON, for and in behalf of her minor children REBECCA ANGELA
DELGADO and REGINA ISABEL DELGADO. Petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge,
RTC-Makati, Branch 149, FEDERICO C. DELGADO and FRANCISCO C.
DELGADO, Respondents.
As a preliminary matter, we deem it necessary to briefly discuss the essence of support pendente
lite. The pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter provides:
Rule 61
SUPPORT ‘PENDENTE LITE’
SECTION 1. Application.- At the commencement of the proper action or proceeding, or at any time
prior to the judgment or final order, a verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by
any party stating the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties, and
accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in support thereof.
xxxx
SEC. 4. Order.- The court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render such
orders as justice and equity may require, having due regard to the probable outcome of the case and
such other circumstances as may aid in the proper resolution of the question involved. If the
application is granted, the court shall fix the amount of money to be provisionally paid or such other
forms of support as should be provided, taking into account the necessities of the applicant and the
resources or means of the adverse party, and the terms of payment or mode for providing the
support. If the application is denied, the principal case shall be tried and decided as early as
possible.
Under this provision, a court may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of
judgment or final order. Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into
the merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do
is determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the
application. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence
appearing in the record.32 [Link]
After the hearings conducted on this matter as well as the evidence presented, we find that petitioner
was able to establish, by prima facie proof, the filiation of her twin daughters to private respondents
and the twins’ entitlement to support pendente lite. In the words of the trial court –
By and large, the status of the twins as children of Federico cannot be denied. They had maintained
constant communication with their grandfather Francisco. As a matter of fact, respondent Francisco
admitted having wrote several letters to Rica and Rina (Exhs. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, G-1 to G-30). In
the said letters, particularly at the bottom thereof, respondent Francisco wrote the names of Rica
and Rina Delgado. He therefore was very well aware that they bear the surname Delgado. Likewise,
he referred to himself in his letters as either "Lolo Paco" or "Daddy Paco." In his letter of October 13,
1989 (Exh. G-21), he said "as the grandfather, am extending a financial help of US$1,000.00." On
top of this, respondent Federico even gave the twins a treat to Hongkong during their visit to the
Philippines. Indeed, respondents, by their actuations, have shown beyond doubt that the twins are
the children of Federico.33
Having addressed the issue of the propriety of the trial court’s grant of support pendente lite in favor
of Rica and Rina, the next question is who should be made liable for said award.
The pertinent provision of the Family Code on this subject states:
ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve
upon the following persons in the order herein provided:
(1) The spouse;
(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and
(4) The brothers and sisters.
An eminent author on the subject explains that the obligation to give support rests principally on
those more closely related to the recipient. However, the more remote relatives may be held to
shoulder the responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide
support do not have the means to do so.34
In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals held respondent Federico liable to provide
monthly support pendente lite in the total amount of P10,000.00 by taking into consideration his
supposed income of P30,000.00 to P40,000.00 per month. We are, however, unconvinced as to the
veracity of this ground relied upon by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
It is a basic procedural edict that questions of fact cannot be the proper subject of a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule finds a more stringent
application where the Court of Appeals upholds the findings of fact of the trial court; in such a
situation, this Court, as the final arbiter, is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the
appellate and the lower courts. This rule, however, is not ironclad as it admits of the following
recognized exceptions: "(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals
went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the
findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion."35 The case at bar falls within the seventh and eleventh exceptions.
The trial court gave full credence to respondent Federico’s allegation in his Answer36 and his
testimony37 as to the amount of his income. We have, however, reviewed the records of this case
and found them bereft of evidence to support his assertions regarding his employment and his
earning. Notably, he was even required by petitioner’s counsel to present to the court his income tax
return and yet the records of this case do not bear a copy of said document.38 This, to our mind,
severely undermines the truthfulness of respondent Federico’s assertion with respect to his financial
status and capacity to provide support to Rica and Rina.
In addition, respondent Francisco himself stated in the witness stand that as far as he knew, his son,
respondent Federico did not own anything –
"Atty. Lopez:
I have here another letter under the letter head of Mr. & Mrs. Dany Mangonon, dated October 19,
1991 addressed to Mr. Francisco Delgado signed by "sincerely, Danny Mangonon, can you
remember."
xxxx
WITNESS:
A: I do remember this letter because it really irritated me so much that I threw it away in a waste
basket. It is a very demanding letter, that is what I do not like at all.
ATTY. LOPEZ:
Q: It is stated in this letter that "I am making this request to you and not to your son, Rico, for
reasons we both are aware of." Do you know what reason that is?
A: Yes. The reason is that my son do not have fix employment and do not have fix salary and
income and they want to depend on the lolo.
xxxx [Link]
Q: Would you have any knowledge if Federico owns a house and lot?
A: Not that I know. I do not think he has anything.
Q: How about a car?
A: Well, his car is owned by my company.39
Respondent Federico himself admitted in court that he had no property of his own, thus:
Q: You also mentioned that you are staying at Mayflower Building and you further earlier testified
that this building belongs to Citadel Corporation. Do you confirm that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What car are you driving, Mr. Witness?
A: I am driving a lancer, sir.
Q: What car, that registered in the name of the corporation?
A: In the corporation, sir.
Q: What corporation is that?
A: Citadel Commercial, Inc., sir.
Q: What properties, if any, are registered in your name, do you have any properties, Mr. Witness?
A: None, sir."40 (Emphasis supplied.)
Meanwhile, respondent Francisco asserts that petitioner possessed the capacity to give support to
her twin daughters as she has gainful employment in the USA. He even went as far as to state that
petitioner’s income abroad, when converted to Philippine peso, was much higher than that received
by a trial court judge here in the Philippines. In addition, he claims that as she qualified for the
federal parent loan program, she could very well support the college studies of her daughters.
We are unconvinced. Respondent Francisco’s assertion that petitioner had the means to support her
daughters’ education is belied by the fact that petitioner was even forced by her financial status in
the USA to secure the loan from the federal government. If petitioner were really making enough
money abroad, she certainly would not have felt the need to apply for said loan. The fact that
petitioner was compelled to take out a loan is enough indication that she did not have enough money
to enable her to send her daughters to college by herself. Moreover, even Rica and Rina themselves
were forced by the circumstances they found themselves in to secure loans under their names so as
not to delay their entrance to college.
There being prima facie evidence showing that petitioner and respondent Federico are the parents
of Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily charged to support their
children’s college education. In view however of their incapacities, the obligation to furnish said
support should be borne by respondent Francisco. Under Article 199 of the Family Code, respondent
Francisco, as the next immediate relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his
granddaughters in default of their parents. It bears stressing that respondent Francisco is the
majority stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Citadel Commercial, Incorporated,
which owns and manages twelve gasoline stations, substantial real estate, and is engaged in
shipping, brokerage and freight forwarding. He is also the majority stockholder and Chairman of the
Board of Directors of Citadel Shipping which does business with Hyundai of Korea. Apart from these,
he also owns the Citadel Corporation which, in turn, owns real properties in different parts of the
country. He is likewise the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Isla Communication Co. and he
owns shares of stocks of Citadel Holdings. In addition, he owns real properties here and abroad.41 It
having been established that respondent Francisco has the financial means to support his
granddaughters’ education, he, in lieu of petitioner and respondent Federico, should be held liable
for support pendente lite.
Anent respondent Francisco and Federico’s claim that they have the option under the law as to how
they could perform their obligation to support Rica and Rina, respondent Francisco insists that Rica
and Rina should move here to the Philippines to study in any of the local universities. After all, the
quality of education here, according to him, is at par with that offered in the USA. The applicable
provision of the Family Code on this subject provides:
Art. 204. The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation either by
paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who
has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a moral or
legal obstacle thereto.
Under the abovecited provision, the obligor is given the choice as to how he could dispense his
obligation to give support. Thus, he may give the determined amount of support to the claimant or he
may allow the latter to stay in the family dwelling. The second option cannot be availed of in case
there are circumstances, legal or moral, which should be considered.
In this case, this Court believes that respondent Francisco could not avail himself of the second
option. From the records, we gleaned that prior to the commencement of this action, the relationship
between respondent Francisco, on one hand, and petitioner and her twin daughters, on the other,
was indeed quite pleasant. The correspondences exchanged among them expressed profound
feelings of thoughtfulness and concern for one another’s well-being. The photographs presented by
petitioner as part of her exhibits presented a seemingly typical family celebrating kinship. All of
these, however, are now things of the past. With the filing of this case, and the allegations hurled at
one another by the parties, the relationships among the parties had certainly been affected.
Particularly difficult for Rica and Rina must be the fact that those who they had considered and
claimed as family denied having any familial relationship with them. Given all these, we could not
see Rica and Rina moving back here in the Philippines in the company of those who have disowned
them.
Finally, as to the amount of support pendente lite, we take our bearings from the provision of the law
mandating the amount of support to be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and to
the necessities of the recipient.42 Guided by this principle, we hold respondent Francisco liable for
half of the amount of school expenses incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendente lite. As
established by petitioner, respondent Francisco has the financial resources to pay this amount given
his various business endeavors.
Considering, however, that the twin sisters may have already been done with their education by the
time of the promulgation of this decision, we deem it proper to award support pendente lite in
arrears43 to be computed from the time they entered college until they had finished their respective
studies.
The issue of the applicability of Article 15 of the Civil Code on petitioner and her twin daughters
raised by respondent Francisco is best left for the resolution of the trial court. After all, in case it
would be resolved that Rica and Rina are not entitled to support pendente lite, the court shall then
order the return of the amounts already paid with legal interest from the dates of actual payment.44
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 20 March 1996 and Resolution dated 16 May 1996 affirming the Order dated
12 September 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati, fixing the amount of support
pendente lite to P5,000.00 for Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel, are hereby MODIFIED in that
respondent Francisco Delgado is hereby held liable for support pendente lite in the amount to be
determined by the trial court pursuant to this Decision. Let the records of this case be remanded to
the trial court for the determination of the proper amount of support pendente lite for Rebecca
Angela and Regina Isabel as well as the arrearages due them in accordance with this Decision
within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Concomitantly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the
trial of the main case and the immediate resolution of the same with deliberate dispatch. The RTC
Judge, Branch 149, Makati, is further directed to submit a report of his compliance with the directive
regarding the support pendente lite within ten (10) days from compliance thereof.
