Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

1. Coquia vs Baltazar
G.R. No. L-2942; December 29, 1949

Facts:
Gaspara, Francisca, Dionisio, Alfredo, and Salvador Coquia, assisted by their mother and
guardian ad litem Maria Dalori, filed an action in the Court of the First Instance of Leyte against
the spouses Silvestra Coquia and Luis Carandang to recover the possession as owner of four
parcels of land, of which three belong pro indiviso to Alfredo Coquia and his sister, the petitioner
Silvestra Coquia, now a deceased, upon the allegation that they are acknowledged natural
children and the sole heirs of the latter.

The petitioners in their answer denied that the respondents are acknowledged natural
children of the deceased Alfredo Coquia.

Pending the trial of the case said respondents (plaintiff's below) filed a petition for
alimony pendente lite which Judge Edmundo S. Piccio granted in the sum of P200 a month
(subsequently reduced to P100 a month), "considering the legal and equitable rights of said
plaintiffs in the land question in which they have interests and their actual destitute situation
while the defendants are possessed of considerable real properties," the judge said.

The respondent judge, Honorable Rodolfo Baltazar, a denied petitioners' motion for
reconsideration, holding that the order of Judge Piccio for alimony pendente lite was well
founded; and, on February 26, 1949, ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against the
herein petitioners to collect the sum of P400 corresponding to four months of unpaid alimony.

Issue:
Whether or not the granting of alimony pendente lite was proper.

Ruling:
No. 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.

158
Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

Even in an action for divorce and alimony, it has been held that the court has no
jurisdiction to grant alimony pendente lite where the answer to the complaint alleging marriage
and praying for divorce denies the fact of marriage, because the right of a wife to support
depends upon her status as such, and where the existence of such status is put in issue by the
pleading, it cannot be presumed to exist for the purpose of granting alimony. (Yangco vs. Rohde,
1 Phil., 404.)

2. Ramos vs CA
G.R. No. L-31897; June 30, 1972

Facts:
Assisted by their mother, Felisa Lagos, the minors Fernando and Lorraine Lagos filed,
with the Court of First Instance of Batangas, a complaint against Luis T. Ramos, the petitioner
herein, for support and damages, alleging that she bore said children, born on August 27, 1963
and June 21, 1965, respectively, in consequence of illicit relations with said Ramos, 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 therefor, which she does not have.

Ramos having denied the main allegations of the complaint and set up a counterclaim for
damages, the case proceeded to trial, after which, on December 18, 1967, said court rendered
judgment for the plaintiffs, sentencing Ramos to pay each of said minors the sum of P75.00
monthly, in addition to the aggregate sum of "P2,075.00 representing the support in arrears for
the elder child, that is, from July 17, 1964, when defendant stopped giving him the support, up to
the filing of the complaint on September 3, 1965," and "the support in arrears in the amount of
P180.00 for the younger child, or from June 21, 1965, when she was born, up to September 3,
1965, when the complaint for support was filed," apart from "the sum of P500.00 representing
attorney's fees and costs of suit suffered by the plaintiffs."

A reconsideration having been denied, Ramos commenced the present action, alleging
that the Court of Appeals had abused its discretion in issuing the aforementioned resolution:

(a) "there having been neither a recognition of paternity by the petitioner nor its
establishment by final judgment";
(b) his motion for reconsideration having been denied without an oral argument requested
by him; (c) the Court of Appeals having granted the minors the sum of P4,727.50,
despite the fact that their mother had merely requested "a monthly support of P75.00
for each child;"
(c) said Court having denied petitioner's request for "a 10-day abeyance in the
implementation of the resolution" granting supportpendente lite;
(d) the trial court having denied the motion therein filed by the plaintiffs-appellees for
supportpendente lite; and
(e) the Court of Appeals not having required Felisa Lagos to file a bond, despite the fact
that she had offered to put one.

159
Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

Issue:
Whether or not the minors are entitled of support even without recognition of paternity
nor final judgement of the same.

Ruling:
Yes. The first ground invoked by the petitioner is predicated upon Yangco vs. Rohde
which is not in point, alimonypendente lite having been granted in that case without any
evidence, on the status of the plaintiff as alleged wife of the defendant, who had denied such
allegation, unlike the case at bar in which said evidence was introduced and found to be
sufficient, although the trial court's decision is still pending appeal.

