PROCESO VINLUAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS – EDMUNDO S. PICCIO, ANTONIO CAÑIZARES AND HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. AND JOSE­FINA RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.

This case stemmed from Civil Case No. 14304-I of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan, a civil action filed by Josefina Ramos against
her husband, Proceso Vinluan – hereinafter re­ferred to as defendant – for
legal separation and separation of property. 
Pending final determination of said case, or on September 14, 1964,
plaintiff filed a petition for alimony pendente lite, alleging
that the defendant and she were separated since 1960; that she had under her
custody and care their five (5) children, three (3) of them minors; and that
they needed money for their support. 
This motion was, on October 3, 1964, denied by said court, presided over
by Hon. Eloy B. Bello, Judge, upon the ground that, since the legal separation
and separation of pro­perties sought by the plaintiff had not, as yet, been
decreed and the aforementioned children were not parties in the case, it was
premature to order the payment of alimony pendente lite.

A reconsideration of this order having been denied, plaintiff
instituted, against her husband and Judge Bello, Case CA-G.R. No. L-34891-R of
the Court of Appeals, an original action for certiorari to annul said order of
October 3, 1964, and secure a decree of alimony pendente lite.  After appropriate proceedings, on June 30,
1965, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, granting the writ prayed for
and requiring the defendant to pass to the plaintiff and their children a
monthly alimony of P1,000, with costs against said defendant.  Hence, this petition for review on
certiorari.

Defendant maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in holding
that plaintiff is entitled to alimony pendente lite under Article
292 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, in awarding her and her children a
monthly alimony of P1,000, and in granting a writ of certiorari, although
plaintiff allegedly had another plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

It is true that plaintiff could have sought a review by appeal of
Judge Bello’s order of October 3, 1964, but since the same is interlocutory, plaintiff would have
had to wait, for its review by appeal, until the rendition of judgment on the
merits, which may not be forthcoming until months or years later.  Meanwhile, plaintiff and her children needed
alimony, to live somehow.  Hence, an
appeal would not have been a speedy and adequate remedy.

As regards the amount of the monthly alimony we note that the
aggregate annual income of the conjugal properties was only P3,000, according
to the pleadings of the plaintiff, who, accordingly prayed for no more than a
monthly allowance of P200.  Hence, the
amount awarded by the Court of Appeals is clearly excessive.

At any rate, defendant died on May 19, 1968, and this has mooted not
only the present case, but, also, the main case for legal separation and
separation of properties.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed, without special
pronouncement as to costs.

Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.