Case Digest (G.R. No. 185595)
Facts:
The case involves Ma. Carminia C. Calderon, represented by her attorney-in-fact Marycris V. Baldevia, as the petitioner, and Jose Antonio F. Roxas, along with the Court of Appeals, as the respondents. The marriage between Calderon and Roxas was solemnized on December 4, 1985, and they had four children together. On January 16, 1998, Calderon filed an Amended Complaint seeking the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity as per Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 260, issued an Order on May 19, 1998, granting Calderon’s application for support pendente lite, which mandated Roxas to contribute P42,292.50 monthly for the support of their children, effective May 1, 1998. This order was later the subject of a Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 139337) on August 15, 2001, which reinstated the orders for support pendente lite.
Subsequently, on October 11, 2002, the RTC ordered R...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 185595)
Facts:
- Marriage and Children: Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon and private respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas were married on December 4, 1985, and had four children.
- Annulment Case: On January 16, 1998, petitioner filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
- Support Pendente Lite: On May 19, 1998, the trial court granted petitioner’s application for support pendente lite, ordering private respondent to contribute P42,292.50 monthly for the children’s support.
- Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 139337, upheld the trial court’s orders for support pendente lite, ruling that the omission of a certificate of non-forum shopping did not nullify the proceedings.
- Motion to Reduce Support: On February 11, 2003, private respondent filed a motion to reduce support, citing his limited income as a city councilor.
- Trial Court’s Decision: On March 7, 2005, the trial court granted the motion to reduce support, lowering the monthly support to P30,000, and denied petitioner’s motion for spousal support and support-in-arrears.
- Final Decision on Annulment: On May 16, 2005, the trial court declared the marriage null and void, awarded custody of the children to petitioner, and ordered private respondent to provide monthly support of P30,000.
- Appeal to CA: Petitioner appealed the March 7, 2005, and May 4, 2005, orders, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that the orders were interlocutory and not appealable.
Issue:
- Interlocutory vs. Final Orders: Whether the March 7, 2005, and May 4, 2005, orders on support pendente lite are interlocutory or final.
- Proper Remedy: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal outright instead of deciding it on the merits.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the March 7, 2005, and May 4, 2005, orders were interlocutory and not final. Since interlocutory orders are not appealable, petitioner’s appeal was correctly dismissed. The proper remedy against an interlocutory order is a special civil action under Rule 65, not an ordinary appeal.
Ratio:
- Interlocutory Orders: Interlocutory orders do not dispose of the case but resolve incidental matters pending the final judgment. The orders on support pendente lite were provisional and did not constitute a final adjudication of the merits of the case.
- Provisional Remedies: Support pendente lite is a provisional remedy intended to provide temporary relief during the pendency of the main action. It does not become final even if arrearages accrue.
- Appealability: Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, interlocutory orders are not appealable. The proper remedy is a special civil action under Rule 65 if the order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
- Finality of Judgment: The trial court’s decision on the main action for annulment had already become final, and the interlocutory orders on support pendente lite could not be appealed separately.