Lerma v. Diaz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Teodoro E. Lerma filed a complaint for adultery against his wife, respondent Concepcion Diaz, and another individual. Subsequently, respondent Diaz filed a complaint for legal separation and/or separation of properties, custody of their children, and support pendente lite against petitioner Lerma, alleging concubinage and an attempt on her life as grounds. Petitioner Lerma opposed the application for support pendente lite, citing the adultery charge he had filed. 2. Procedural History: The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court granted respondent Diaz's application for support pendente lite, initially setting the amount at P2,250.00 monthly, later amended to P1,820.00. Petitioner Lerma petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul these orders, and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals initially set aside the lower court's orders but later, upon reconsideration, dismissed Lerma's petition. This dismissal is the subject of the current review. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Lerma seeks review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals' resolution dismissing his petition. He argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting support pendente lite and in holding that Article 292 of the Civil Code mandates such support during legal separation proceedings, even when the wife is allegedly guilty of adultery. The petition also addresses the procedural issue of whether Lerma should have been allowed to present evidence of his wife's adultery in the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the lower court, in granting support pendente lite to respondent Concepcion Diaz, did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Article 292 of the Civil Code makes it mandatory to grant support pendente lite during the pendency of legal separation proceedings, irrespective of the spouse's guilt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court granting support pendente lite, enjoining their enforcement. The Court ruled that adultery is a valid defense against a claim for support pendente lite and that a spouse guilty of adultery cannot claim legal separation or support pendente lite.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the right to support pendente lite: The Court held that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in granting support pendente lite without a provisional determination of pertinent facts, particularly the probable outcome of the case, as required by Rule 61, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner presented evidence, including a conviction for adultery and subsequent criminal charges related to adulterous relations, which indicated that the respondent was not an innocent spouse and her suit for legal separation might not prosper. The Court reiterated its previous rulings in Quintana v. Lerma, Sanchez v. Zulueta, and Mangoma v. Macadaeg that adultery is a good defense against a claim for support. The Court emphasized that the right to support presupposes a justifiable cause for the spouse claiming it to live separately, and a petition filed in bad faith by a guilty spouse should not be used to obtain support pendente lite. On the mandatory nature of support pendente lite under Article 292 of the Civil Code: The Court clarified that Article 292 of the Civil Code, which mandates support from conjugal partnership property during legal separation proceedings, does not preclude the loss of such right in certain cases. It does not grant an absolute right to support pendente lite if the claimant spouse is guilty of acts that would bar legal separation or disinheritance. The Court reasoned that Article 292 contemplates the pendency of a court action with a prima facie showing that it will prosper. Since the respondent had been convicted of adultery, she was not an innocent spouse as required by Article 100 of the Civil Code to claim legal separation. Therefore, her suit for legal separation, even if filed, should not be used as a means to obtain support pendente lite, which would otherwise be denied based on her proven adultery. The loss of the substantive right to support under Article 303 of the Civil Code, due to acts giving rise to disinheritance, is incompatible with a claim for support pendente lite.
Main Doctrine
Adultery committed by a spouse may constitute a valid defense against a claim for support pendente lite, even when the claim is for support from conjugal partnership property, as the right to support presupposes a justifiable cause for separation and the guilty spouse cannot claim legal separation or support pendente lite.