FIRST
DIVISION
|
MA. BELEN B. MANGONON, for and in
behalf of her minor children REBECCA ANGELA DELGADO and Petitioner, - versus
- HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. J Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 125041 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J.* Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO,** AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before
Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 20 March 1996, affirming the Order, dated 12
September 1995[2] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 149, Makati,
granting support pendente lite to
Rebecca Angela (Rica) and Regina Isabel (Rina), both
surnamed Delgado.
The
generative facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:
On
On
i) The average annual cost for college education
in the
Tuition Fees US$13,000.00
Room & Board 5,000.00
Books 1,000.00
Yearly Transportation
&
Meal
Allowance 3,000.00
Total US$ 22,000.00
or a total of US$44,000.00,
more or less, for both Rica and Rina
ii) Additionally,
Rica and Rina need general maintenance support each
in the amount of US$3,000.00 per year or a total of US$6,000 per year.
iii)
Unfortunately, petitioner’s monthly income from her 2 jobs is merely
US$1,200 after taxes which she can hardly give general support to Rica and Rina, much less their required college educational support.
iv) Neither can
petitioner’s present husband be compelled to share in the general support and
college education of Rica and Rina since he has his own
son with petitioner and own daughter (also in college) to attend to.
v)
Worse, Rica and Rina’s petitions for Federal
Student Aid have been rejected by the U.S. Department of Education.[6]
Petitioner
likewise averred that demands[7]
were made upon Federico and the latter’s father, Francisco,[8]
for general support and for the payment of the required college education of
Rica and Rina.
The twin sisters even exerted efforts to work out a settlement
concerning these matters with respondent Federico and respondent Francisco, the
latter being generally known to be financially well-off.[9] These demands, however, remained
unheeded. Considering the impending
deadline for admission to college and the opening of classes, petitioner and
her then minor children had no choice but to file the petition before the trial
court.
Petitioner
also alleged that Rica and Rina are her legitimate
daughters by respondent Federico since the twin sisters were born within seven
months from the date of the annulment of her marriage to respondent
Federico. However, as respondent
Federico failed to sign the birth certificates of Rica and Rina,
it was imperative that their status as legitimate children of respondent
Federico, and as granddaughters of respondent Francisco, be judicially declared
pursuant to Article 173 of the Family Code.[10]
As legitimate
children and grandchildren, Rica and Rina are
entitled to general and educational support under Articles 174[11]
and 195(b)[12]
in relation to Articles 194(1 and 2)[13]
and 199(c)[14]
of the Family Code. Petitioner alleged
that under these provisions, in case of default on the part of the parents, the
obligation to provide support falls upon the grandparents of the children;
thus, respondent Federico, or in his default, respondent Francisco should be
ordered to provide general and educational support for Rica and Rina in the amount of US$50,000.00, more or less, per year.
Petitioner
also claimed that she was constrained to seek support pendente lite from private respondents - who are
millionaires with extensive assets both here and abroad - in view of the imminent
opening of classes, the possibility of a protracted litigation, and Rica and Rina’s lack of financial means to pursue their college
education in the
In his
Answer,[15]
respondent Francisco stated that as the birth certificates of Rica and Rina do not bear the signature of respondent Federico, it
is essential that their legitimacy be first established as “there is no basis
to claim support until a final and executory judicial
declaration has been made as to the civil status of the children.”[16]
Whatever good deeds he may have done to Rica
and Rina, according to respondent Francisco, was
founded on pure acts of Christian charity.
He, likewise, averred that the order of liability for support under
Article 199 of the Family Code is not concurrent such that the obligation must
be borne by those more closely related to the recipient. In this case, he maintained that
responsibility should rest on the shoulders of petitioner and her second
husband, the latter having voluntarily assumed the duties and responsibilities
of a natural father. Even assuming that
he is responsible for support, respondent Francisco contends that he could not
be made to answer beyond what petitioner and the father could afford.
On
On P40,000.00 a month.
