Lam vs Chua

Facts:

 Adriana and Jose were married in 1984.

 From this union, they begot a son named John.
 Adriana filed a petition for the declaration of nullity her marriage on the grounds of psychological
incapacity on the part of Jose in the Pasay RTC.
 Adriana alleges such incapacity was not apparent until during the marriage.
 She alleges that Jose frequently failed to go home, indulged in womanizing and irresponsible
activities, such as, mismanaging the conjugal partnership of gains.
 Jose did not file a pleading despite a summons was served on him.
 She also agreed to the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains that was approved in the
Makati RTC.
 Custody of the child was granted to Adriana, subject to visitation rights of Jose. Jose was ordered
to support his son.
 During the pendency of the case in the Pasay RTC, Adriana was able to present new evidence.
 The evidence were marriage contracts that showed that Jose had been married twice before even
marrying Adriana.
 RTC held that the marriage between the Adriana and Jose was null and void for being bigamous
by nature. Jose was also ordered to support to his son with 20k a month.
 Jose filed a MR. He argues that he was already ordered to support his child by the Makati RTC and
that the Pasay RTC ordering him to do the same will unjustly increase the amount he has to give
to support his son.

Issue:

1. WON the compromise agreement where the parties bound themselves to contribute to a
common fund for the benefit of their child bars the trial court in annulment case to again
award support in favor of the child. No, the court is not barred.
2. WON the court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the nullity of the marriage. YES, but
Jose is estopped from questioning the same.
3.

Ruling:

1st Issue

 Court cited Advincula vs. Advincula, “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. 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.”
 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.
2nd Issue

 The only ground alleged in the petition is psychological incapacity without any prayer for the
support of her child.
 When Adrian presented the marriage contracts to prove the marriage was bigamous, she
essentially changed the grounds for nullity from psychological incapacity to bigamy.
 As a general rule, a party who has been declared in default is entitled to service of substantially
amended or supplemental pleadings.
 In this case, Jose did not file a pleading despite the service of summons and a decision was made
based on the evidence presented by Adriana. Therefore, the Pasay RTC had acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and deprived petitioner Lam of due process.
 However, Jose is estopped from questioning the declaration of nullity since he never questioned
the same before the RTC or the CA.
 For the trial court to have rendered judgment on issues not presented in the pleadings is beyond
its jurisdiction to do so.

3rd Issue

 It is incumbent upon the trial court to base its award of support on the evidence presented before
it. The evidence must prove the capacity or resources of both parents who are jointly obliged to
support their children as provided for under Article 195 of the Family Code; and the monthly
expenses incurred for the sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and
transportation of the child.
 In this case, the only evidence presented is her testimony which did not establish the amount
needed by their child nor the amount the parents are reasonably able to give.

Q - Considering the bigamous marriage contract by your husband with you, what do you want to
request to the Honorable Court?
A - I want to request the Court that the respondent be ordered to support my little boy.
Court:
Q - How much support do you want?
A - P20,000.00 to P25,000.00
Q - Is there a prayer for support?
A - None, Your Honor.
Court: Get the original copy of the complaint, add and sign it for the support of the boy.

The trial court’s action of merely ordering in open court that a prayer for support be written and
inserted in the petition does not constitute proper amendment and notice upon petitioner Jose.
Consequently, herein petitioner Jose was deprived of due process.