Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1979 > February 1979 Decisions > G.R. No. L-48219 February 28, 1978

MANUEL J. C. REYES v. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-48219. February 28, 1978.]

MANUEL J. C. REYES, Petitioner, v. HON. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO, as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Quezon City, COURT OF APPEALS and CELIA ILUSTRE-REYES, Respondents.

Eriberto D. Ignacio for Petitioner.

Gonzalo D. David for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


In a suit for legal separation, the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court directed petitioner to pay his wife alimony pendente lite in the amount of P4,000 a month, despite petitioner’s opposition on the ground that his wife had committed adultery. On certiorari, petitioner asked the Court of Appeals that the order be annulled on the ground that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion or that it be modified inasmuch as the amount awarded as support pendente lite is excessive. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and held that (a) in actions for separation the wife is entitled to support from the husband despite the fact that a case for adultery had been filed by the husband against her and (b) in determining the amount of support pendente lite, it is enough that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence even by affidavits only or other documentary evidence appearing in the records.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.


SYLLABUS


1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE; ADULTERY AS A DEFENSE IN ACTION FOR SUPPORT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE. — Adultery of the wife is a defense in an action for support. However, the being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficiently to enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be entered. More affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDEZ, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 06928-SP entitled "Manuel J. C. Reyes, Petitioner, versus, The Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court (Quezon City) and Celia Ilustre Reyes, Respondents." dismissing the petition to annul the order of the respondent Judge directing the petitioner to give support pendente lite to his wife, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, private respondent herein, in the amount of P4,000.00 a month. 1

The private petitioner, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City a complaint dated June 3, 1976 against her husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes, for legal separation on the ground that the defendant had attempted to kill the plaintiff The pertinent allegations of the complaint are: the complaint are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"6.8. On March 10, 1976, defendant went to V. Ilustre and attacked plaintiff. He pummeled her with fist blows that floored her, then held her head and, with intent to kill, bumped it several times against the cement floor. When she ran upstairs to her father for protection, he pushed her at the stairway of 13 flights and she fell sliding to the ground floor. Determined to finish her off, he again gave her a strong swing at her abdomen which floored her half unconscious. Were it not for plaintiff’s father, he would have succeeded killing her;

"6.9. On May 26, 1976, although on May 11 previous she ceased holding office with defendant at Bel-Air Apartments elsewhere adverted to, she went thereto to get her overnight bag. Upon seeing her, defendant yelled at her to get out of the office. When she did not mind him, he suddenly doused her with a glass of grape juice, kicked her several times that landed at her back and nape, and was going hit her with a steel tray as her driver, Ricardo Mancera, came due her screams for help. For fear of further injury and for her life, she rushed to Precinct 5 at United Nations Avenue, Manila Metropolitan Police, for assistance and protection;" 2

The plaintiff asked for support pendente lite for her and her three children. The defendant, petitioner herein, opposed application the application for support pendente lite on the ground that his wife had committed adultery with her physician.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The application for support pendente lite was set for hearing and submitted for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and the documents attached thereto by the parties.

The respondent Judge issued an order dated March 15, 1977 granting plaintiff’s prayer for alimony pendente lite in the amount of P5,000.00 a month commencing from June 1976. 3

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating that his wife is not entitled to support during the pendency of the case, and, alleging that even if she is entitled, the amount awarded was excessive. The respondent Judge reduced the amount from P5,000.00 to P4,00.00 a month in an order June 17, 1977. 4

Manuel J. C. Reyes filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals dated July 25, 1977 asking that the order support pendente lite to private respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, be annulled on the ground that the respondent Judge, Leonor Ines-Luciano, had committed a grave abuse of discretion or that said order be modified inasmuch as the amount awarded as support pendente lite is excessive.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Considering the plight of the wife during the pendency of the case for legal separation and that the husband appears to be financially capable of giving the support, We believe that the petitioner has not presented a clear case of grave abuse of desecration on the part of the respondent in issuing the questioned orders. We see no compelling reason to give it due course." 5

The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals committed the following error.

"THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN A MANNER AMOUNTING TO AN ERROR OF LAW AND A DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED NORMS LAID DOWN BY THIS HON. COURT IN THE CASES WE SHALL LATER ON DISCUSS, IN REFUSING TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HEREIN AGAINST RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES, AND IN AFFIRMING THE ORDERS FOR SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE ANNEXES `F’ AND `H’ OF THIS PETITION WHEN IT HELD THAT RESPONDENT-APPELLEE JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT ANY ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING SAID ORDERS, FOR THE REASONS THAT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. IN ACTIONS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION THE WIFE IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT FROM THE HUSBAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A CASE FOR ADULTERY HAD BEEN FILED BY THE HUSBAND AGAINST HER AND

B. IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COURT ASCERTAIN THE KIND AND AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE EVEN BY AFFIDAVITS ONLY OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE APPEARING IN THE RECORDS." 6