Finding
sufficient ground in the motion filed by respondent Federico, the trial court
lifted its Order dated
In the
meantime, on
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations,
respondents are hereby directed to provide a monthly support (pendente lite) of P5,000.00 each or a total of P10,000.00 for the
education of Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel Delgado to be delivered within
the first five days of each month without need of demand.[24]
Unsatisfied
with the Order of the trial court, petitioner brought the case to the Court of
Appeals via Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding of
the trial court and disposed the petition in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED and the Order of the lower court
dated
Petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration was denied through the Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated
Petitioner
is now before this Court claiming that the Decision of the Court of Appeals was
tainted with the following errors:
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE GRANTED TO
PETITIONER’S CHILDREN AT A MEASLEY P5,000.00 PER CHILD.
I.
RESPONDENT COURT 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.
II.
IT BEING ESTABLISHED THAT
THE PERSON OBLIGED TO GIVE SUPPORT – GRANDFATHER DON PACO – IS UNDOUBTEDLY
CAPABLE OF GIVING THE AMOUNT DEMANDED, RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING
THAT 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.[27]
At the
time of the filing of the present Petition, it is alleged that Rica had already
entered
Meanwhile, Rina
entered CW Post,
Petitioner
concedes that under the law, the obligation to furnish support to Rica and Rina should be first imposed upon their parents. She contends, however, that the records of
this case demonstrate her as well as respondent Federico’s inability to give
the support needed for Rica and Rina’s college
education. Consequently, the obligation
to provide support devolves upon respondent Francisco being the grandfather of
Rica and Rina.
Petitioner
also maintains that as respondent Francisco has the financial resources to help
defray the cost of Rica and Rina’s schooling, the
Court of Appeals then erred in sustaining the trial court’s Order directing
respondent Federico to pay Rica and Rina the amount
of award P5,000.00 each as monthly support pendente lite.
On
the other hand, respondent Francisco argues that the trial court correctly declared
that petitioner and respondent Federico should be the ones to provide the
support needed by their twin daughters pursuant to Article 199 of the Family
Code. He also maintains that aside from
the financial package availed of by Rica and Rina in
the form of state tuition aid grant, work study program and federal student
loan program, petitioner herself was eligible for, and had availed herself of,
the federal parent loan program based on her income and properties in the
Respondent
Federico, for his part, continues to deny having sired Rica and Rina by reiterating the grounds he had previously raised
before the trial court. Like his father,
respondent Federico argues that assuming he is indeed the father of the twin
sisters, he has the option under the law as to how he would provide support. Lastly, he assents with the declaration of the
trial court and the Court of Appeals that the parents of a child should
primarily bear the burden of providing support to their offspring.
The petition is meritorious.
As
a preliminary matter, we deem it necessary to briefly discuss the essence of
support pendente lite. The
pertinent portion of the Rules of Court on the matter provides:
Rule 61
SUPPORT ‘PENDENTE
SECTION 1. Application.- At the commencement of the
proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior to the judgment or final
order, a verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by any party stating
the grounds for the claim and the financial conditions of both parties, and
accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents in support
thereof.
x x x
x
SEC. 4. Order.- The court shall determine
provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render such orders as justice and
equity may require, having due regard to the probable outcome of the case and
such other circumstances as may aid in the proper resolution of the question
involved. If the application is granted,
the court shall fix the amount of money to be provisionally paid or such other
forms of support as should be provided, taking into account the necessities of
the applicant and the resources or means of the adverse party, and the terms of
payment or mode for providing the support.
If the application is denied, the principal case shall be tried and
decided as early as possible.
Under
this provision, a court may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment
or final order. Because of its
provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the merits of the
case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is determine
the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly
resolve the application. It is enough
that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence
appearing in the record.[32]
After
the hearings conducted on this matter as well as the evidence presented, we
find that petitioner was able to establish, by prima facie proof, the filiation of her
twin daughters to private respondents and the twins’ entitlement to support pendente lite. In the words of the trial court –
By and large, the status of the twins as children of
Federico cannot be denied. They had
maintained constant communication with their grandfather
Having
addressed the issue of the propriety of the trial court’s grant of support pendente lite in favor
of Rica and Rina, the next question is who should be
made liable for said award.
