BUENAVENTURA SAN JUAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL AND DOROTEA MEJIA, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order
of respondent Judge Manuel E. Valenzuela in Civil Case No. 8874-P of the Court
of First Ins­tance of Rizal, Branch XXIX, dated December 24, 1981, ordering petitioner Buenaventura San
Juan to give support pendente lite to respondent Dorotea Mejia
and her minor children.

It appears that on September
16, 1981, the marriage between respondent Mejia and petitioner San
Juan, solemnized on October 2, 1973, was declared null and void by the Court
of First Instance of Rizal on the ground of a prior and subsisting marriage
between petitioner and one Isabel Bandin. 
On February 25, 1981,
respondent Mejia instituted the instant action against petitioner, docketed as
Civil Case No. 8874-P, seeking support for herself and her two minor children.

After issues were joined, the respondent judge, on motion of
Mejia, entered the challenged order granting support pendente lite
as follows:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 61 of
the New Rules of Court and after giving due regard to the necessities of the
plaintiff Dorotea Mejia and her children, Rachel San Juan and Jeffrey San Juan,
the application for support pendente lite is hereby granted, and the same is
fixed at P2,500.00 a month commen­cing from January 1, 1982 to be paid to the
plaintiff on or the 5th day of each month until this case is finally
adjudicated.  This is with­out prejudice
to any judgment for support in arrears due the plain­tiff if the evidence will
so warrant after trial.”

“SO ORDERED.”

Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the above order on the grounds that (1) the amount is
grossly disproportionate to petitioner’s means; (2) petitioner is not obliged
to support respondent Mejia as their marriage is null and void; and (3) no
evidence was presented as to petitioner’s present resources, was denied.

Hence, on March
16, 1982, petitioner
instituted this petition.

It appears that pending
resolution of this petition, petitioner filed with the trial court a
manifestation, dated June 17, 1982, proposing to settle his obligation of
P15,000.00, representing the amount of support which accrued from January to
June, 1982, and to pay the same in three equal installments, the first to be
paid upon approval by the court of his scheme of payment, and the balance within
a period of two (2) months thereafter. 
This proposal was approved by the court. 
In the same manifestation, petitioner sought the reduction of the amount
of support pendente lite to P1,000.00 a month on the ground that
the sum of P2,500.00 previously fixed by respondent judge is now beyond his
means to pay.  According to private
respondent, the court had not yet acted on petitioner’s request for reduction
of the monthly support because the respondent judge left for abroad.^[1]

Unquestionably, the petitioner’s willingness to pay the amount of
support pendente lite in the manner indicated in his
manifestation, and the approval thereof by the respondent judge have rendered
this petition moot and academic.

As to the factual issue of whether the amount of P2,500.00
previously fixed by respondent judge is now beyond the means of petitioner, the
same should be resolved by the lower court on the basis of the evidence to be
presented at the proper hearing.  The
order of December 24 fixing the amount of support pendente lite
is not final in character in the sense that it can be the subject of
modification, depending on the changing conditions affecting the ability of the
obligor to pay the amount fixed for support.^[2]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed for
being moot and academic.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
p. 4, Comment of respondent Mejia.

^[2]
Article 297, Civil Code, Gurayet vs. Hashim, 47 Phil. 84.