It is true that the adultery of the wife is a defense in an action for support. However, the alleged adultery of the wife must be established by competent evidence. The mere allegation that the wife has committed adultery will not bar her from the right to receive support pendente lite Adultery is a good defense and if properly proved and sustained will defeat the action. 7

In the instant case, at the hearing of the application for support pendente lite before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court presided by the respondent Judge, Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano, the petitioner did not present any evidence to prove the allegation that his wife, private respondent Celia Ilustre-Reyes, had committed adultery with any person.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The petitioner has still the opportunity to adduce evidence on the alleged adultery of his wife when the action for legal separation is heard on the merits before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. It is to be noted, however, that as pointed out by the respondents in their comment, the "private respondent was not asking support to be taken from petitioner’s personal funds or wherewithal, but from the conjugal property — which, was her documentary evidence . . .." 8 It is, therefore, doubtful whether adultery will affect her right to alimony pendente lite. In Quintana v. Lerma, 9 the action for support was based on the obligation of the husband to support his wife.

The contention of the petitioner that the order of the respondent Judge granting the private respondent support pendente lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month is not supported by the allegations of the complaint for legal separation and by competent evidence has no merit.

The complaint for legal separation contains allegations showing that on at least two occasions the defendant, petitioner herein, had made attempts to kill the private Respondent. Thus it is alleged that on March 10, 1976, the defendant attacked plaintiff, pummeled her with fist blows that floored her, held her head and with intent to kill, bumped it several times against the cement floor and when she ran. upstairs to her father for protection, the petitioner pushed her at the stairway of thirteen (13) flights and she fell sliding to the ground floor and defendant gave her a strong swing at her abdomen which floored her half unconscious and were it not for plaintiff’s father, defendant would have succeeded in killing her. 10 It is also alleged that on May 26, 1976, the defendant doused Celia Ilustre-Reyes with a glass of grape juice, kicked her several times at her back and nape and was going to hit her with a steel tray if it were not for her driver who came due to her screams for help. 11

In fixing the amount of monthly support pendente lite of P4,000.00, the respondent Judge did not act capriciously and whimsically. When she originally fixed the amount of P5,000.00 a month, the respondent Judge considered the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On record for plaintiff’s cause are the following that she and defendant were married on January 18, 1958; that she is presently unemployed and without funds, thus, she is being supported by her father with whom she resides; that defendant had been maltreating her and tried to kill her; that all their conjugal properties are in the possession of defendant who is also president, Manager and Treasurer of their corporation, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Standard Mineral Products, Inc. which was incorporated on February 9, 1959; presently with paid-in capital of P295,670.00; assets and liabilities of P757,108.52; Retained Earnings of P85,654.61; and majority stockholder is defendant;

"2. Development and Technology Consultants, Inc. which was incorporated on July 12, 1971, with paid-in capital of P200,000.00; Assets and liabilities of P831,669.34; defendant owns 99% of the stocks; and last Retained Earnings is P98,879.84.

"3. The Contra-Prop Marine Philippines, Inc. which was incorporated on October 3, 1975, with paid-in capital of P100,000.00 and defendant owns 99% of the stocks.

"To secure some of the obligation of said corporations, an Agreement of Counter-Guaranty Mortgage with Real Estate, and Real Estate Mortgage were undertaken by plaintiff and her parents of their properties outside of other accommodations; and that she needs of P5.000.00 a month for her support in accordance with their station in life." 12

The amount of support pendente lite was reduced to P4,000.00 inasmuch as the children are in the custody of the petitioner and are being supported by him.

It is thus seen that the respondent judge acted with due deliberation before fixing the amount of support pendente lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

In determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the other, in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be entered. Mere affidavits may satisfy the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite. 13 It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record. 14

The private respondent has submitted documents showing that the corporations controlled by the petitioner have entered into multi-million contracts in projects of the Ministry of Public Highways.

Considering the high cost of living due to inflation and the financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the documents of record, We find that the amount of P4,000.00 a month granted by the respondent Judge as alimony pendente lite to the private respondent is not excessive. There is no showing that the respondent Judge has committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting said support.

In a resolution dated July 31, 1978, this Court issued a temporary restraining order effective immediately against the enforcement of the lower court’s order giving support pendente lite to private respondent in the sum of P4,000.00 monthly commencing June 1976 and in lieu thereof to allow such support only to the extent of P1,000.00 a month. 15

Later the petitioner was required to pay the support at the rate of P1,000.00 a month which had accumulated since June 1976 within ten (10) days from notice of the resolution: 16

The private respondent acknowledged on November 20, 1978 having received from the petitioner, through his counsel, a check in the amount of P30,000.00 as payment of support for the period from June 1976 to November 1978 or thirty (30) months at P1,000.00 a month in compliance with the resolution of this Court dated October 9, 1978.

