BENIGNO DEL RIO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This suit was brought ot recover money which palintiff alleges
to have furnished form December, 1942 to February, 1945 for the support and
subsistence of defendant’s five minor natural children. The amount is itemized
in plaintiff’s Exhibit A, a statement signed by the minor’s mother and which
reads as follows:

“Por la presente certifico que en el periodo que cubre del 1 de
noviembre de 1942 hasta el 31 de enero de 1945 he recibido en calidad de
prestamo y con interes del 6% anual de Don Benigno del Rio las cantidades que
mas abajo se detallan en sus correspondientes recibos:

	“Recibo primero, 31-Dic-1943	P7,200.00
	“Recibo segundo, 1-Sept-1944	18,668.00
	“Recibo tercero, 31-Dic-1945	81,400.00
	“Recibo cuarto, 21-Ene-1945	54,000.00
		————–
	“Total	P161,268.00

“Son:
“Ciento Sesenta y un Mil Doscientos sesenta y ocho
pesos.

“S. E. u O
“Manila, 1 de Marzo de 1945

(Fda.) “Maria Cuartero Gomez
“Tutora de los Menores
Palanca Cuartero

“Nota:—Aqui no esta incluido un prestamo hecho a Don Vicente
Singson Encarnacion el 19 de Sept. de 1944 y que caduca en la misma fecha en el
año 1946 del que es solidaria y mancommunadamente fiador Don Benigno del Rio,
prestamo que tiene que reconocer Don Carlos Palanca.”

The action is base don article 1894 of the Civil code which
reads:

“Cuando, sin conocimiento del obligado a prestar alimentos, los
diese un extraño, este tendra derecho a reclamarlos de aquel, a no constar que
los dio por oficio de piedad y sin animo de reciamarlos.”

Analyzing the foregoing provision, this Court observed in
Ramirez vs. Redfern, 49 Phil., 849. 889, that “For one to recover under the
provisions of article 1894 of the Civil Code, it must be alleged and proved,
first, that support has been furnished a dependent of ne bound to give support
but who fails to do so, second, that the support was supplied by a stranger; and
third, that the support was given without the knowledge of the person charged
with the duty.”

With reference to the first requisite, the record reveals that
in a case for support intituted by Maria Dolores Cuartero in behalf of her
children against the defendant, the Court of First Instance of Manila handed
down a decision on September 22, 1943, approving an agreement by the parties
whereby the defendant promised to pay the mother of the minors P1,500 a month
for their maintenance. It also appears that before that date—on May 9, 1942—the
parties had signed a carta-convenio for the same purpose but for a lower
rate of allowance per month. It is not denied that the defendant more than
complied with the terms of the above decsion. Besides P1,500 a month, he sent
the children extra case and foodstuffs, shoes and clothings.

And the plaintiff admittedly was aware of the foregoing
arrangement. What he says is that P1,500 a month was utterly insufficient. The
remedy in that case was to ask the court ot inrease the allowance. It may be
said in this connection that if the value of the prevailing Japanese currency
had deteriorated, the court, in our opinion, retained the jurisdiction to
increase or dimish the allowance as the circumstances might justify. However, as
a matter of fact, P1,500 a month was deemed by the court as late as August 8,
1944, to be adequate. In denying a motion of the children’s mother to raise the
allowance, teh court stated that P1,500 was sufficient to pull the children
through those critical days in comparative comfort.

The third requirement of the law is also lacking. The plaintiff
made the alleged advances not only with the knowledge but apparently against the
wishes of the defendant. In Exhibit F, a memorandum dated January 1, 1943, and
sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, Del Rio informed Palanca that up to
December 31, 1942, he had handed Maria Dolores Cuartero P750 as a loan for the
support and education fo teh defendant’s children and requested that the amount
be paid. It will be noted that in the same Exhibit, the plaintiff complained
that the defendant had not answered his previous letters, “recordandole los
prestamos que yo le hago a Doña Maria y Vd. se hace sordo.”

In the face of this attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff
was not justified in continuing supplying money to the mother of the children,
unless he wanted to give it out of charity or without the expectation of
recovering it from the defendant. His remedy is against Maria Dolores
Cuartero.

This conclusion makes unnecessary a discussion of the second
requirement. It suffices to state that the plaintiff and one fo the children
were engaged and were married afterward.

The decision of the lower court dismissing the action is
affirmed with costs against the appellant.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Montemayor, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.

TUASON, J.:

I certify that the Chief Justice concurs in this decision.