Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > August 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25029 August 28, 1968 - PROCESO VINLUAN v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25029. August 28, 1968.]

PROCESO VINLUAN, Petitioner, v. THE HON. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS — EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ANTONIO CAÑIZARES and HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. and JOSEFINA RAMOS, Respondents.

Priscilo G. Evangelista for Petitioner.

Pedro P. Tuazon for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; PROPER ACTION TO QUESTION DENIAL OF PETITION FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE. — It is true that plaintiff could have sought a review by appeal of Judge Bello’s order of October 3, 1964, but since the same is interlocutory, plaintiff would have had to wait, for its review by appeal, until the rendition of judgment on the merits, which may not be forthcoming until months or years later. Meanwhile, plaintiff and her children needed alimony to live somehow. Hence, an appeal would not have been a speedy and adequate remedy.

2. CIVIL LAW; PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS; ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE; AMOUNT THEREFOR AWARDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS EXCESSIVE. — As regards the amount of the monthly alimony we note that the aggregate annual income of the conjugal properties was only P3,000, according to the pleadings of the plaintiff, who, accordingly prayed for no more than a monthly allowance of P200. Hence, the amount of P1,000 a month awarded by the Court of Appeals is clearly excessive.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

This case stemmed from Civil Case No. 14304-I of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, a civil action filed by Josefina Ramos against her husband, Proceso Vinluan — hereinafter referred to as defendant — for legal separation and separation of property. Pending final determination of said case, or on September 14, 1964, plaintiff filed a petition for alimony pendente lite alleging that the defendant and she were separated since 1960; that she had under her custody and care their five (5) children, three (3) of them minors; and that they needed money for their support. This motion was, on October 3, 1964, denied by said court, presided over by Hon. Eloy B. Bello, Judge, upon the ground that, since the legal separation and separation of properties sought by the plaintiff had not, as yet, been decreed and the aforementioned children were not parties in the case, it was premature to order the payment of alimony pendente lite.

A reconsideration of this order having been denied, plaintiff instituted, against her husband and Judge Bello, Case CA-G.R. No. L- 34891-R of the Court of Appeals, an original action for certiorari to annul said order of October 3, 1964, and secure a decree of alimony pendente lite. After appropriate proceedings, on June 30, 1965, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, granting the writ prayed for and requiring the defendant to pass to the plaintiff and their children a monthly alimony of P1,000, with costs against said defendant. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Defendant maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that plaintiff is entitled to alimony pendente lite under Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, in awaiting her and her children a monthly alimony of P1,000, and in granting a writ of certiorari, although plaintiff allegedly had another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

It is true that plaintiff could have sought a review by appeal of Judge Bello’s order of October 3, 1964, but since the same is interlocutory, plaintiff would have had to wait, for its review by appeal, until the rendition of judgment on the merits, which may not be forthcoming until months or years later. Meanwhile, plaintiff and her children needed alimony, to live somehow. Hence, an appeal would not have been a speedy and adequate remedy.

As regards the amount of the monthly alimony we note that the aggregate annual income of the conjugal properties was only P3,000, according to the pleadings of the plaintiff, who, accordingly prayed for no more than a monthly allowance of P200. Hence, the amount awarded by the Court of Appeals is clearly excessive.

At any rate, defendant died on May 19, 1968, and this has mooted not only the present case, but, also, the main case for legal separation and separation of properties.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23129 August 2, 1968 - ISIDRA FARAON, ET AL v. TOMAS PRIELA

  • G.R. No. L-27260 August 8, 1968 - NAMARCO, ET AL v. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20872 August 10, 1968 - DIGNA BALDEVARONA VDA. DE GOMEZ v. AMBROSIO FORTALEZA

  • G.R. No. L-19791 August 14, 1968 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24954 August 14, 1968 - CITY OF NAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25729 August 14, 1968 - PERFECTO CORDERO, ET AL v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25295 August 14, 1968 - CONCORDIA T. ARONG v. CONRADA SENO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24493 August 14, 1968 - ADOLFO C. NAVARRO v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-27205 August 15, 1968 - PCI BANK v. JUAN GRIÑO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29044 August 15, 1968 - WORKMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19880 August 15, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19149 August 16, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29169 August 19, 1968 - ROGER CHAVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24774 August 21, 1968 - RAUL CIPRIANO v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-28903 August 22, 1968 - MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. SANTIAGO YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 24116-17 August 22, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28511 August 22, 1968 - ARTURO SERIÑA v. CFI OF BUKIDNON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24845 August 22, 1968 - ADELA ONGSIACO VDA. DE CLEMEÑA v. AGUSTIN ENGRACIO CLEMEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23768 August 23, 1968 - JOSE GARRIDO v. PILAR G. TUASON

  • A.C. No. 549 August 26, 1968 - MAXIMA C. LOPEZ v. MANUEL B. CASACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-19490 August 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19737 August 26, 1968 - HENG TONG TEXTILES CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24405 August 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DINGALAN FOREST PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28188 August 27, 1968 - J.M. JAVIER LOGGING CORP. v. ATANACIO A. MARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28613 August 27, 1968 - AMBROCIO LACUNA v. BENJAMIN H. ABES

  • G.R. No. L-25029 August 28, 1968 - PROCESO VINLUAN v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22814 August 28, 1968 - PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE PHIL. INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19491 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22822 August 30, 1968 - GREGORIA PALANCA v. AMERICAN FOOD MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24394 August 30, 1968 - JUANITO CARLOS v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23482 August 30, 1968 - ALFONSO LACSON v. CARMEN SAN JOSE-LACSON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23541 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO GUARDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23979 August 30, 1968 - HOMEOWNERS’ ASSO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF MLA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24165 August 30, 1968 - JUAN M. SERRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24189 August 30, 1968 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. SAÑGILO-ITOGON WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24471 August 30, 1968 - SILVERIO MARCHAN, ET AL v. ARSENIO MENDOZA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22766 August 30, 1968 - SURIGAO ELECTRIC CO., INC., ET AL v. MUN. OF SURIGAO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22212 August 30, 1968 - FARM IMPLEMENT & MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25049 August 30, 1968 - FILEMON RAMIREZ, ET AL v. ARTEMIO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28223 August 30, 1968 - MECH. DEPT. LABOR UNION SA PHIL. NATL. RAILWAYS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28891 August 30, 1968 - DBP v. ESTANISLAO D. SARTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25059 August 30, 1968 - FOITAF v. ANGEL MOJICA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28751 August 30, 1968 - JOSE TUBURAN v. FRANK BALLENER, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26197 August 30, 1968 - ADELO C. RIVERA v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-22769 August 30, 1968 - JUAN ISBERTO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21965 August 30, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO S. GERVACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22183 August 30, 1968 - RECEIVER FOR NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. INC. v. PEDRO V. YBAÑEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-22359 & L-22524-25 August 30, 1968 - MATEO CORONEL, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29223 August 30, 1968 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20495 August 31, 1968 - BELEN CRUZ v. LUIS M. SIMON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20831 August 31, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL v. LUIS U. GO

  • G.R. No. L-23023 August 31, 1968 - JOSE P. STA. ANA v. FLORENTINO MALIWAT, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24884 August 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIO PELAGO Y BEKILLA

  • G.R. No. L-24606 August 31, 1968 - JOSE T. JAMANDRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL