G.R. No. L-996 October 13, 1902 LUIS R. YANGCO,Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM J.

ROHDE, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila,Respondent. ARELLANO, C.J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Luis Yangco filed writ of prohibition in the Supreme Court, alleging that complaint
had been filed by Victorina Obin against the petitioner praying that she be declared the lawful wife of the said Yangco, and that she be granted a divorce, an allowance for alimony, and attorney's fees during the pendency of the suit. Complaint was filed before Respondent Judge Rohde, of the CFI of Manila, who then overruled the demurrer filed by the petitioner, stating he is of the opinion that petitioners marriage with Victorina is valid. Petitioner denies this. Respondent then ordered petitioner to pay the plaintiff, in advance, a monthly allowance of 250 Mexican pesos from and after the 11th of March last past, and to pay on the 1st day of August following all accrued allowances, in addition to the allowance for the said month, amounting to the sum of 1,500 pesos. Petitioner claims that he would be unable to earn back the sum hes being compelled to imburse, and that hes been deprived of right of appeal or any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy. He prays to reverse respondent s judgement, and to prohibit respondent from compelling him to pay Victorina the said sum. Respondent files a demurer on the following ground: (1) That this court is without jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action; (2) that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

ISSUES: 1. WoN Respondent Judge was right to act on the assumption that their marriage was valid 2. WoN Respondent Judge was right to compel Petitioner to pay the sum a. WoN Victorina Obin has the right to obtain an allowance for alimony 3. WoN Respondent Judges decision really cant be appealed from 4. WoN Respondent Judge acted outside of his jurisdiction a. WoN writ of prohibition should be granted

HELD: 1. No. He said himself that the status of validity of the marriage was not clear or free from doubt. 2. No. Art 143 of the Civil Code cited by the respondent judge himself states the right to support is granted: (1) to spouses inter se; (2) to legitimate descendants and ascendantsinter se; (3) to parents and certain legitimated and acknowledged natural children; (4) to other illegitimate children, and (5) to brothers and sisters. Present in all these cases is a civil status or a juridical relation which is the basis of the action for support. In the case at bar the civil status that should be the basis of the action for support is marriage, which must be duly proven in the manner provided for by Art 53: Marriages celebrated before the operation of the Code, must be proven by the canonical certificate. Further, under Art 1591 of the old Code any person

believing himself entitled to that provisional alimony or support was required to file with the complaint documents proving conclusively the title by virtue of which the same was sued for . The judge, under article 1592, could not admit the complaint unless the documents referred to in the preceding article were submitted. Thus, as the evidence is lacking, a suit of alimony could not have prospered based on Respondent Judges opinion alone. [and Victorina has no right to claim allowance for alimony] 3. No, BUT while it is true that an interlocutory order such as that rendered by the respondent judge in the present case is not appealable during the course of the trial (but only after a final judgment has been rendered) it is also true that it cannot be the intention of the law, when prohibiting an appeal against interlocutory orders, to give executory force to all kinds of other interlocutory orders which the judge may see fit to make in the course of a trial, and still less when the effect would be to cause irreparable damage, such as that alleged by the petitioner in the present case. 4. Yes. The court below had jurisdiction to try the divorce suit, but he was without jurisdiction
to grant alimony when the right to claim alimony. The Code only grants the rights to alimony to a wife. This status not appearing by a final judgment, the court is without jurisdiction to make any order in the matter. [Mandamus and not prohibition is the proper remedy for this; NOTE: there was a long explanation for this but I guess it isnt important naman] The motion and demurrer are overruled and the defendant is authorized to answer the complaint within twenty days from this date