Case Digest (G.R. No. 150644)
Facts:
Edward V. Lacson v. Maowee Daban Lacson and Maonaa Daban Lacson, G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edward V. Lacson is the father of respondents Maowee Daban Lacson (born December 4, 1974) and Maonaa Daban Lacson; their mother and guardian ad-litem in the proceedings was Lea Daban Lacson. After petitioner left the conjugal home not long after Maonaa’s birth, Lea and the two children shuttled among relatives’ homes and rented lodgings from 1976 to 1994, receiving only intermittent, small contributions from petitioner and occasional help from petitioner’s mother, Alicia Lacson.
Relying on a handwritten note by petitioner dated December 10, 1975 promising to sustain his two daughters, and alleging long continued nonprovision, Lea, in behalf of her daughters, filed a complaint for support on January 30, 1995 (Civil Case No. 22185). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after granting support pendente lite (May 13, 1996) and conducting trial, rendered judgment on June 26, 1997 awarding P2,496,000.00 as support in arrears (216 months), less amounts already received, attorney’s fees of P20,000.00, and costs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 60203). The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated July 13, 2001, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC judgment; its October 18, 2001 Resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the CA decision, principally contesting (1) the award of support in arrears from 1976 to 1994, (2) the finding that respondents’ uncle Noel Dab...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the award of support in arrears from 1976 to 1994 despite the absence of a formal extrajudicial or judicial demand?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that respondents’ uncle, Noel Daban, advanced money for the children and may be reimbursed by petitioner?
- Was the award of support appropriate given petitioner’s alleged lack of financial capability?
- Did the post-judgment sale of property and proceeds purportedly appropriated by respondents extinguish pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)