Francisco v. Zandueta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Eugenio Leopoldo Francisco, a two-year-old minor represented by his mother and guardian ad litem, Rosario Gomez, filed an action for support against Luis Francisco in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint alleged that Eugenio is the acknowledged son of Luis Francisco and therefore entitled to financial support. Luis Francisco, the petitioner in this case, denied paternity and any acknowledgment of the child, asserting he was married at the time of the child's alleged birth. 2. Procedural History: The respondent judge, Francisco Zandueta, issued an order on May 2, 1935, granting the minor Eugenio Leopoldo Francisco a monthly pension of P30 pendente lite (while the case is pending). The petitioner, Luis Francisco, moved for reconsideration, arguing the order was issued in excess of jurisdiction because paternity was disputed and he would be unable to recover any support payments if later found not to be the father. The respondent judge denied this motion, leading to the current petition. 3. The Petition: This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Luis Francisco seeking to nullify the respondent judge's order granting monthly support pendente lite. The petitioner argues that the respondent judge lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order when the civil status of paternity was in dispute and not yet established by a final judgment. The petitioner contends that, by analogy to cases involving marital status, support cannot be granted when the fundamental relationship from which the right to support is derived is itself the subject of litigation and has not been proven.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the payment of support pendente lite when the paternity of the minor was still in issue. Whether the alleged consent of the defendant's attorney to the payment of support pendente lite could confer jurisdiction upon the trial court.
Ruling
The petition for the writ of certiorari is granted. The order of the respondent judge dated May 2, 1935, ordering the petitioner to pay the sum of P30 monthly as support pendente lite is declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of excess of jurisdiction in ordering support pendente lite: The Court held that a court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it orders support pendente lite where the civil status of the claimant, which is the very basis of the claim for support, is still in issue and has not been conclusively established by legal proof. In this case, the action for support was brought by a minor alleging he was the son of the petitioner. However, the petitioner denied paternity, placing the minor's civil status as an acknowledged son in litigation. Citing Yangco vs. Rohde, the Court emphasized that support cannot be granted in the same manner as to a person who has conclusively established their status by legal proof. There is a substantial difference between the capacity of a person after a final judgment declares their status and their capacity prior to such declaration when only a suit or claim exists. Since the civil status of sonship was denied and was the very issue in litigation, the respondent judge was without jurisdiction to order the petitioner to pay support pendente lite until this status was authoritatively declared by a final judgment. The Court reiterated that under Article 143 of the Civil Code, the right to support is based on a civil status or juridical relation, such as that of parent and acknowledged natural child, which must be established. On the issue of consent conferring jurisdiction: The Court ruled that parties cannot, by consent, give a court jurisdiction in a matter excluded by law. Even if the attorney for the defendant had consented to the payment of support pendente lite, such consent could not confer jurisdiction upon the trial judge to adjudicate a claim against his client when the court was otherwise without jurisdiction. The universal rule of law is that consent cannot impart vitality to a judgment rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void. Therefore, the alleged consent of the petitioner's attorney could not validate the order granting support pendente lite.
Main Doctrine
A court acts in excess of jurisdiction in ordering support pendente lite when the civil status of the claimant, which is the basis for the claim of support, is still in issue and has not been conclusively established by legal proof.