Mangoma v. Macadaeg
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Candelaria Bautista filed an action against petitioner Glicerio Mangoma for separation of property and dissolution of their conjugal partnership. Subsequently, Bautista prayed for support pendente lite for herself and their daughter, Leticia, citing Mangoma's alleged bigamous marriage, abandonment, and refusal to provide support. Bautista claimed they jointly acquired considerable property yielding a net income of at least P5,000 monthly and that Mangoma owed P6,000 in arrears for support. Procedural History: Petitioner Mangoma objected to the motion, alleging Bautista's abandonment and adultery, which he claimed forfeited her right to support. He also asserted his inability to earn more than P20 monthly and significant financial losses due to respondent's legal actions. The respondent judge commissioned his deputy clerk to receive evidence on the motion. However, before petitioner could present his evidence on his special defenses, the judge issued an order granting the motion for support pendente lite, ordering petitioner to pay P750 monthly from January 17, 1951, and to pay accrued amounts within five days. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to nullify the order granting support pendente lite, arguing that he was denied due process as he was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence for his defenses.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for support pendente lite without giving the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence in support of his defenses. Whether adultery on the part of the wife constitutes a valid defense against a claim for support pendente lite.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order dated September 28, 1951, and remanded the case to the lower court for the reception of the petitioner's evidence. The Court ruled that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to be heard, considering the serious nature of his special defense, and that the order granting support pendente lite was issued without affording him due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for support pendente lite without giving the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence in support of his defenses: The Court held that the respondent judge erred in not allowing the petitioner to present his evidence for the purpose of determining whether his defenses were sufficient prima facie to overcome the application for support pendente lite. The Court cited the case of Sanchez vs. Zulueta, 68 Phil. 110, which established that a party must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their defense before a petition for support pendente lite is granted. The Court noted that while several trials were held before the deputy clerk, the petitioner had not yet been able to present his evidence on his special defenses. The Court found no deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings, and therefore, an opportunity to be heard was necessary, especially considering the serious nature of his defense. The Court emphasized that the right to support is not absolute and can be affected by defenses that, if proven, would negate the obligation. On the issue of whether adultery on the part of the wife constitutes a valid defense against a claim for support pendente lite: The Court reiterated the principle established in Sanchez vs. Zulueta and Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil. 285, that adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support. Consequently, if the child is a fruit of such adulterous relations, the child would not be entitled to support as the defendant's child. However, the Court stressed that such a defense must be established by proof and cannot be merely alleged. Therefore, it is imperative to allow the presentation of evidence to substantiate such claims before a provisional order for support is issued. The Court concluded that the petitioner's defense of adultery, if proven, could potentially defeat the claim for support, making it crucial to allow him to present evidence.
Main Doctrine
A respondent in a motion for support pendente lite must be given an opportunity to present evidence in support of their defenses, especially when such defenses, if proven, could negate the claim for support.