Facts:

The case involves Bernarda S. Canonizado as the petitioner and Judge Regina G. Ordonez Benitez, presiding over the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in Manila, along with Atty. Cesar R. Canonizado as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on September 27, 1968, which ordered Atty. Canonizado to provide monthly support of P100.00 to Bernarda, starting from October 1964. This decision became final and executory on January 21, 1969. Following this, an order of execution was issued on October 24, 1969, for P27,900.00, but it was recalled to correct the amount. By April 1969, the total amount due for support was determined to be P16,150.00 for the period from October 1964 to April 1969. Subsequent writs of execution issued in 1970 were returned unsatisfied.

On July 11, 1973, Bernarda and Cesar entered into a compromise agreement regarding the arrears in support, which included a moratorium on payments and a co...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves two petitions filed by Bernarda S. Canonizado against her husband, Atty. Cesar R. Canonizado, and the presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Judge Regina G. Ordonez Benitez.
• The petitions seek to compel the court to issue an alias writ of execution for the enforcement of a decision ordering the payment of past support and to order the payment of current support in favor of Bernarda.

Court of Appeals Decision

• On September 27, 1968, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision ordering Cesar to pay Bernarda a monthly support of P100.00, retroactive to October 1964.
• The decision became final and executory on January 21, 1969.

Execution of the Judgment

• On October 24, 1969, an order of execution was issued for P27,900.00, but the writ was recalled to correct the amount.
• Christina, the daughter of Bernarda and Cesar, reached the age of majority on October 6, 1967, but her support was formally terminated in April 1969. The total amount due for her support was P16,150.00.
• Writs of execution were issued on February 10 and March 30, 1970, but both were returned unsatisfied.

Compromise Agreements

• On July 11, 1973, Bernarda and Cesar entered into an agreement stipulating:
  • A moratorium on the payment of P17,200.00 in arrears.
  • Cesar would deposit P700.00 for support from January to July 1973 and continue with monthly payments of P100.00.
  • If Cesar failed to remit support for four consecutive months, the arrears would become due and demandable.
• On August 3, 1976, another agreement was made, where Cesar promised to pay P2,000.00 in installments.

Motions for Execution and Contempt

• On February 16, 1976, Bernarda filed a motion for execution and contempt, seeking P17,200.00 for herself and P16,150.00 for Christina.
• The court deferred the issuance of a writ of execution, granting Cesar extensions to pay the arrears.
• On July 14, 1976, the court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the amounts owed, but enforcement was not pursued due to another agreement.

Denial of Alias Writ of Execution

• On September 14, 1977, the respondent judge denied Bernarda's motion for an alias writ of execution, citing that the judgment had become final and executory over seven years prior, and Christina could collect the debt herself.

Petition for Mandamus

• On November 21, 1978, Bernarda filed a petition for mandamus (G.R. No. L-49315) seeking an alias writ of execution.
• On January 12, 1982, Bernarda filed a motion for current support, which Cesar opposed, claiming his obligation had terminated.
• On July 5, 1982, Bernarda filed another petition for mandamus (G.R. No. 60966) seeking action on her motion for current support and to enjoin the hearing on Cesar's motion to terminate support.

Issue:

1. Whether the respondent judge can be compelled by mandamus to issue an alias writ of execution for the payment of arrearages in support.
2. Whether the respondent judge can be compelled by mandamus to act on Bernarda's motion for payment of current support.

Ruling:

• The petition in G.R. No. L-49315 is GRANTED. The court ordered the issuance of an alias writ of execution for the payment of arrearages in support. Cesar was also ordered to pay P3,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs.
• The petition in G.R. No. 60966 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The court directed the lower court to hold hearings to determine the continuing need for current support.

Ratio:

1. Alias Writ of Execution:

   • A judgment for support does not become dormant, and the five-year period for executing it by motion does not apply. The obligation is continuing, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it.
   • Judicial compromises may be enforced by a writ of execution. If a party fails to comply, the other party may enforce the compromise or insist on the original demand.
   • Bernarda was enforcing a vested right when she sought the alias writ of execution, as the compromise agreements did not waive Cesar's obligations.

2. Current Support:

   • The obligation to provide support may cease under certain circumstances, such as when the recipient no longer needs it for subsistence. However, the right to support between spouses subsists as long as the marriage exists.
   • Cesar may file a motion to oppose or suspend current support, but this does not require a separate action. The lower court must determine the need for current support based on evidence.
   • Mandamus cannot compel the judge to order payment of current support if there are grounds for suspension.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bernarda regarding the alias writ of execution for arrearages but dismissed her petition for current support, directing the lower court to determine the need for ongoing support based on evidence.