Susan Lim-Lua vs.

Danilo Lua
G.R. Nos. 175279-80
June 5, 2013
Villarama Jr., J.
Facts:
On September 3, 2003, Susan Lim-Lua filed an action for the declaration
of nullity of her marriage with Danilo Lua, to the Regional Trial Court. In her prayer
for support pendente lite for herself and her two children, she sought the amount
of P500,000.00 as monthly support, stating that herein respondent was more than
capable of providing the said amount to because of various businesses of which
respondent derives income here and abroad as well as his salaries. The Regional
Trial Court citing Art. 203 of the Family Code states, that support is demandable
from the time plaintiff needed the said support but is payable only from the date of
judicial demand, and also granted support pendente lite in the amount P250,000.00
multiplied by the 7 months that had already lapsed. Danilo then filed a motion for
reconsideration arguing that petitioner is not entitled to spousal support considering
that she does not maintain a separate dwelling from their children and that he has
continued to support the family for their sustenance and well-being in accordance
with familys social and financial standing. He further argues that the P250,000.00
granted by the trial court as monthly support pendente lite, as well as the
P1,750,000.00 retroactive support was unconscionable and beyond the intendment
of the law for not having considered the needs of the respondent. The said motion
for reconsideration was denied, but he filed another one, which was also denied.
The respondent then filed for certiorari with the Court of Appeals who nullified the
RTCs ruling and changed the amount to P115,000.00. In its decision the appellate
court held that the trial court should not have completely disregarded the expenses
incurred by Danilo which consisted of the purchases and maintenance of the two
cars, payment of tuition fees, travel expenses, and the credit card purchases
involving groceries, dry goods and books, which certainly inured to the benefit of
not only the children, but to their mother as well. It then ordered the deduction of
the amount of PhP3,428,813.80 from total support in arrears of respondent to
petitioner and their two children. It also noted the lack of contribution from the
petitioner in the joint obligation of spouses to support their children. Susans motion
for consideration being denied by the CA she then filed an appeal with the Supreme
Court.
Issue: Was the Court of Appeals in error in ordering the deductions amount from the
amount of the current total support in arrears?
Held: Yes, to a certain extent as the Supreme Court partially granted the petition.
The Court held that the amount of support which those related by marriage and
family relationship is generally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to
the resources or means of the one giving support and the needs of the recipient.
Such support should comprise everything that is considered indispensable
for sustenance,
dwelling,
clothing,
medical
attendance,
education
and
transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.

Generally the rule is to the effect that when a father is required by a divorce
decree to pay to the mother money for the support of their dependent children and
the
unpaid
and
accrued
instalments
become judgments in her favor, he cannot, as a matter of law, claim credit on accou
nt of payments voluntarily made directly to the children.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals should not have
allowed all the expenses incurred by respondent to be taken against the accrued
support. Only those that were not necessary to sustaining the family be offset such
expenses as that of car maintenance, travel expenses, clothes purchases through
credit, etc as these are not related to the judgment awarding

support pendente lite.