Mendoza v. Parungao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lorenzo Mendoza (petitioner) and Gorgonia Paruñgao (respondent) were married on February 14, 1916. Their marriage was annulled on August 7, 1925, by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, due to the return of Paruñgao's first husband, who was presumed dead after a seven-year absence. Subsequently, on September 14, 1925, Paruñgao filed a new action (Civil Case No. 3962) against Mendoza, alleging the existence of conjugal property acquired during their marriage and seeking its liquidation and P300 as alimony pendente lite. Antonio Buenaventura, Paruñgao's first husband, died in October 1925. Procedural History: On November 27, 1925, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija ordered Mendoza to pay Paruñgao P50 monthly as support during the pendency of Civil Case No. 3962. On January 20, 1926, an order for the execution of the November 27, 1925 order was issued. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration on February 8, 1926. On March 23, 1926, another order of execution was issued, followed by a writ of execution on March 24, 1926, to collect P325 for unpaid monthly support. On June 8, 1926, an order was issued citing Mendoza and sheriffs for contempt for non-compliance with the writ. On July 10, 1926, the court denied Mendoza's motion to cancel the writs of attachment. This Court affirmed the annulment of the marriage on July 23, 1926. The Petition: Lorenzo Mendoza filed an original petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to prohibit the respondent sheriff from selling his property pursuant to the writ of execution. He also prayed for the respondent judges to forward the records of Civil Case No. 3962 for revision and to declare the November 27, 1925 order, the writ of execution, and all subsequent proceedings void, with costs against the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Gorgonia Paruñgao was entitled to support pendente lite on September 14, 1925, after her marriage to the petitioner had already been annulled on August 7, 1925. Whether a writ of execution could be validly issued for an order granting support pendente lite, which is an interlocutory order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, declared the writ of execution of March 23, 1926, and all proceedings had therein void, and made the preliminary injunction absolute. The Court found that the issuance of the writs of execution and the subsequent contempt proceedings constituted an excess of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Gorgonia Paruñgao was not entitled to support pendente lite on September 14, 1925, because her marriage to Lorenzo Mendoza had already been annulled on August 7, 1925. The right to support between spouses arises from the matrimonial bond, and this obligation is extinguished upon the decree of nullity of the marriage. Therefore, any subsequent claim for support pendente lite in an annulment case is unfounded once the marriage is declared void. While she might be entitled to an advance payment from her share of conjugal property after liquidation, this is distinct from support pendente lite. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the order of November 27, 1925, directing Mendoza to pay monthly support, was an interlocutory order. As such, no writ of execution could be issued thereon, pursuant to Section 123 of Act No. 190. However, the Court clarified that the unjustified disobedience of such an interlocutory order could constitute contempt of court, which must be punished after proper legal proceedings. The issuance of writs of execution for an interlocutory order, as done in this case, constituted an excess of jurisdiction, making certiorari the proper remedy.
Main Doctrine
The right to support between spouses arises from the obligation to mutually help each other created by the matrimonial bond. While a wife is entitled to support during the pendency of an annulment suit after the complaint is admitted, this right ceases once the nullity of the marriage is decreed, as the mutual obligation is extinguished. Moreover, an order for support pendente lite is interlocutory and not subject to a writ of execution; however, its unjustified disobedience may constitute contempt of court.