The
pertinent provision of the Family Code on this subject states:
ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to
give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the
order herein provided:
(1) The spouse;
(2) The descendants in the
nearest degree;
(3) The ascendants in the
nearest degree; and
(4) The brothers and sisters.
An eminent author on the subject explains that the obligation to give support rests principally on those more closely related to the recipient. However, the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon to provide support do not have the means to do so.[34]
In this case, both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals held respondent Federico liable to provide monthly support pendente lite in
the total amount of P10,000.00 by taking into consideration his supposed
income of P30,000.00 to P40,000.00 per month. We are, however,
unconvinced as to the veracity of this ground relied upon by the trial court
and the Court of Appeals.
It is a basic procedural edict that
questions of fact cannot be the proper subject of a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The rule finds a more stringent application where the Court of Appeals
upholds the findings of fact of the trial court; in such a situation, this
Court, as the final arbiter, is generally bound to adopt the facts as
determined by the appellate and the lower courts. This rule, however, is not ironclad as it
admits of the following recognized exceptions: “(1) when the findings are
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts; (5) when the findings of facts
are conflicting; (6) when in making its
findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when
the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; (10) when the findings of
fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; and (11) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.”[35] The case at bar falls within the seventh and
eleventh exceptions.
The
trial court gave full credence to respondent Federico’s allegation in his
Answer[36]
and his testimony[37]
as to the amount of his income. We have,
however, reviewed the records of this case and found them bereft of evidence to
support his assertions regarding his employment and his earning. Notably, he
was even required by petitioner’s counsel to present to the court his income
tax return and yet the records of this case do not bear a copy of said
document.[38] This, to our mind, severely undermines the
truthfulness of respondent Federico’s assertion with respect to his financial
status and capacity to provide support to Rica and Rina.
In
addition, respondent
“
I
have here another letter under the letter head of Mr. & Mrs. Dany Mangonon, dated
x x x x
WITNESS:
A: I do
remember this letter because it really irritated me so much that I threw it
away in a waste basket. It is a very demanding
letter, that is what I do not like at all.
Q: It is
stated in this letter that “I am making this request to you and not to your
son, Rico, for reasons we both are aware of.” Do you know what reason that is?
A: Yes.
The reason is that my son do not have fix employment and do not have fix
salary and income and they want to depend on the lolo.
x x x x
Q: Would
you have any knowledge if Federico owns a house and lot?
A: Not that I know. I do not think he has anything.
Q: How
about a car?
A: Well, his car is owned by my company.[39]
Respondent
Federico himself admitted in court that he had no property of his own, thus:
Q: You
also mentioned that you are staying at Mayflower Building and you further earlier testified that this building belongs to Citadel Corporation. Do you confirm that?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
car are you driving,
A: I am
driving a lancer, sir.
Q: What
car, that registered in the name of the corporation?
A: In
the corporation, sir.
Q: What
corporation is that?
A: Citadel
Commercial, Inc., sir.
Q: What
properties, if any, are registered in your name, do you have any properties, Mr. Witness?
A: None,
sir.”[40] (Emphasis
supplied.)
Meanwhile,
respondent
We
are unconvinced. Respondent
There
being prima facie evidence showing
that petitioner and respondent Federico are the parents of Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily
charged to support their children’s college education. In view however of their incapacities, the
obligation to furnish said support should be borne by respondent
Francisco. Under Article 199 of the
Family Code, respondent Francisco, as the next immediate relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his granddaughters in
default of their parents. It bears
stressing that respondent Francisco is the majority stockholder and Chairman of
the Board of Directors of Citadel Commercial, Incorporated, which owns and
manages twelve gasoline stations, substantial real estate, and is engaged in
shipping, brokerage and freight forwarding.