Francisco vs. Zandueta. — on which petitioner, likewise, relies merely reiterated the
stand taken in the Yangco case, on the impropriety of granting alimony pendente lite on the basis
of the bare allegations of the complaint, which are disputed by the defendant. It, however,
pointed out the "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 than his suit or claim to be declared in
possession of such a status."

In Sanchez vs. Zulueta— in which the defendant had been compelled to pay a monthly
allowance pendente lite to his wife, the plaintiff, and her child, after denying him the
opportunity, requested by him, to introduce evidence in support of his defense to the effect that
the child had been the product of her adulterous relations with another man, after she had
abandoned the conjugal dwelling — this Court went farther and said: We are of the opinion that
the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the defendant to present his evidence for the purpose
of determining whether it is sufficient prima facie to overcome the application. Adultery on the
part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support (Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil.,
285). Consequently, as to the child, it is also a defense that it is the fruit of such adulterous
relations, for in that case, it would not be the child of the defendant and, hence would not be
entitled to support as such.

3. Vasco vs CA
GR. No. L-46763; February 28. 1978

Facts:
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City in a decision dated October
5, 1976 found that Reynaldo Vasco and Lolita Vasco (born on April 8, 1952 and April 27, 1954,
respectively) are the illegitimate children of Antonio Vasco and Angelina Reyes. It ordered
Antonio to pay them the sum of P200 as monthly allowance for support, beginning October,
1976 plus P500 as attorney's fees. Antonio Vasco appealed to the Court of Appeals from that
decision. He perfected his appeal on January 6, 1977. In its order dated April 21, 1977 the lower
court approved Vasco's record on appeal and ordered the elevation of the record to the Court of
Appeals. On June 22, 1977, or two months after the approval of the record on appeal, Reynaldo
Vasco and Lolita Vasco filed a motion for the execution of the said judgment pending appeal.
Antonio opposed invoking Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The lower court granted

160
Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

the motion for execution dated July 13, 1972. Antonio appealed to the CA. The CA upheld the
Order of the lower court in the interest of substantial justice.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court can still order support pendent lite as execution pending
appeal if the appeal has been perfected.

Ruling:
No. The trial court had no jurisdiction (long after the perfection of the appeal) to issue an
order for execution pending appeal. It had no jurisdiction because, after the perfection of the
appeal, "the trial court loses its jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection
and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the
appeal to prove compromises offered by the parties prior to the transmittal of the record on
appeal to the appellate court, and to permit the prosecution of
pauper's appeals" (Sec. 9, Rule 41, Rules of Court.)

An order for execution pending appeal does not fall within the said exceptions because it
is a proceeding involving the very matter litigated by the appeal.
Before the rendition of the judgment, the plaintiffs could have availed themselves in the lower
court of the provisional remedy of support pendente lite (Rule 61, Rules of Court). They did not
do so. On the other hand, the general rule is that an appeal stays the execution of the judgment.
In granting execution pending appeal, the lower court relied upon Garcia vs. Court of Appeals,
and Hamoy vs. Batingolo. The facts of the two cases are different from the situation in the
instant case.

The Garcia case refers to support pendent lite which is immediately executory. The
Hamoy case refers to an execution pending appeal against a person who was not a party to the
case and who had a remedy in the trial court, which issued the writ of execution, even if the
appeal of a party had already been perfected. That is different from the incident in this case. The
instant case is governed by the rule that a trial court, in ordering (after the approval of record on
appeal) the execution of a judgment requiring the husband to pay support to his wife, acted
without jurisdiction and, therefore, the order of execution is illegal and void (Marcelo vs.
Estacio, and Estacio vs. Provincial Warden of Rizal).

Contrary to the impression of the Court of Appeals, the trial court's error is not merely an
error of judgment. It is clear that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. Hence, the execution
pending appeal was annulled.

4. Francisco vs Zandueta
G.R. No. L-43794; August 9, 1935

Facts:
Eugenio Francisco, represented by his natural mother and curator ad litem,
Rosario Gomez, instituted an action for support against petitioner Luis Francisco in a
separate case, alleging that he is the latter’s acknowledged son and as such is entitled to

161
Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

support. Luis denied the allegation, claimed that he never acknowledged Eugenio as his
son and was not present at his baptism and that he was married at time of Eugenio’s birth.
Despite the denial of paternity however, respondent judge Francisco Zandueta issued an
order granting Eugenio monthly pension, pendente lite. Luis moved for reconsideration
but was denied, hence the writ for certiorari. Praying to have the trial transferred, counsel
of herein petitioner, in compromise, agreed that his client would pay the monthly pension
during the pendency of the case.

