G.R. No. L-48219. February 28, 1979
MANUEL J. C. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO, AS JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT, QUEZON CITY, COURT OF APPEALS AND CELIA ILUSTRE-REYES, RESPON…
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 06928-SP entitled “Manuel J. C. Reyes,
Petitioner, versus, The Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano as Judge of the Juvenile & Domestic
Relations Court (Quezon City) and Celia Ilustre-Reyes, Respondents”, dismissing the petition
to annul the order of the respondent Judge directing the petitioner to give
support pendente lite
to his wife, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, private respondent
herein, in the amount of P4,000.00 a month.[1]
The private petitioner, Celia Ilustre-Reyes,
filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon
City a complaint dated June 3, 1976 against her husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes,
for legal separation on the ground that the defendant had attempted to kill the
plaintiff. The pertinent allegations of
the complaint are:
“6.8. On March 10, 1976, defendant went to V.
Ilustre and attacked plaintiff. He pummeled her with fist blows that floored
her, then held her head and, with intent to kill, bumped it several times
against the cement floor. When she ran upstairs
to her father for protection, he pushed her at the stairway of 13 flights and
she fell sliding to the ground floor.
Determined to finish her off, he again gave her a strong swing at her
abdomen which floored her half unconscious.
Were it not for plaintiff’s father, he would have succeeded killing her;
“6.9. On May 26, 1976, although on May 11
previous she ceased holding office with defendant at Bel-Air
Apartments elsewhere adverted to, she went thereto to get her overnight
bag. Upon seeing her, defendant yelled
at her to get out of the office. When
she did not mind him, he suddenly doused her with a glass of grape juice,
kicked her several times that landed at her back and nape, and was going to hit
her with a steel tray as her driver, Ricardo Mancera,
came due to her screams for help. For
fear of further injury and for her life, she rushed to Precinct 5 at United
Nation Avenue, Manila
Metropolitan Police, for assistance and protection;”[2]
The plaintiff asked for support pendente
lite for her and her three children. The defendant, petitioner herein, opposed the
application for support pendente lite on the ground that his wife had committed
adultery with her physician.
The application for support pendente
lite was set for hearing and submitted for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings and the documents attached thereto by
the parties.
The respondent Judge issued an order dated March 15, 1977 granting plaintiff’s prayer for
alimony pendente lite
in the amount of P5,000.00 a month commencing from June 1976.[3]
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating
that his wife is not entitled to support during the pendency
of the case, and, alleging that even if she is entitled, the amount awarded was
excessive. The respondent Judge reduced
the amount from P5,000.00 to P4,000.00 a month in an order dated June 17, 1977.[4]
Manuel J. C. Reyes filed a petition for certiorari in the Court
of Appeals dated July 25, 1977 asking that the order granting support pendente lite to
private respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, be annulled
on the ground that the respondent Judge, Leonor Ines-Luciano, had committed a grave abuse of discretion or
that said order be modified inasmuch as the amount awarded as support pendente lite is
excessive.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because:
“Considering the plight of the wife during the pendency of the case for legal separation and that the
husband appears to be financially capable of giving the support, We believe
that the petitioner has not presented a clear case of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the respondent in issuing the questioned orders. We see no compelling reason to give it due
course.”[5]
The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals committed the
following error:
“THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN A MANNER
AMOUNTING TO AN ERROR OF LAW AND A DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED NORMS LAID DOWN
BY THIS HON. COURT IN THE CASES WE SHALL LATER ON DISCUSS, IN REFUSING TO GIVE
DUE COURSE TO THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HEREIN AGAINST RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES,
AND IN AFFIRMING THE ORDERS FOR SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE ANNEXES
‘F’ AND ‘H’ OF THIS PETITION WHEN IT HELD THAT RESPONDENT-APPELLEE JUDGE DID
NOT COMMIT ANY ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ISSUING SAID ORDERS, FOR THE REASONS
THAT:
A.
IN ACTIONS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION
THE WIFE IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT FROM THE HUSBAND DESPITE THE FACT THAT A CASE
FOR ADULTERY HAD BEEN FILED BY THE HUSBAND AGAINST HER; AND
B.
IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COURT ASCERTAIN THE
KIND AND AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE EVEN BY AFFIDAVITS ONLY OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE APPEARING IN THE RECORDS.”[6]
It is true that the adultery of the wife is a defense in an
action for support. However, the alleged
adultery of the wife must be established by competent evidence. The mere allegation that the wife has committed
adultery will not bar her from the right to receive support pendente lite. Adultery is a good defense and if properly
proved and sustained will defeat the action.[7]
In the instant case, at the hearing of the application for
support pendente lite
before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court presided by the respondent
Judge, Hon. Leonor Ines-Luciano,
the petitioner did not present any evidence to prove the allegation that his
wife, private respondent Celia Ilustre-Reyes, had committed
adultery with any person.
The petitioner has still the opportunity to adduce evidence on
the alleged adultery of his wife when the action for legal separation is heard
on the merits before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. It is
to be noted, however, that as pointed out by the respondents in their comment,
the “private respondent was not asking support to be taken from
petitioner’s personal funds or wherewithal, but from the conjugal property –
which, was her documentary evidence x x x“.[8]
It is, therefore, doubtful whether adultery will affect her right to alimony pendente lite. In Quintana vs. Lerma,[9]
the action for support was based on the obligation of the husband to support
his wife.
The contention of the petitioner that the order of the respondent
Judge granting the private respondent support pendente
lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month is not
supported by the allegations of the complaint for legal separation and by
competent evidence has no merit.
