Javier v. Lucero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an action for alimony initiated by Salud R. Arca against her husband, Alfredo Javier. The couple was married on November 19, 1937, and had a son, Alfredo Javier Jr., born on December 2, 1931. Alfredo Javier later obtained a divorce in Alabama in 1941 and subsequently remarried. He was charged with bigamy in the Philippines for this second marriage, but was acquitted on the grounds that he believed his first marriage had been legally dissolved by the U.S. divorce, and he lacked criminal intent. Despite this acquittal, the subsistence of the original marriage and the paternity of their son remained points of contention. Procedural History: The respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite ordered Alfredo Javier to provide a monthly allowance of P60 to his wife, Salud R. Arca, and their son, Alfredo Javier Jr., in Civil Case No. 5150. Following this decision, Alfredo Javier filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 1953, and submitted the appeal bond and record on appeal on May 6, 1953. While the appeal was pending, Salud R. Arca and their son moved for support pendente lite (pending litigation). On May 8, 1953, the respondent judge directed Alfredo Javier to continue paying the monthly support despite the pending appeal. The Petition: Alfredo Javier filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the respondent judge's order to continue paying support pending appeal. He argued that the status of Salud R. Arca as his wife was contested, that their son Alfredo Javier Jr. was over 21 years old and thus no longer entitled to support, and that even if the son were entitled to support for education, the decision was vague on this point. The petition also implicitly raised the issue of whether Salud R. Arca's accusation of bigamy, for which Alfredo Javier was acquitted, forfeited her right to support.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the payment of monthly pensions pending appeal. Whether the wife, Salud R. Arca, is entitled to support despite having accused her husband of bigamy, leading to his acquittal on the ground of good faith. Whether the son, Alfredo Javier, Jr., is entitled to support beyond the age of majority for his education.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The order of the respondent judge directing the payment of monthly pensions notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ordering payment pending appeal: The Court clarified that the order was not for alimony pendente lite under Rule 63, but rather for the execution of judgment pending appeal under Rule 39. The judge had jurisdiction to issue such an order before the record on appeal was submitted. The immediate execution was justified to prevent undue delay in the son's education or its completion. The petitioner's claim that the son was no longer studying was countered by the possibility that he stopped due to lack of means, especially since he was only a pre-law graduate. On the wife's entitlement to support: The Court noted that under Article 303 of the New Civil Code, a wife forfeits support if she falsely accuses her husband of a crime punishable by imprisonment for six years or more. However, in this case, Alfredo Javier was acquitted of bigamy due to lack of criminal intent, as he honestly believed his first marriage was dissolved by a foreign divorce decree. The Court opined that such an acquittal, akin to an acquittal on reasonable doubt, would not necessarily forfeit the wife's right to support. The ultimate determination of this issue would be made in the main case on appeal. On the son's entitlement to support beyond majority: The Court affirmed the son's entitlement to support even beyond the age of majority, citing Article 290 of the New Civil Code. This article provides that support includes education until the completion of education or training for a profession, trade, or vocation. The Court acknowledged that Alfredo Javier, Jr., born on December 2, 1931, had reached majority on December 2, 1952, but his right to support for his education continued under the said provision.
Main Doctrine
The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the payment of monthly pensions pending appeal, as it constituted execution of judgment pending appeal under Rule 39, not alimony pendente lite under Rule 63, and the son's right to support, even beyond majority, for education, was recognized under Article 290 of the New Civil Code. The wife's right to support was not forfeited despite the bigamy charge and acquittal, as the acquittal was based on lack of criminal intent due to a mistaken belief in the validity of a foreign divorce.