Mangonon v. Delgado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with an application for support pendente lite, on behalf of her twin daughters, Rica and Rina, against respondent Federico C. Delgado. Petitioner and Federico were married but the marriage was annulled due to lack of consent. Rica and Rina were born seven months after the annulment. Petitioner alleged that Federico and his father, Francisco, abandoned the children and failed to provide support, particularly for their college education in the USA, which was estimated to cost US$22,000 per child annually, plus US$3,000 for general maintenance. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted support pendente lite, ordering respondents Federico and Francisco to provide P5,000.00 monthly for each child. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's order. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the amount granted was insufficient and that respondent Francisco, as the grandfather, should be primarily liable due to the parents' alleged financial incapacity. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the CA's decision, focusing on whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the amount of support pendente lite and in determining the liable party. The petitioner contended that the evidence showed the parents' inability to provide the required support, thus shifting the obligation to the grandfather, Francisco, who was alleged to be financially capable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in fixing the amount of monthly support pendente lite; and whether the Court of Appeals ignored evidence on record of the financial incapacity of Rica and Rina's parents, in default of whom the obligation to give support devolves on the grandfather. Whether, it being established that the person obliged to give support – grandfather Don Paco – is undoubtedly capable of giving the amount demanded, the respondent Court erred in not holding that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in fixing an amount of support pendente lite that is obviously inadequate to support the educational requirements of the recipients. On the issue of citizenship and applicability of the Family Code.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the Regional Trial Court. It held that respondent Francisco Delgado is liable for support pendente lite, with the amount to be determined by the trial court. The case was remanded to the trial court for the determination of the proper amount of support pendente lite and arrearages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of support pendente lite and the determination of liability; and on the option to fulfill the obligation of support: The Court reiterated that support pendente lite is a provisional remedy granted under Rule 61 of the Rules of Court, requiring only a prima facie showing of filiation and entitlement to support. The Court found that petitioner had established prima facie proof of the filiation of Rica and Rina to respondent Federico and their entitlement to support pendente lite, citing the trial court's observation of the respondents' actuations, including letters from Francisco referring to himself as 'Lolo Paco' and extending financial help, and Federico treating the twins to Hong Kong. The Court noted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding respondent Federico liable based on his alleged income, as the records lacked sufficient evidence to support his claims regarding his employment and earnings. The Court found Federico's assertions undermined by his failure to present income tax returns and his admission of not owning any property, with his car being registered to a corporation. Furthermore, respondent Francisco's own testimony indicated that Federico did not own anything and had no fixed employment or salary. The Court also found respondent Francisco's assertion of petitioner's capacity to support her daughters belied by her own need to secure loans for their education, indicating her financial insufficiency. Consequently, the obligation to provide support devolved upon respondent Francisco, as the next immediate relative in default of the parents, given his substantial financial resources as a majority stockholder and Chairman of various corporations involved in diverse businesses. The Court addressed the claim of respondents Francisco and Federico that they had the option to fulfill their obligation by receiving and maintaining the person in need of support in their family dwelling, as provided by Article 204 of the Family Code. The Court ruled that respondent Francisco could not avail himself of this option due to the strained relationship that had developed between him, the petitioner, and the twins following the filing of the case and the allegations made. The Court reasoned that it would be unreasonable to expect Rica and Rina to move back to the Philippines to live with those who had disowned them, especially given the emotional impact of such a situation. Therefore, the obligation must be fulfilled by paying the monetary allowance. On the amount of support pendente lite: The Court held that the amount of support must be proportionate to the resources of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. Considering respondent Francisco's established financial capacity and the documented school expenses of Rica and Rina, the Court deemed it proper to hold respondent Francisco liable for half of the school expenses incurred by the twins as support pendente lite. The Court acknowledged that the twins might have already completed their education by the time of the decision, thus ordering that support pendente lite be awarded in arrears, computed from the time they entered college until they finished their studies. On the issue of citizenship and applicability of the Family Code: The Court noted that the issue raised by respondent Francisco regarding the applicability of Article 15 of the Civil Code, concerning the citizenship of the petitioner and her twin daughters, was best left for the resolution of the trial court. The Court stated that if it were later resolved that Rica and Rina were not entitled to support pendente lite, the amounts already paid would be returned with legal interest.
Main Doctrine
The obligation to provide support pendente lite is a provisional remedy that requires a prima facie showing of filiation and entitlement to support, and the court must consider the necessities of the applicant and the resources of the adverse party. In cases of parental incapacity, the obligation devolves upon ascendants in the nearest degree.