The complaint for legal separation contains allegations showing
that on at least two occasions the defendant, petitioner herein, had made
attempts to kill the private respondent.
Thus it is alleged that on March 10, 1976, the defendant attacked
plaintiff, pummeled her with fist blows that floored her, held her head and
with intent to kill, bumped it several times against the cement floor and when
she ran upstairs to her father for protection, the petitioner pushed her at
the stairway of thirteen (13) flights and she fell sliding to the ground floor
and defendant gave her a strong swing at her abdomen which floored her half
unconscious and were it not for plaintiff’s father, defendant would have
succeeded in killing her.[10]
It is also alleged that on May 26, 1976, the defendant doused Celia Ilustre-Reyes with a glass of grape juice, kicked her
several times at her back and nape and was going to hit her with a steel tray
if it were not for her driver who came due to her screams for help.[11]
In fixing the amount of monthly support pendente
lite of P4,000.00, the respondent Judge did
not act capriciously and whimsically.
When she originally fixed the amount of P5,000.00 a month, the
respondent Judge considered the following:
“On record for plaintiff’s cause are the following: that she and defendant were married on
January 18, 1958; that she is presently unemployed and without funds, thus, she
is being supported by her father with whom she resides; that defendant had been
maltreating her and tried to kill her; that all their conjugal properties are
in the possession of defendant who is also president, Manager and Treasurer of
their corporations, namely:
“1. Standard Mineral Products, Inc. which was
incorporated on February 9, 1959; presently with paid-in capital of
P295,670.00; assets and liabilities of P757,108.52; Retained Earnings of
P85,654.61; and majority stockholder is defendant;
“2. Development and Technology Consultants, Inc. which
was incorporated on July 12, 1971,
with paid-in capital of P200,000.00; Assets and liabilities of P831,669.34; defendant
owns 99% of the stocks; and last Retained Earnings is P98,879.84.
“3. The Contra-Prop Marine Philippines, Inc.
which was incorporated on October 3, 1975, with paid-in capital of P100,000.00
and defendant owns 99% of the stocks.
“To secure some of the obligation of said corporations, an
Agreement of Counter-Guaranty Mortgage with Real Estate, and Real Estate
Mortgage were undertaken by plaintiff and her parents of their properties
outside of other accommodations; and that she needs of P5,000.00 a month for
her support in accordance with their station in life.”[12]
The amount of support pendente lite was reduced to P4,000.00 inasmuch as the
children are in the custody of the petitioner and are being supported by him.
It is thus seen that the respondent Judge acted with due
deliberation before fixing the amount of support pendente
lite in the amount of P4,000.00 a month.
In determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite, it
is not necessary to go fully into the merits of the case, it being sufficient
that the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence which it may deem
sufficient to enable it to justly resolve the application, one way or the
other, in view of the merely provisional character of the resolution to be
entered. Mere affidavits may satisfy the
court to pass upon the application for support pendente
lite.[13]
It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary
evidence appearing in the record.[14]
The private respondent has submitted documents showing that the
corporations controlled by the petitioner have entered into multi-million
contracts in projects of the Ministry of Public Highways.
Considering the high cost of living due to inflation and the
financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the documents of record, We
find that the amount of P4,000.00 a month granted by the respondent Judge as
alimony pendente lite
to the private respondent is not excessive.
There is no showing that the respondent Judge has committed a grave
abuse of discretion in granting said support.
In a resolution dated July 31, 1978, this Court issued a
temporary restraining order effective immediately against the enforcement of
the lower court’s order giving support pendente
lite to private respondent in the sum of
P4,000.00 monthly commencing June 1976 and in lieu thereof to allow such
support only to the extent of P1,000.00 a month.[15]
Later the petitioner was required to pay the support at the rate
of P1,000.00 a month which had accumulated since June 1976 within ten (10) days
from notice of the resolution.[16]
The private respondent acknowledged on November 20, 1978 having
received from the petitioner, through his counsel, a check in the amount of
P30,000.00 as payment of support for the period from June 1976 to November 1978
or thirty (30) months at P1,000.00 a month in compliance with the resolution of
this Court dated October 9, 1978.
In view of the foregoing, the support of P4,000.00 should be made
to commence on March 1, 1979.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby denied
and the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is affirmed with
the modification that the support pendente lite at the rate of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00)
a month should commence from March 1,
1979, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
[1]
Annex “K” to Petition, Rollo, pp.
74-77. Decision written by Mr. Justice
B. S. de la Fuente and concurred in by Mr. Justice
Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. and Mr. Justice Porfirio V. Sison.
[2]
Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 of the Complaint, Rollo,
p. 28.
[3]
Annex “F”, Rollo, pp. 46-49.
[4]
Annex “H”, Rollo, p. 55.
[5]
Decision, Rollo, p. 77.
[6]
Petition, Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[7]
Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil. 285-286.
[8]
Annex “J”, Rollo, pp. 67, 70.
[9]
24 Phil. 285-286.
[10]
Paragraph 6.8, Rollo, p. 28.
[11]
Paragraph 6.9, Rollo, p. 28.
[12]
Annex “F”, Rollo, p. 46.
[13]
Sanchez vs. Zulueta, et al., 68 Phil. 110,
112.
[14]
Salazar vs. Salazar, G. R. No. L-5823, April 29, 1953, 82 Phil. 1084.
[15] Rollo, p. 121-f.
[16]
Resolution of October 9, 1978, Rollo, p. 496.