Case Digest (G.R. No. 45616)
Facts:
Feliciano Sanchez v. Francisco Zulueta, Judge of First Instance of Cavite, Josefa Diego and Mario Sanchez, G.R. No. 45616, May 16, 1939, the Supreme Court En Banc, Avancena, C.J., writing for the Court.In Civil Case No. 3199 of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Josefa Diego and Mario Sanchez (the plaintiffs; Josefa acting as guardian ad litem for Mario) sued Feliciano Sanchez (the defendant) for support, asking that he be sentenced to pay them a monthly allowance. The complaint alleged that Josefa was the wife and Mario the child of the defendant; that since 1932 the defendant refused to support them; that the plaintiffs had no means of subsistence; that the defendant received a monthly pension of P174.20 from the United States Army; and that the defendant had abandoned the plaintiffs and refused to allow them to live with him.
The defendant pleaded, as a special defense, that Josefa had abandoned the conjugal home on October 27, 1930, after committing adultery with one Macario Sanchez and that Mario was the fruit of that illicit relation and therefore not the defendant’s child. The plaintiffs moved for an allowance pendente lite of P50 per month; the defendant opposed, repeating his allegation of adultery and illegitimacy and expressly asking for an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of that defense. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ application and ordered the defendant to pay P50 monthly pendente lite from July 1, 1936, but denied the defendant the chance to present evidence in support of his opposition.
The defendant sought relief by filing a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals against the trial judge...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the petition and in upholding the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to present evidence in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for allowance pendente lite?
- Is the adultery of the wife, and the consequent allegation that the child is the product of adulterous relations (thus not the defendant’s), a valid defense to an action for support such that allowance pendente lite may be...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)