In view of the foregoing, the support of P4,000.00 should be made to commence on March 1, 1979.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is affirmed with the modification that the support pendente lite at the rate of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) a month should commence from March 1, 1979, without pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "K" to Petition, Rollo, pp. 74-77, Decision written by Mr. Justice B. S. de la Fuente and concurred in by Mr. Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. and Mr. Justice Porfirio V. Sison.

2. Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 of the Complaint, Rollo, p. 28.

3. Annex "F", Rollo, pp. 46-49.

4. Annex "H", Rollo, p. 55.

5. Decision, Rollo, p. 77.

6. Petition Rollo, pp. 16-17.

7. Quintana v. Lerma, 24 Phil. 285-286.

8. Annex "J", Rollo. pp. 67, 70.

9. 24 Phil. 285-286.

10. Paragraph 6.8, Rollo, p. 28.

11. Paragraph 6.9. Rollo. p. 28.

12. Annex "F", Rollo, p. 46.

13. Sanchez v. Zulueta, Et Al., 68 Phil. 110, 112.

14. Salazar v. Salazar, G.R. No. L-5823, April 29, 1953, 82 Phil. 1084.

15. Rollo, p. 121-f.

16. Resolution of October 9, 1978, Rollo, p. 496.




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






February-1979 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 801-CFI February 2, 1979 - JORGE P. ROYECA v. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS

  • G.R. No. L-32792 February 2, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO BASTASA

  • G.R. No. L-49112 February 2, 1979 - LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN v. ROMEO F. EDU

  • G.R. No. L-42608 February 6, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO TAMPUS

  • G.R. No. L-46942 February 6, 1979 - ROMULA MABALE v. SIMPLICIO APALISOK

  • G.R. Nos. L-49705-09 February 8, 1979 - TOMATIC ARATUC v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19937 February 19, 1979 - ASOCIACION DE AGRICULTORES DE TALISAY-SILAY, INC. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-41430 February 19, 1979 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. MATILDE LIM

  • G.R. No. L-49818 February 20, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS M. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-25601 February 21, 1979 - LUISA V. VDA. DE GUISON v. CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY

  • G.R. No. L-41684 February 21, 1979 - ANTONIO CRUZ v. ONOFRE VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26096 February 27, 1979 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. SILVERETRA ABABA

  • G.R. No. L-37737 February 27, 1979 - MAXIMO NOCNOC v. ISIDORO A. VERA

  • G.R. No. L-38837 February 27, 1979 - JOSE S. DINEROS v. MARCIANO C. ROQUE

  • G.R. No. L-44063 February 27, 1979 - VICTORIANO F. CORALES v. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO C. CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-46582 February 27, 1979 - POGONG SOLIWEG v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-48315 February 27, 1979 - DOMINADOR B. BORJE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL

  • A.C. No. 1582 February 28, 1979 - ENEDENA AGAWA VDA. DE ORIBIANA v. FIDENCIO H. GERIO

  • A.M. No. P-1641 February 28, 1979 - RODOLFO PAA v. VALENTIN C. REMIGIO

  • A.M. No. P-1687 February 28, 1979 - ANGEL MANALILI v. DANILO VIESCA

  • A.M. No. P-1769 February 28, 1979 - CRESENCIO GARCIA v. ALBERTO ASILO

  • G.R. No. L-24392 February 28, 1979 - ANACLETO ONDAP v. BONIFACIO ABUGAA

  • G.R. No. L-25316 February 28, 1979 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-27343 February 28, 1979 - MANUEL G. SINGSONG v. ISABELA SAWMILL

  • G.R. Nos. L-27856-57 February 28, 1979 - RUSTICO PASCUAL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-29857 February 28, 1979 - LEGASPI OIL COMPANY, INC. v. DOROTEO L. SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-31481 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SARIP

  • G.R. No. L-33063 February 28, 1979 - CATALINO CATINDIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. L-39367-69 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO A. CONCHADA

  • G.R. No. L-41107 February 28, 1979 - AMANDA L. VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-41819 February 28, 1979 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WINSTON P. MANLAPAZ

  • G.R. No. L-42455 February 28, 1979 - ERNESTO CERCADO v. DE DIOS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-42774 February 28, 1979 - MANILA TIMES PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43006 February 28, 1979 - BIBIANA CAOILI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-43555 February 28, 1979 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-43748 February 28, 1979 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. E. RAZON, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-43854 February 28, 1979 - GLICERIA LASARTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44353 February 28, 1979 - MARTHA FERANIL v. GUMERSINDO ARCILLA

  • G.R. No. L-44884 February 28, 1979 - BENJAMIN JARANILLA, JR. v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-45270 February 28, 1979 - LUIS T. PEGGY v. LAURO L. TAPUCAR

  • G.R. No. L-45633 February 28, 1979 - ELIZABETH PAPILOTA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-48219 February 28, 1978

    MANUEL J. C. REYES v. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-49375 February 28, 1979 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. FILEMON H. MENDOZA