Case Summary (G.R. No. 185595)
Key Dates and Procedural Background
Significant dates and interlocutory events: May 19, 1998 — trial court granted petitioner support pendente lite (P42,292.50 monthly); October 11, 2002 — order directing respondent to give support starting April 1, 1999 pursuant to May 19, 1998 order; March 7, 2005 — RTC granted respondent’s motion to reduce support and denied petitioner’s motion for spousal support, increase of child support and support-in-arrears; May 4, 2005 — denial of petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration; May 16, 2005 — RTC rendered final decision declaring the marriage null and adjudicating custody, child support (P30,000 monthly), and dissolution of conjugal partnership; September 9, 2008 — Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the March 7 and May 4, 2005 orders; Supreme Court resolution affirming CA decision was rendered in 2013.
Applicable Law and Rules
Governing legal sources include the 1987 Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990), Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity), the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Section 1, Rule 41 on appealability), Rule 61 on provisional remedies as amended, and the Court’s Rule on Provisional Orders issued by A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC (effective March 15, 2003) which governs provisional reliefs in nullity, annulment and legal separation proceedings. The proper remedy to challenge interlocutory orders allegedly rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion is a petition under Rule 65.
Orders for Support Pendente Lite and Prior Supreme Court Ruling
The trial court’s May 19, 1998 order fixed temporary child support at P42,292.50 monthly and provided other directions (50% of school tuition, expenses for books and supplies, enforcement mechanisms). Those pendente lite orders were previously litigated and were reinstated by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 139337 (Roxas v. Court of Appeals, August 15, 2001), which found the omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping did not nullify the proceedings and orders in Civil Case No. 97-0608.
Trial Court Findings Leading to March 7, 2005 Order
Respondent moved to reduce support on grounds including that the P42,292.50 support exceeded his monthly salary (then P20,800 as city councilor). The RTC, after hearing evidence, granted respondent’s motion to reduce support and denied petitioner’s motions for spousal support, an increase in child support pendente lite, and claims for arrearages. The RTC relied on findings that: (1) the eldest child earned income as Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman; (2) children stayed with respondent on weekends; (3) respondent’s only income was his councilor salary and benefits; (4) documentary and testimonial evidence showed respondent was already bearing many expenses and fulfilling support obligations; (5) there was no proof petitioner was not gainfully employed (both spouses are medical doctors); (6) petitioner was alleged to be in the United States; and (7) petitioner failed to substantiate claimed arrearages.
Nature of the Orders: Interlocutory vs Final
The Supreme Court reaffirmed established distinctions: a final order disposes of a case or a particular matter completely, while an interlocutory order resolves incidental matters and leaves further adjudication to be done. The Court held that orders granting or adjusting support pendente lite are provisional and interlocutory when issued during the pendency of the main nullity action because they are temporary, ancillary, and dependent on the ultimate disposition of the main action. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that accrual of arrearages converted the pendente lite orders into appealable final orders, stating that appealability does not hinge on compliance or noncompliance with the order but on whether the order finally disposes of the case or a distinct matter.
Procedural Remedy and CA Dismissal of Appeal
Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, appeals lie only from judgments or final orders; interlocutory orders are not appealable. The proper recourse for challenging an interlocutory order alleged to be rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Because petitioner appealed the interlocutory RTC orders instead of invoking
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 185595)
Case Citation and Panel
- Supreme Court Decision reported at 701 Phil. 301, FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013; opinion penned by Justice Villarama, Jr.
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 9, 2008 and Resolution dated December 15, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 85384.
- Court of Appeals panel: Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison (ponencia), concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican.
- Supreme Court disposition: Petition denied; CA Decision and Resolution affirmed; costs against petitioner. Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), and Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Reyes concurred.
Parties and Basic Facts
- Petitioner: Ma. Carminia C. Calderon, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, Marycris V. Baldevia.
- Private respondent: Jose Antonio F. Roxas.
- Parties were married on December 4, 1985; their union produced four children.
- On January 16, 1998 petitioner filed an Amended Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Provisional Order for Support (May 19, 1998 Order)
- Trial court (RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 260) issued Order dated May 19, 1998 granting petitioner’s application for support pendente lite.
- Order terms (summarized from the court text):
- Defendant ordered to contribute P42,292.50 per month as his share in monthly support of the children, effective May 1, 1998, until further orders.
- First monthly contribution for May 1998 to be given within five days from receipt of the Order; succeeding monthly contributions to be given directly to plaintiff within the first five days of each month beginning June 1998.
- Defendant agreed to defray 50% of school tuition fees, plus expenses for books and other school supplies; all expenses for books and other school supplies to be shouldered by plaintiff and defendant share and share alike.
- Any claim for support-in-arrears prior to May 1, 1998 may be taken up later in the course of the proceedings proper.
Prior Related Supreme Court Proceeding (G.R. No. 139337)
- The Orders for support pendente lite and related proceedings were subject of G.R. No. 139337 (Roxas v. Court of Appeals), decided August 15, 2001.
- The Supreme Court in that earlier case declared that the proceedings and orders issued by the trial court in the application for support pendente lite and the main complaint in the re-filed case (Civil Case No. 97-0608) were not rendered null and void by the omission of a statement in the certificate of non-forum shopping regarding prior filing and dismissal without prejudice of Civil Case No. 97-0523.
- As a result, the assailed orders for support pendente lite were reinstated and the trial court resumed hearing the main case.
Subsequent Trial Court Action Relating to Support
- On motion of petitioner’s counsel, the RTC issued an Order dated October 11, 2002 directing private respondent to give support in the amount of P42,292.50 per month starting April 1, 1999 pursuant to the May 19, 1998 Order.
- On February 11, 2003 private respondent filed a Motion to Reduce Support, citing among other grounds that the P42,292.50 monthly support exceeded his then monthly salary of P20,800.00 as city councilor.
- Petitioner filed motions seeking spousal support, increase of the children’s monthly support pendente lite, and support-in-arrears.
RTC Order Granting Motion to Reduce Support (March 7, 2005) and Denial of Petitioner’s Reliefs
- After hearing, RTC issued an Order dated March 7, 2005:
- Granted private respondent’s motion to reduce support.
- Denied petitioner’s motion for spousal support, denied increase of children’s monthly support pendente lite, and denied support-in-arrears.
- Court’s considerations and findings, well-supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, included:
- The spouses’ eldest child, Jose Antonio, Jr., is a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman and is already earning a monthly salary.
- All the children stay with private respondent on weekends in their house in Pasay City.
- Private respondent has no source of income except his salary and benefits as City Councilor.
- Voluminous documents (official receipts for various billings including school tuition fees, private tutorials, purchases of children’s school supplies, personal checks issued by private respondent) and his testimony substantiated his claim that he was fulfilling his obligation of supporting his minor children during the pendency of the action.
- There was no proof presented by petitioner that she was not gainfully employed; both spouses are medical doctors.
- Private respondent’s unrebutted allegation that petitioner is already in the United States.
- Petitioner did not substantiate alleged arrearages with evidence; private respondent had duly complied with obligations as ordered by the court through overpayments in other aspects such as children’s school tuition fees, real estate taxes and other necessities.
- Petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration of the March 7, 2005 Order was denied on May 4, 2005 (noting RTC typographical correction dated June 23, 2005 correcting a year reference).
RTC Decision on the Main Action (May 16, 2005)
- The RTC rendered Decision in Civil Ca