BASILIO S. FALCON, DECEASED SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE LOURDES BURGOS AND CHILDREN ARNULFO FALCON, FE FALCON, SILVESTRE FALCON, EMILIO FALCON, AND BLANCO QUITA FALCON, PETITIONER, …

Petition
for certiorari seeking annulment of respondent Judge’s order of
February 17, 1961 and praying that pending resolution of the petition a
preliminary writ of injunction be issued to restrain the implementation
of said order. The petition was given due course but no injunction was
issued.

In the Court of First Instance of Laguna, presided over by respondent
Judge, Roberto Falcon, represented by his mother Rosario Alvarez, filed
against Basilio S. Falcon an action for support based on the allegation
that he is an illegitimate child of the defendant (Civil Case No.
9736). After trial, the court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, and based on the
finding that Roberto is an illegitimate son of Basilio, ordered the
latter to pay the former P50.00 monthly by way of support (CA-G. R. No.
17664-R, March 21, 1959, Annex A). In compliance therewith Basilio gave
Roberto the adjudged monthly support until December 31, 1960, when he
stopped doing so because Roberto had reached the age of majority on
December 27, 1960. On February 9, 1961 Roberto filed in the trial court
a petition praying that Basilio be ordered to continue supporting him
until he completed his education and/or training for a trade or
vocation (Annex B). This was opposed by Basilio (Annex C), but on
February 17, 1961 respondent Judge issued an order directing him to
continue supporting Roberto in the amount of P50.00 monthly, payable
within the first five days of every month, and to give the first
payment within ten (10) days from the date of the order, otherwise he
would be punished for contempt of court (Annex D).

Basilio S. Falcon filed the present petition assailing
said order as having been issued without or in excess of
jurisdiction. According to him, the decision of the appellate court was for him to support respondent only until
the latter reached majority or completed training for a
profession, trade or vocation, so that whichever event
came first would result in the extinguishment of his obligation; and that since Roberto had attained majority the
order complained of went beyond the appellate court’s
decision and was not within the authority of respondent
court to issue.

Respondent Falcon claims, as special and affirmative
defense, that it is the Court of Appeals and not this Court
which has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction “regarding
the enforcement or non-enforcement of the decision promulgated by the former.” However, the issue is not so
much one of enforcement as of interpretation of the decision to determine whether or not the court’s order of
February 17,1961 was in accordance therewith. The Court

of Appeals exhausted its appellate jurisdiction when its
judgment became final and executory. The interpretation
thereof for purposes of ascertaining its legal operation
and effect is a question of law which only this Court may
pass upon.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals reads:

“Por las consideraciones arriba expuestas, nos vemos constrenidos a
revocar como por la presente revocamos la sentenci& de que ; se
apela y declaramos al demandante, Roberto Falcon, hijo ilegitimo del
demandado, Basilio Falcon, y con derecho a pedir del demandado, los
alimentos que la ley le concede. Las pruebas del demandante no son muy
convincentes con respecto a los ingresos del demandado y teniendo en
cuenta que este tiene varios hijos con su esposa legitima la
manutencion mensual del apelante debe ser moderada para que no
perjudique la manutencion y educacion de los hijos legitimos.
Entendemos que una pension mensual de P50.00 es razonable y ordenamos
al demandado Basilio Falcon quepague mensualmente al demandante por
conducto del su madre Rosario Alvarez, la cantidad de P50.00 hasta que
el demandante Ilegue al la mayoria de edad 6 termine alguna profesion a
oficio. El demandado pagara, ademas, la cantidad de P300.00 como
honorarios de abogado. Sin costas.”

An illegitimate child is entitled to support from his
father.^[1] The Civil Code defines support thus:

“Art. 290. Support is everything that is indispensable for sustenance,
dwelling, clothing and medical attendance, according to the social
position of the family.

“Support also includes the education of the person entitled to
be supported until he completes his education or training for some
profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.”

It is apparent in the judgment of the Court of Appeals
that it intended to grant respondent Falcon support in
accordance with law (“los alimentos que la ley la concede”).^[2]

And in the body of the decision the court stated that it could neither
forget nor ignore the fact that the new Civil Code has increased the
rights of illegitimate children. For this reason, and considering that
the law expressly provides that support also includes education until
the recipient shall have completed his training for some profession,
trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority, respondent Judge
acted correctly and within his jurisdiction in issuing the order of
February 17, 1961.

During the pendency of this proceeding, more specifically
on August 2, 1961, petitioner Basilio S. Falcon died, and
by court resolution of January 22, 1962 the motion of his
widow and children that they be allowed to substitute him
was noted. The obligation to furnish support ceases upon
the death of the obligor, even if he may be bound to give
it in compliance with a final judgment (Article 300, Civil
Code). The respondent Judge should consider these circumstances in carrying out his order.

The writ prayed for is, denied, with costs against the
petitioner.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ. concur.

---

^[1]
Article 287 and Article 291, par. 5, Civil Code.

^[2] The determinative
factor is the intention of the court, as gathered from all parts of the
judgment itself. In applying the rule, effect must be given to that
which is unavoidably and necessarily implied in a judgment, as well as
to that which is expressed in the most appropriate language. 30 Am.,
Jur. 212-213.