MA. BELEN B. MANGONON, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN REBECCA ANGELA DELGADO AND REGINA ISABEL DELGADO. PETITIONER, VS.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVAR…

Mangonon versus Delgado

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Ma. Belen B. Mangonon, for and in behalf of her minor twin daughters Rebecca Angela and Regina Isabel, both surnamed Delgado, against the Court of Appeals, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, and the twins' father Federico Delgado and grandfather Francisco Delgado. The action below was one for judicial declaration of legitimacy and support, with an urgent application for support pendente lite, meaning support during the pendency of the case. The twins had been admitted to universities in the United States but could not afford the cost, and they sought to compel their father, and in his default their wealthy grandfather, to provide general and educational support. The case matters because it fixes the rules on support pendente lite, on the order of liability among persons obliged to give support, and on the obligor's option to pay the allowance or to maintain the claimant in the family dwelling.

Procedural History

Ma. Belen filed the petition for declaration of legitimacy and support, with application for support pendente lite, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The trial court granted the application in an order dated 12 September 1995, directing the respondents to provide monthly support pendente lite of 5,000 pesos each, or a total of 10,000 pesos, for the education of the twins. Unsatisfied, Ma. Belen went up to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, arguing that the amount was grossly inadequate. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the trial court's order. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. She then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Ma. Belen and Federico were civilly married in February 1975 in Legaspi City, when she was twenty one and he was nineteen. Because the marriage was solemnized without the required consent, it was annulled in August 1975 by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City. In March 1976, within seven months after the annulment, Ma. Belen gave birth to twins Rica and Rina. Federico never signed their birth certificates. Ma. Belen later married Danny Mangonon and settled with her daughters in the United States.

Both twins were admitted to universities in the United States, but they lacked the means to pursue college. Ma. Belen's income from two jobs was barely enough for general support, and her petitions for federal student aid were rejected. Demands for support were made on Federico and on his father Francisco, who was generally known to be financially well off, but these went unheeded. Hence the petition below, in which Ma. Belen alleged that the twins were legitimate daughters of Federico, born within seven months of the annulment, and that under the Family Code the obligation of support falls on the parents and, in their default, on the grandparents.

Francisco answered that legitimacy must first be judicially established, that any kindness he had shown was pure Christian charity, and that the obligation of support is not concurrent but rests first on those more closely related. Federico was initially declared in default, but the order was later lifted and his answer admitted. He denied paternity and claimed a monthly income of only 40,000 pesos. The trial court granted support pendente lite of 5,000 pesos per child, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's award of monthly support pendente lite of 5,000 pesos per child as grossly inadequate.
• Whether or not the obligation to provide support should devolve upon the grandfather, Francisco, in default of the parents.
• Whether or not the grandfather may avail himself of the option to receive and maintain the twins in his family dwelling instead of paying the allowance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 199 of the Family Code provides:

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.

This fixes the order of liability and makes the grandparents liable only in default of the parents.

Article 204 of the Family Code provides:

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.

This governs the obligor's choice of how to discharge the obligation, subject to the moral or legal obstacle clause.

Section 4 of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court provides:

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.

This defines the provisional nature of support pendente lite and the factors the court must weigh.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the amount fixed was not supported by the evidence. Support pendente lite is provisional; the court need not fully resolve the merits, and it is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence. The Court found prima facie proof of filiation, since Francisco's letters referred to the twins as his granddaughters and to himself as Lolo Paco, and Federico had treated them as his own. But the finding that Federico earned 30,000 to 40,000 pesos a month rested on speculation. No income tax return was produced, and both Francisco and Federico admitted in court that Federico owned nothing. The Court held that the case fell within the recognized exceptions to the rule that factual findings are binding, particularly where the findings are contrary to the evidence and where relevant facts were overlooked.

On the second issue, the Court applied Article 199. The obligation rests principally on those more closely related, but the more remote relatives may be held liable when the claimant proves that those first called upon lack the means. The Court found that Ma. Belen had to take out a federal loan, and the twins themselves secured loans, showing the parents' incapacity. Francisco, as majority stockholder and chairman of several corporations owning gasoline stations, real estate, and shipping interests, had the means. Hence he was liable in default of the parents.

On the third issue, the Court held that Francisco could not invoke the second option under Article 204, because the relationship between the parties had been strained by the litigation, creating a moral obstacle to receiving the twins in his dwelling.

Doctrine

Support pendente lite is provisional in nature; the court need only determine the pertinent facts provisionally, and prima facie proof by affidavits or documentary evidence suffices. Under Article 199, the obligation to give support devolves in order, and the more remote relative may be held liable only upon proof that those more closely related lack the means. Under Article 204, the obligor may choose between paying the allowance and maintaining the claimant in the family dwelling, but the second option is unavailable where a moral or legal obstacle exists.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court set aside the challenged orders and held Francisco liable for support pendente lite in lieu of the parents.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that support devolves in the order fixed by Article 199, with the grandparents answering only in default of the parents, and that the option under Article 204 yields to a moral obstacle. Examiners use this case to test support pendente lite, the order of liability, and the limits of the obligor's option.