Facts:

This case involves Olympia Baltazar as the plaintiff and appellant on behalf of her minor son, Armenio Serfino, against Sergio Serfino, the defendant and appellee. The case was decided on July 31, 1965, by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Armenio was born on December 19, 1943, to Olympia, a widow, and Sergio, who was a married man. The lower court ordered Sergio to pay P15.00 monthly as support from July 1960. The appellant contended that the support should have been increased to P50.00 per month and made payable from the time of Armenio's birth, except for the period of May 1957 to April 1959, during which Armenio lived with his father. Additionally, Olympia requested that Sergio be ordered to pay attorney's fees amounting to P1,000.00.

The court based its ruling on Article 296 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that support amounts must be proportionate to the resources of the giver and the needs of the recipient. The court found that Sergio earned P

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Olympia Baltazar, acting on behalf of her minor son, Armenio Serfino.
• Defendant-Appellee: Sergio Serfino, who is the biological father of Armenio and is married.

Background of the Case

• The case concerns a support claim where the lower court ordered Sergio Serfino to pay P15.00 monthly as support to the minor, Armenio, beginning in July 1960.
• The appeal challenges the computed amount of support, the period from which the obligation is to be enforced, and the award of attorney’s fees.

Computation and Evidence of Income

• The court’s computation included income from two primary sources:
• Earnings from a rice mill amounting to P365.00.
• Earnings from a ten-hectare parcel of land producing 120 cavans of palay per year at a valuation of P6.00 per cavan, yielding P720.00.
• An average annual income of P1,085.00 was determined based on the above sources.
• Additional evidence shows that Sergio Serfino also operated a tailoring shop with recorded gross receipts of P573.50 in 1958, even though he claimed it was not very profitable.
• The defendant also possessed a house and lot in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, negating any rental expense for his family’s residential needs.

Relief Sought and Contentions of the Appellants

• The appellants requested an increase in the monthly support amount from the awarded P15.00 to P50.00.
• They argued that the support should be payable from the time of the child’s birth (except for the period when he lived with his father, from May 1957 to April 1959).
• They further requested that the appellee be ordered to pay attorney’s fees amounting to P1,000.00.

Legal Basis and Considerations

• The support obligation was anchored on Article 296 of the Civil Code, which mandates that the support amount be proportional to the resources of the giver and the needs of the recipient.
• The obligation to pay support becomes demandable when the person in need of maintenance demands it, though payments are triggered only upon an extrajudicial demand as provided by Article 298 of the Civil Code.
• Precedents such as Mercado vs. Ostrand and Fanlo de Peyer vs. Peyer were cited in support of awarding attorney’s fees when the duty to support is admitted and subsequently not complied with, leading to court intervention.

Issue:

Determination of the Appropriate Support Amount

• Whether the awarded amount of P15.00 monthly was adequate given the average income and the needs of the minor.
• Whether the financial evidences, including earnings from the rice mill, agricultural produce, and the tailoring shop, necessitated an increase in the support amount.

Commencement of the Support Obligation

• Whether the obligation to give support should be applied retroactively to the child’s birth or from the point of extrajudicial demand (June 1959).
• The relevance of Article 298 of the Civil Code in determining the start date for the support payments.

Recovery of Attorney’s Fees

• Whether, in addition to support payments, the defendant should be made to pay attorney’s fees due to his non-compliance with the support obligation despite prior demands.
• The applicability of precedents and statutory provisions (Article 2308, Civil Code) in justifying the award of attorney’s fees.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)