ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2942   December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 265

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-2942. December 29, 1949.]

    SILVESTRA COQUIA and LUIS CARANDANG, Petitioners, v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and GASPARA, FRANCISCA, DIONISIO, ALFREDO, and SALVADOR, all surnamed COQUIA, assisted by their mother, MARIA DALORI, as guardian ad litem, Respondents.

    Astilla, De Veyra, Aldaba & Zosa, for Petitioners.

    Jacinto R. Bohol and Pedro B. Talbo for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. OWNERSHIP; ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY; ALIMMONY "PENDENTE LOTE" IMPROPER. — The action in the present case 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 Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The mere fact that the plaintiffs have legal and equitable rights in the property they seeks to recover (Q .E. D.) does not authorize the court to compel the defendants to support the plaintiffs pending the determination of the suit.


    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:


    Respondents Gaspara, Francisca, Dionisio, Alfredo, and Salvador Coquia, assisted by their mother and guardian ad litem Maria Dalori, filed an action in the Court of 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, and the fourth parcel is alleged to belong exclusively to Alfredo Coquia, now deceased, upon the allegation that they are acknowledged natural children and the sole heirs of the latter. The petitioners (defendants below) in their answer denied that the respondents are acknowledged natural children of the deceased Alfredo Coquia.

    Pending the trial of the case said respondents (plaintiffs 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 in 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, 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.

    We find the present petition for certiorari to annul the above-mentioned orders to be well founded.

    Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes the granting of alimony pendente lite "at the commencement of the proper action, or at any time afterwards but prior to 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 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.

    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 v. Rohde, 1 Phil., 404.) .

    The petition is granted and the orders complained of are hereby set aside, without any finding as to costs in view of the fact that the individual respondents are litigating as paupers.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2942   December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 265


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED