Reyes v. Ines-Luciano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute stems from a complaint for legal separation filed by Celia Ilustre-Reyes against her husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes. The complaint alleged that the husband had attempted to kill the wife on at least two separate occasions, detailing violent physical assaults. The wife sought support pendente lite for herself and their three children. 2. Procedural History: The wife initially filed a complaint for legal separation in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, also requesting support pendente lite. The respondent Judge initially granted P5,000.00 monthly support, later reduced to P4,000.00 after a motion for reconsideration. The husband then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul or modify the support order, arguing grave abuse of discretion or excessive amount. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, finding no clear case of grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the orders for support pendente lite, specifically contending that a wife is entitled to support even if accused of adultery, provided the adultery is not proven, and that the amount of support can be determined based on affidavits and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision with a modification regarding the commencement date of the support.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders for support pendente lite. Whether the alleged adultery of the wife bars her from receiving support pendente lite. Whether the amount of support pendente lite awarded is excessive.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with a modification on the commencement date of the support pendente lite. The Court ruled that the support pendente lite at the rate of P4,000.00 a month should commence from March 1, 1979.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the alleged adultery of the wife: The Court reiterated that while adultery is a defense in an action for support, it must be established by competent evidence. In this case, the petitioner failed to present any evidence to prove his wife's alleged adultery before the JDRC. Therefore, the allegation alone did not automatically bar her right to support pendente lite. The Court also noted that the private respondent was seeking support from conjugal property, which might not be affected by adultery, citing Quintana vs. Lerma. The Court emphasized that in determining support pendente lite, it is sufficient for the court to ascertain the kind and amount of evidence that would enable it to resolve the application provisionally, and mere affidavits or documentary evidence appearing in the record are sufficient, as held in Sanchez vs. Zulueta and Salazar vs. Salazar. On the issue of the excessiveness of the support amount: The Court found that the respondent Judge did not act capriciously or whimsically in fixing the amount of support. The Judge considered the wife's unemployment, her residence with her father, the husband's alleged maltreatment and attempts to kill her, and the substantial assets of corporations controlled by the petitioner, including their paid-in capital and retained earnings. The initial award of P5,000.00 was reduced to P4,000.00 after considering that the children were in the petitioner's custody and being supported by him. The Court also took into account the high cost of living and the petitioner's financial capacity, as evidenced by documents showing multi-million contracts entered into by his corporations. Thus, the amount of P4,000.00 was deemed not excessive. On the procedural aspect of certiorari: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari, finding that the petitioner had not presented a clear case of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. The CA considered the wife's plight during the pendency of the legal separation case and the husband's apparent financial capability. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA's assessment, finding no compelling reason to give due course to the petition.
Main Doctrine
The allegation of adultery by a wife against whom a legal separation case is filed does not automatically bar her from receiving support pendente lite, especially when such adultery is not proven by competent evidence and the support sought is from conjugal property.