Case Digest (G.R. No. 185595)
Facts:
Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Calderon, represented by her attorney-in-fact Marycris V. Baldevia, filed on January 16, 1998 an amended complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage against private respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas. The RTC of Parañaque issued various orders for support pendente lite, including an order dated May 19, 1998 fixing monthly support at P42,292.50, and later proceedings saw respondent file a motion to reduce support and the trial court issue an order dated March 7, 2005 granting the reduction and denying petitioner’s motions; petitioner appealed only the March 7 and May 4, 2005 orders to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal on September 9, 2008, and petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition to this Court.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the RTC orders dated March 7, 2005 and May 4, 2005 are interlocutory?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal from said RTC orders instead of deciding the appeal on the merits?
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Decision dated September 9, 2008 and Resolution dated December 15, 2008 of the Court of Appeals, with costs against petitioner. The Court held that the assailed orders on support pendente lite were interlocutory and not appealable.
Ratio:
The orders for support pendente lite were issued pending final adjudication of the main action and thus were provisional and ancillary to the nullity case, so they did not finally dispose of the controversy. Under Rule 41, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an interlocutory order is not appealable, and the proper remedy against an interlocutory order alleged to be rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion is a special civil action under Rule 65, not an ordinary appeal; compliance or noncompliance with the order does not convert its interlocutory character into finality.
Doctrine:
- Orders for support pendente lite are provisional, ancillary to the main action, and ordinarily interlocutory.
- An appeal lies only from a judgment or final order; interlocutory orders are not appealable under Rule 41, Section 1.
- The appropriate remedy against an interlocutory order alleged to be tainted by grave abuse is a special civil action under Rule 65.
- The fact of arrearage or compliance does not transform an interlocutory order into a final, appealable order.
- The Rule on Provisional Orders (A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC) governs provisional reliefs in nullity, annulment, and legal separation proceedings.