He is also the majority stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors
of Citadel Shipping which does business with Hyundai of Korea. Apart from these, he also owns the Citadel
Corporation which, in turn, owns real properties in different parts of the
country. He is likewise the Chairman of
the Board of Directors of Isla Communication Co. and
he owns shares of stocks of Citadel Holdings.
In addition, he owns real properties here and abroad.[41] It having been established that respondent
Francisco has the financial means to support his granddaughters’ education, he,
in lieu of petitioner and respondent Federico, should be held liable for
support pendente lite.
Art. 204. The
person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the obligation
either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the
family dwelling the person who has a right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of
in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.
Finally, as to the amount of
support pendente lite,
we take our bearings from the provision of the law mandating the amount of
support to be proportionate to the resources or means of the giver and to the
necessities of the recipient.[42] Guided by this principle, we hold respondent
Francisco liable for half of the amount of school expenses incurred by Rica and
Rina as support pendente lite.
As established by petitioner, respondent Francisco has the financial
resources to pay this amount given his various business endeavors.
Considering, however, that the twin
sisters may have already been done with their education by the time of the
promulgation of this decision, we deem it proper to award support pendente lite in
arrears[43]
to be computed from the time they entered college until they had finished their
respective studies.
The issue of the applicability of
Article 15 of the Civil Code on petitioner and her twin daughters raised by
respondent Francisco is best left for the resolution of the trial court. After all, in case it would be resolved that
Rica and Rina are not entitled to support pendente lite, the
court shall then order the return of the amounts already paid with legal
interest from the dates of actual payment.[44]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, this Petition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20
March 1996 and Resolution dated 16 May 1996 affirming the Order dated 12
September 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati,
fixing the amount of support pendente lite to P5,000.00 for Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel, are
hereby MODIFIED in that respondent
Francisco Delgado is hereby held liable for support pendente lite in the amount to be determined by the trial
court pursuant to this Decision. Let the records of this case be remanded to
the trial court for the determination of the proper amount of support pendente lite for
Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel as well as the arrearages due them in
accordance with this Decision within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. Concomitantly, the trial court is directed to
proceed with the trial of the main case and the immediate resolution of the
same with deliberate dispatch. The RTC
Judge, Branch 149,
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
On Official Leave
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
|
Acting Chairman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Acting Chairman, First
Division |
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S.
PUNO Acting Chief Justice |
* On official leave.
** Acting Chairman.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alińo-Hormachuelos with Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Ramon Barcelona, concurring; Rollo, pp. 38-46.
[2] Rollo, pp. 216-221.
[3] Records, Vol. I, pp. 2-13; Docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1093.
[4] Article 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was between the ages of sixteen and twenty years, if male, or between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years, if female, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parent, guardian or person having authority over the party, unless after attaining the ages of twenty or eighteen years, as the case may be, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife.
[5] Records, Vol. I, pp. 14-18.
[6]
[7] Annexes “D” and “D-1”; Records, Vol. I, pp. 25-27.
[8] Sometimes referred to in the pleadings as Don Paco.
[9] Annexes “ E-1” and “E-2”; Records, Vol. I, pp. 29 and 30.
[10] Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action.
The action already commenced by the child shall survive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties.
[11] Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:
(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and
(3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code.
[12] Should be Art. 195(2). It reads:
x x x
(2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
x x x
[13]
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of work.
[14] Should be Art. 199(3). It states:
Art. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided:
x x x
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and
x x x
[15] Records, Vol. I, pp. 68-77.
[16]
[17] Records, Vol. I, pp. 220-222.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Order dated
[22] Records, Vol. I, pp. 58-61.
[23]
[24] Order dated
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] Citing Article 204 of the Family Code.
[31] Civil Code, Art. 15.
[32] Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 150-A Phil. 996, 1001 (1972).
[33]
[34] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, Vol. I, Arturo Tolentino, Art. 199 of the Family Code.
[35] The
Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850,
[36] Records, p. 400.
[37]
[38]
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] Rollo, pp. 20-30.
[42] Family Code, Art. 201.
[43] See
Amurao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83942,
[44] Rules of Court, Rule 62, Sec. 7.