Case Digest (G.R. No. 163209)
Facts:
Spouses Prudencio and Filomena Lim v. Ma. Cheryl S. Lim, G.R. No. 163209, October 30, 2009, Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Spouses Prudencio and Filomena Lim; respondents are Ma. Cheryl S. Lim for herself and on behalf of her children Lester Edward S. Lim, Candice Grace S. Lim, and Mariano S. Lim, III.In 1979 Cheryl married Edward Lim, petitioners' son; the couple bore three children (the respondents). Cheryl, Edward and the children lived in petitioners' Forbes Park residence together with Edward's ailing grandmother Chua Giak and her husband Mariano. Edward received a monthly salary of P6,000 from the family business and Cheryl had no steady income. On 14 October 1990 Cheryl left the Forbes Park home with the children after discovering Edward in a compromising situation with the household midwife; she thereafter brought criminal charges that were later dismissed and separately petitioned for annulment of marriage.
Cheryl, for herself and the children, sued Edward, petitioners, Chua Giak and Mariano for support in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 140. The RTC issued an interlocutory order for Edward to pay P6,000 pendente lite. On 31 January 1996 the trial court rendered judgment ordering Edward and petitioners to "jointly" provide monthly support totalling P40,000 (Edward P6,000; petitioners P34,000), subject to subsidiary liability of Chua Giak; the court also directed custody and attorney's fees.
Defendants moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied the motion but issued an amended dispositive clarifying that petitioners and Chua Giak were held liable because of Edward's "inability ... to give sufficient support," and fixed the same payment shares. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated 28 April 2003 (Asuncion, J., with Reyes and Bersamin, JJ., concurring), affirmed the RTC, relying on the order of support under Article 199 and related provisions of the Civil Code. The CA denied petitioners' motio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are petitioners concurrently liable with Edward to provide legal support to respondents?
- May petitioners elect, under Article 204 of the Civil Code, to discharge their obligation by maintaining respondents in petitioners' ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)