MANUEL J.C. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEONOR INES-LUCIANO, AS JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT, QUEZON CITY, COURT OF APPEALS AND CELIA ILUSTRE-REYES, RESPON…

Reyes versus Ilustre-Reyes

The Case

This is the case of Reyes versus Ilustre-Reyes, a marital dispute that reached the Supreme Court on the question of support during the pendency of a case. The petitioner, Manuel J. C. Reyes, is the husband. The private respondent, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, is the wife. The action concerns support pendente lite, meaning support during litigation, which the wife sought from her husband while their marital controversy remained pending. The case matters because it shows how the Court weighs the equities between spouses when a restraining order has left a wife without any support at all, and because it fixes the rule that support pendente lite may be made to retroact to a date earlier than the decision, especially where whatever she receives will later be deducted from her share of the conjugal properties.

Procedural History

The case began in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, presided over by the respondent judge. That court issued a decision in favor of the wife, granting her support pendente lite. The husband then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which issued a restraining order that effectively stopped the wife from receiving any support. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which promulgated its decision on February 28, 1979, allowing the wife only One Thousand Pesos a month. Both parties then filed motions for reconsideration of that decision. The husband asked that the trial court be ordered to receive evidence on whether the wife was entitled to support at all, and that the amount of Four Thousand Pesos a month be reduced. The wife asked that the support of Four Thousand Pesos a month be made retroactive to June 1976. The Court resolved both motions in the decision now before us.

Facts

The husband, Manuel J. C. Reyes, is the controlling stockholder of Development and Technology Consultants, Inc., a corporation with multi-million construction projects and gross receipts of several million pesos. The wife, Celia Ilustre-Reyes, sought support pendente lite from him. During the litigation, the Court of Appeals issued a restraining order, and because of that order the wife received no support at all until the Supreme Court issued a resolution allowing her only One Thousand Pesos a month.

In her motion for reconsideration, the wife alleged that the husband's businesses could easily bear the burden of support. She pointed out that the corporation had acquired two new Opel Record sedan cars, each worth One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos, on top of four cars already in its name. She alleged that the husband lived in an expensive condominium and maintained business offices in different buildings in Makati and Manila. She further alleged that on April 20, 1979, the husband and his three children went abroad on a two-month pleasure trip, while she lived in a difficult and penurious situation, deeply in debt and caught in the web of high prices and current inflation.

The husband, for his part, moved for reconsideration on the ground that the trial court should first receive evidence on whether the wife was entitled to support pendente lite, and that, in any event, Four Thousand Pesos a month was excessive for her needs and beyond his means. The Court examined the exhibits attached by both parties to their respective motions.

Issues

• Whether or not the husband's motion for reconsideration should be granted, that is, whether or not the trial court should be ordered to receive evidence on the wife's entitlement to support pendente lite, and whether or not the amount of Four Thousand Pesos a month is excessive or beyond his means.
• Whether or not the wife's motion for reconsideration should be granted, that is, whether or not the support pendente lite of Four Thousand Pesos a month should be made retroactive, and from what date.

Applicable Provisions

No specific statutory provision is quoted in the decision text. The Court resolves the motions on the equities and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that whatever support the wife receives will be deducted from her share of the conjugal properties.

Ruling

On the husband's motion, the Court ruled against him. It found that Development and Technology Consultants, Inc. has multi-million construction projects with gross receipts of several million pesos. The husband did not deny the wife's allegations that the corporation had acquired two new automobiles, that he maintained expensive offices and resided in an expensive condominium, and that he and his three children had recently traveled abroad for two months. The Court held that he cannot seriously complain that the amount of support pendente lite he is ordered to pay will ruin him. It concluded that the support pendente lite in the amount of Four Thousand Pesos is reasonable, and that his motion for reconsideration has no merit.

On the wife's motion, the Court ruled in her favor, but not to the full extent she asked. The Court took into consideration the fact that, because of the restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals, she had received no support at all until the Supreme Court allowed her only One Thousand Pesos a month. Obviously, during the period she was not receiving any support, she incurred debts, and she must also pay attorney's fees. Considering that whatever support she might now be receiving will be deducted from her share of the conjugal properties, the Court found that, under the equities and circumstances of the case, the decision should be modified so as to make the support pendente lite of Four Thousand Pesos a month retroact to November 1, 1977.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, support pendente lite is support during the pendency of litigation, and its amount is measured by the reasonable needs of the recipient and the means of the obligor. A husband who controls a corporation with multi-million projects, maintains expensive offices and a condominium, acquires new automobiles, and travels abroad with his children cannot claim that a support order of Four Thousand Pesos a month will ruin him. Second, where a restraining order has left the wife without any support, so that she incurred debts and must pay attorney's fees, the equities of the case may justify making support pendente lite retroactive to an earlier date. Third, the fact that whatever support the wife receives will be deducted from her share of the conjugal properties is a strong equitable consideration favoring retroactivity. The Court's ruling rests on the equities and circumstances of the case, not on a single quoted provision.

Disposition

The husband's motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit, and the wife's motion was granted in part: the decision of February 28, 1979 was modified so that the support pendente lite of Four Thousand Pesos a month should commence from November 1, 1977.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that support pendente lite may be made retroactive under the equities of the case, especially where the wife received nothing during the litigation and whatever she receives will be deducted from her share of the conjugal properties. Examiners like to use this case on the nature and amount of support pendente lite, on the means of the husband as a measure of his capacity to give support, and on the equitable power of the Court to fix the date from which support shall run.