Case Digest (G.R. No. 185595) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Ma. Carminia C. Calderon represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, Marycris V. Baldevia, petitioner, vs. Jose Antonio F. Roxas and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185595 decided January 9, 2013, petitioner and private respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas were married on December 4, 1985 and had four children. On January 16, 1998, petitioner filed an amended complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 260, seeking declaration of nullity of their marriage due to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. On May 19, 1998, the RTC granted support pendente lite, ordering respondent to pay ₱42,292.50 monthly support for the children effective May 1, 1998. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 139337 (August 15, 2001) upheld these provisional orders and remanded the case. On October 11, 2002, the RTC reiterated the support directive. On February 11, 2003, respondent moved to reduce support, arguing that the ₱42,292.50 exceeded his ₱20,800 salary as city counci Case Digest (G.R. No. 185595) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon (represented by Marycris V. Baldevia) and respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas married on December 4, 1985; the marriage produced four children.
- On January 16, 1998, petitioner filed an Amended Complaint in RTC Branch 260, Parañaque City (Civil Case No. 97-0608) for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity (Art. 36, Family Code).
- Support Pendente Lite Proceedings
- RTC Order dated May 19, 1998 granted support pendente lite: respondent to pay ₱42,292.50 per month (plus half of school tuition, books, supplies) effective May 1, 1998.
- On August 15, 2001, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 139337 (Roxas v. Court of Appeals) held that prior omissions in the certificate of non-forum shopping did not void the May 19, 1998 Order; support pendente lite orders were reinstated.
- Motions to Modify Support and Interlocutory Orders
- On February 11, 2003, respondent filed a Motion to Reduce Support, citing his P20,800.00 monthly salary and other circumstances.
- RTC Order dated March 7, 2005 granted the reduction, denied petitioner’s motions for spousal support, increased child support, and arrearages; Motion for Partial Reconsideration was denied on May 4, 2005.
- Final Nullity Decision and Appeal Attempts
- RTC Decision dated May 16, 2005 declared the marriage null and void; awarded custody to petitioner; ordered respondent to pay ₱30,000.00 per month child support; dissolved conjugal partnership.
- Petitioner appealed only the March 7 and May 4, 2005 interlocutory orders (Notice of Appeal filed June 14, 2005), not the May 16, 2005 final Decision.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by Decision dated September 9, 2008 and denied reconsideration December 15, 2008. Petitioner filed this Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Interlocutory Nature
- Did the CA gravely abuse its discretion or commit reversible error in ruling that the RTC Orders of March 7 and May 4, 2005 are merely interlocutory?
- Dismissal of Appeal
- Did the CA err in dismissing outright petitioner’s appeal from said RTC Orders instead of resolving the merits?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)