Perkins v. Perkins
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a wife's suit for separate maintenance against her husband. The parties were married in Manila in 1914, and the wife initiated legal action seeking financial support. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which issued an order granting the wife certain amounts for maintenance and P1,000 for litigation expenses. The P1,000 for litigation expenses was later resolved by agreement. The current appeal specifically challenges the order pertaining to debts, advances, and living expenses incurred prior to the court's initial order for monthly maintenance. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory, but the appellant contended this motion was untimely due to the appellee's prior actions, including the approval of the bill of exceptions and the filing of briefs. 3. The Petition: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The appellant argues that the appellee waived her right to object to the appeal by her conduct, citing legal precedent on the waiver of objections to the right of appeal. The court, agreeing that the appeal should be considered on its merits, examined the provisions of Article 148 of the Civil Code regarding support and the definition of support in Article 142. The court found it impossible to determine the correct allowable amounts from the existing record and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellee is estopped from moving to dismiss the appeal. Whether the items of debts, advances, and living expenses are allowable as support under the Civil Code.
Ruling
The Court ruled to consider the appeal on its merits. It found that the appellee, by her actions, waived her right to object to the appeal. However, due to the impossibility of determining the correct amounts allowable for support from the evidence, the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estoppel: The Court held that the appellee was estopped from moving to dismiss the appeal. The appellant correctly relied on the principle that the right to object to an appeal can be waived by the appellee's actions or omissions that create an estoppel. In this case, the appellee's delay in raising the objection until the filing of her brief, after the appellant had incurred significant expenses in perfecting the appeal, constituted a waiver. The Court cited Luengo and Martinez vs. Herrero (17 Phil., 29) where a similar motion to dismiss made for the first time on the hearing of the merits was deemed too late. Preliminary questions should be disposed of before the hearing on the merits, and failure to do so implies acquiescence in the validity of the appeal. On the allowability of support: The Court found that some of the items claimed as support were clearly outside the rules laid down in the Civil Code, while others might be partly within the rules. Article 142 of the Civil Code defines support as encompassing all that is necessary for food, shelter, clothing, and medical attendance, according to the social standing of the family. Article 148 states that the obligation to give support can be enforced from the date of the filing of the complaint. The Court noted that some claims, like money loaned to the wife, are not within the rule, citing 13 R.C.L., 1209 and Ramirez and De Marcaida vs. Redfern (49 Phil., 849). The item for the "Manila Hotel" was deemed allowable in part, but it covered a period both before and after the filing of the suit, making it impossible for the Court to determine the exact allowable amount without further evidence. The Court also observed that no allowance had been made for the period between the filing of the suit and the allowance of temporary maintenance.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from an order granting maintenance and expenses for litigation in a separate maintenance case may be considered on its merits if the appellee waives the right to object to the appeal by failing to raise the issue promptly and by participating in the appeal proceedings.