Issue:
Whether or not Eugenio Francisco is entitled to support without first establishing
his status as petitioner’s son.

Ruling:
No. The answer as to whether or not petitioner’s counsel really agreed to have
him pay the pension during the case’s pendency is not necessary to the solution of the
case.

As in the case of Yangco vs Rohde, the fact of the civil status must be proven first
before a right of support can be derived. The Court ruled that it is necessary for Eugenio
to prove, through his guardian ad litem, his civil status as the petitioner’s son. As such, no
right of support can be given because the very civil status of sonship, from which the
right is derived, is in question.

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 respondent’s absence of aforementioned status.

5. Reyes vs Ines- Luciano

G.R. No. L-48219; February 28, 1979

Facts:
Celia Ilustre-Reyes filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court ofQuezon City a
complaint against her husband Manuel J.C. Reyes for legal separation on the ground that he had
attempted to kill her:
a. 3/10/1976 – he punched her, held her head, and bumped it several times against the
cement floor. He also pushed her at the stairway of 13 flights, and swung at her abdomen
which got her half-unconscious. It was her father who saved her.
b. He doused her with grape juice, kicked her several times, and was saved this time by her
driver.

162
Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

She filed for support pendente lite for her and her 3 children. Manuel opposed this by saying
that his wife committed adultery with her physician. RTC granted the support. On appeal, the CA
dismissed Manuel’s petition for the annulment of the RTC order and it appears that Manuel to be
financially capable of giving the support.

Issues:
1. Whether or not adultery can be used as a defense in an action for support ?
2. Whether or not in determining the amount of support it is enough that the Court
ascertain via affidavits or other documentary evidence

Rulings:
1. Yes. The alleged adultery must be established by competent evidence. Adultery is a
good defense if properly proved. Manuel did not present any evidence to prove his
allegation. He still has the opportunity to adduce evidence on this alleged adultery when
the action for legal separation is heard on the merits before the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of QC. However, it is doubtful whether adultery will affect her right to
alimony pendente lite – she is asking for support to be taken from their conjugal
property, not Manuel’s personal funds.

2. Yes. Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support
pendent lite; it is enough that the facts be established by affidavits/other documentary
evidence. Celia submitted documents that the corporations controlled by Manuel have
entered into multi-million contracts in projects of the Ministry of Public Highways.

6. Lam vs Chua
G.R. NO. 131286; March 18, 2004

Facts:
Adriana Chua filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
Psychological Incapacity against Jose Lam. However, Adriana failed to pray and claim for
support for their only son John Paul. During the course of the Trial, she did not present any
evidence regarding her claim for support needed by John Paul.

After several months, she filed an Urgent Motion to Re-Open and this time, she provided
evidence that Jose Lam was married to a Celia Santiago prior to their marriage. This time, she
added her claim for support to their son. RTC of Pasay granted the petition holding that their
marriage was void for being bigamous and awarded P20, 000 as support to their son, John Paul.

Jose Lam filed a Motion for Recon but only as to the decision awarding support. He
contended that he and Adriana already had an agreement which was approved by RTC of Makati
that they would put P250, 000 into a common fund which will be used for support of their Son.
RTC denied the motion. CA also affirmed.

163
Rule 61 – Support Pendente Lite

Issue:
Whether or not the Urgent Motion to Re-Open and adding the prayer for support proper.

Ruling:
No. 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 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 by respondent Adriana regarding her claim for
support of the child is her testimony such testimony does not establish the amount needed by the
child nor the amount that the parents are reasonably able to give.

The trial court’s action of merely ordering in open court during the July 6, 1994 hearing
that a prayer for support be written and inserted in the petition filed by respondent Adriana does
not constitute proper amendment and notice upon petitioner Jose. Consequently, herein petitioner
Jose was deprived of due process when the trial court proceeded to hear the case on a motion to
re-open and render judgment without giving Jose the requisite notice and the opportunity to
refute the new claim against him.

Verily, the manner by which the trial court arrived at the amount of support awarded to
John Paul was whimsical, arbitrary and without any basis.

Such being the case, the Court has no other recourse but to reverse the decision of the
Court of Appeals and Pasay RTC insofar as the award of support is concerned and order the
remand of the case to Pasay RTC for further proceedings as to the issue regarding support.

164